GR 122704; (January 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122704 January 5, 1998
Pedro Chico, represented by Wilfredo Chico, as Attorney-in-Fact, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, and Martin Mananghaya and Leonila Mananghaya, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro Chico, claiming lawful ownership of a lot in Sta. Barbara, Baliuag, Bulacan by virtue of a final court verdict, filed an action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) with the RTC of Malolos against private respondents Martin and Leonila Mananghaya. Petitioner alleged that respondents were occupying a portion of the lot he needed for personal and family use and refused to vacate despite demands. In their answer, respondents asserted they were lawful tenants of the original owners (Don Rafael and Doña Salud Chico and later their son Delfin Chico), had paid rentals, and that petitioner’s action had prescribed. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate. Instead of appealing, respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, claiming the RTC decision was void for lack of jurisdiction. They argued the existence of a tenancy relationship made the dispute an agrarian matter falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the RTC decision, and held that the DARAB had jurisdiction. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not giving petitioner an opportunity to file a comment before rendering its decision.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the petition for certiorari, as the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the dispute to be agrarian in nature.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the RTC decision.
1. On procedural due process, the Court resolved the substantive issues on their merits.
2. On the propriety of certiorari, the Court held that Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Respondents should have appealed the RTC decision instead of filing a petition for certiorari.
3. On jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute, the Court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the complaint, not the defenses in the answer. The complaint was for recovery of possession (accion publiciana), which conferred jurisdiction on the RTC. For a tenancy relationship to divest the regular court of jurisdiction, all its indispensable elements must be established: (a) parties are landowner and tenant/agricultural lessee; (b) subject is agricultural land; (c) consent between parties; (d) purpose is agricultural production; (e) personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) sharing of harvest. These elements were not proven. The records showed: no juridical tie of tenancy between petitioner and respondents (respondent Martin Mananghaya admitted dealing only with Delfin Chico); the land appeared to be residential, located near the National Highway, containing a house and a few mango trees; and no evidence like receipts proved sharing of harvests. Self-serving pleadings are insufficient; proof is required. The Court of Appeals thus erred in ruling that the dispute was agrarian.