GR 147444; (October, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147444; October 1, 2004
VIRGILIO A. SINDICO and VIRGINIA TORCUATOR SINDICO, petitioners, vs. HON. GERARDO D. DIAZ, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo; and SPOUSES FELIPE and ERLINDA SOMBREA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Virgilio Sindico, the registered owner of an agricultural lot, filed an Accion Reinvindicatoria with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo against his cousins, respondents Felipe and Erlinda Sombrea. Sindico alleged that he allowed the respondents’ parents to cultivate the land in 1962 without any sharing of produce, as a form of familial assistance. After the parents’ death, the respondents continued cultivation. Despite repeated demands since 1993, the respondents refused to return possession of the land, prompting the suit.
The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. They contended that since the subject land is agricultural and covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), exclusive original jurisdiction lies with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) under Section 50 of R.A. 6657. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the issue involved possession of an agricultural land under CARP coverage, falling within DARAB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has exclusive original jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action for recovery of possession of the agricultural land.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the RTC has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The petitioners’ action is purely for recovery of possession (Accion Reinvindicatoria) and does not involve an agrarian dispute. Under Section 3(d) of R.A. 6657, an “agrarian dispute” refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, such as leasehold or tenancy. The complaint explicitly alleged the absence of any tenancy or leasehold agreement, a fact not denied by the respondents. Their sole basis for claiming DARAB jurisdiction was the agricultural nature of the land.
The Court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be made dependent on a defendant’s assertions in a motion to dismiss. Since the complaint’s allegations do not show a tenurial relationship or any dispute concerning terms of agricultural production covered by agrarian laws, no agrarian dispute exists. Therefore, the case falls under the general jurisdiction of the RTC. The trial court’s orders were set aside, and the case was ordered reinstated for further proceedings.