G.R. No. 125848. September 6, 1999.
EDMUNDO BENAVIDEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ARISTON MELENDRES represented by NARCISO M. MELENDRES Jr., respondents.

FACTS

On 18 July 1990, private respondent Ariston Melendres, through his nephew and administrator Narciso M. Melendres Jr., filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and restraining order against petitioner Edmundo Benavidez before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanay, Rizal. Private respondent alleged he was the owner and actual possessor for over fifty years of a 1,622-square meter parcel of land in Tanay, Rizal, which was planted with palay and cultivated by his agricultural tenant, Felino Mendez. He claimed that on 29 November 1989, petitioner, using force, intimidation, strategy, and stealth, entered the property, destroyed its barbed-wire fence, filled it with soil, and constructed permanent concrete structures, including a Petron gasoline station, converting its use from agricultural to commercial without the necessary DAR clearance. The MTC issued a restraining order and, after an ocular inspection confirming the lot in dispute was the same lot claimed by private respondent and worked by his tenant, issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
In his answer, petitioner claimed he was the rightful owner by virtue of a deed of sale dated 5 February 1990 executed by Alicia Catambay, that a new tax declaration had been issued to him, and that the property claimed by private respondent was different from the one he occupied.
On 14 January 1994, the MTC declared private respondent the rightful possessor, ordered petitioner to remove the improvements, vacate the property, and restore possession to private respondent. It also ordered petitioner to pay P3,000.00 per month for the use of the land from 29 November 1989 until vacated, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The MTC disregarded petitioner’s claim of ownership, noting it was not material in a possession case and that his deed of sale was executed more than two months after his unlawful entry. It also considered a DARAB decision declaring Felino Mendez as the agricultural tenant and ordering his reinstatement as persuasive proof of private respondent’s possession.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, holding that the issue involved title or ownership, not merely physical possession, and thus the MTC lacked jurisdiction. Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision, holding that prior possession was established regardless of ownership. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the allegation that the land was tilled by an agricultural tenant deprived the MTC of jurisdiction under Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states that its provisions shall not apply to cases covered by the Agricultural Tenancy Act.
2. Whether the MTC lost jurisdiction because the issue of ownership was necessarily involved in resolving the issue of possession.
3. Whether the forcible entry case is barred by a prior DARAB decision.
4. Whether the failure of private respondent’s counsel to inform the court of the death of Ariston Melendres during the pendency of the case rendered the MTC decision null and void.

RULING

1. No. The allegation of an agricultural tenant does not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, requiring DARAB jurisdiction. A tenancy relationship must first be established, requiring the concurrence of essential requisites: (a) parties are landowner and tenant; (b) subject is agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) purpose is agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) there is sharing of harvests. In this case, no tenancy relationship existed between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the case fell outside the Agricultural Tenancy Act, and the MTC had jurisdiction.
2. No. The principle that an inferior court loses jurisdiction where the question of ownership is so necessarily involved that possession cannot be decided without settling ownership was modified by B.P. Blg. 129. Under Section 33(2), the MTC retains jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership, provided the issue of ownership is resolved only to determine possession. Therefore, the MTC retained jurisdiction.
3. No. The DARAB decision involved Felino Mendez, who is not a party in the forcible entry case. The DARAB case concerned Mendez’s status as a tenant and his alleged ejectment, while the forcible entry case concerns private respondent’s right to be restored to physical possession. Thus, the DARAB decision does not bar the instant case.
4. No. The failure of counsel to inform the court of the death of Ariston Melendres did not nullify the proceedings. The duty to inform the court of a party’s death under Rule 3, Section 16 is directory, not mandatory. Non-compliance does not render the proceedings null and void, especially where no substantial rights are affected and the deceased party’s interests are duly represented. Here, private respondent’s nephew and administrator, Narciso M. Melendres Jr., who filed the complaint as representative, continued to represent the deceased’s interest, and no rights were prejudiced.
The petition was DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.