G.R. No. 165676; November 22, 2010
JOSE MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. NARCISO GERMINO and BENIGNO GERMINO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Mendoza, a registered landowner, filed a complaint for forcible entry with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against respondent Narciso Germino in 1988. Mendoza alleged that Narciso unlawfully entered his five-hectare property. In his answer, Narciso raised the defense of tenancy, claiming his brother Benigno was the agricultural lessee and he merely assisted as a household member. After several postponements, Mendoza moved to remand the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The MTC granted the motion and ordered the remand in 1995.
Mendoza subsequently filed an amended complaint with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), impleading Benigno. He alleged the respondents were usurpers who unlawfully withheld possession since the early 1980s and appropriated the harvests. The PARAD ruled in Mendoza’s favor, ordering the respondents to vacate and pay damages. The DARAB affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, holding that the MTC, not the DARAB, had jurisdiction. It found the complaint essentially alleged forcible entry, not an agrarian dispute.

ISSUE

Whether the MTC or the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA, ruling that the MTC retains jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of any defenses raised. Mendoza’s original complaint before the MTC unequivocally alleged forcible entry—unlawful entry by strategy and stealth—and sought the respondents’ ejectment and damages. These allegations squarely fall under the MTC’s exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The tenancy issue raised by Narciso in his answer was a mere defense that did not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up in the answer. Furthermore, the referral mechanism under Presidential Decree No. 316, which allowed courts to refer ejectment cases involving potential tenancy to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, was repealed by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Consequently, the MTC’s order of remand to the DARAB was void. The subsequent filing of an amended complaint before the PARAD could not confer jurisdiction upon the DARAB, as jurisdiction was already vested in the MTC from the inception of the case. The case was remanded to the MTC for proper proceedings.