G.R. No. 127965 , January 20, 2009
FRANCISCO SALAZAR, Petitioner, vs. REYNALDO DE LEON represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, FELICIANO JABONILLA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Reynaldo de Leon, the registered owner of a parcel of unirrigated rice land in Isabela covered by TCT No. T-85610, filed a Complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner Francisco Salazar. Respondent alleged that he allowed petitioner, a close relative, to cultivate the land without rental out of tolerance, with the understanding that petitioner would vacate upon demand. When respondent demanded possession to personally cultivate the land, petitioner refused, claiming he could acquire it through the DAR’s Operation Land Transfer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared petitioner in default for failure to file an answer and, after ex parte proceedings, ordered petitioner to vacate the land and pay damages. Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the existence of a tenancy relationship which placed jurisdiction with the DARAB, not the RTC. During the appeal, the DARAB-Isabela rendered a Decision in a separate case (DARAB Case II-380-ISA’94) finding petitioner to be a bona-fide tenant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, ruling jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which made out a case for recovery of possession. Petitioner filed the instant Petition. Subsequently, the parties informed the Supreme Court of an extrajudicial settlement and submitted an Agricultural Leasehold Contract for approval.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession, or whether jurisdiction properly belonged to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) due to an alleged tenancy relationship between the parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The RTC properly exercised jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Respondent’s complaint alleged ownership, possession by mere tolerance, and refusal to vacate upon demand—a cause of action for accion publiciana within the RTC’s jurisdiction. It did not assert any tenancy relationship. The defense of tenancy raised by petitioner in his motion and appeal does not divest the RTC of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up by the defendant. The subsequent DARAB Decision finding a tenancy relationship did not affect the RTC’s validly acquired jurisdiction, as the DARAB case was initiated later and the RTC case had already been decided. The Court noted the parties’ subsequent Agricultural Leasehold Contract but found it did not retroactively invalidate the RTC’s jurisdiction. The RTC’s judgment by default and denial of the motion for new trial were also upheld, as petitioner failed to prove fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence to warrant a new trial.