GR 157186; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157186 ; October 19, 2007
ACTIVE REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BIENVENIDO FERNANDEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Active Realty filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondent Bienvenido Fernandez before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City. Active Realty alleged it acquired title to a parcel of land from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and that Fernandez’s occupation was by mere tolerance. After a demand to vacate was refused, the suit was initiated. Fernandez moved to dismiss, contending the MTCC lacked jurisdiction as the case involved agrarian reform matters falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). He cited a pending DARAB case involving the same land and parties concerning its “carpability.”
The MTCC denied the motion and eventually ruled in favor of Active Realty, ordering Fernandez to vacate. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC, holding that the MTCC should have yielded jurisdiction to the DARAB as the quasi-judicial body with primary jurisdiction over agrarian issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Active Realty then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC’s ruling that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case due to the existence of an agrarian dispute.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the proper remedy from the CA decision was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. A Rule 65 petition is only available when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal via Rule 45 was available, the resort to Rule 65 was incorrect. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The core legal principle is that jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. In an ejectment case, the MTCC’s jurisdiction is limited to the issue of physical possession. However, when the defendant raises the defense of agrarian dispute and presents a pending DARAB case involving the same land, the MTCC must suspend proceedings. The existence of a tenancy relationship or an agrarian dispute is a prejudicial question that must first be resolved by the DARAB, which has primary jurisdiction. The RTC and CA correctly held that the MTCC should have deferred to the DARAB to avoid conflicting determinations on the nature of the land and Fernandez’s status.