G.R. No. 191479, September 21, 2015
JESUS VELASQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES PATERNO C. CRUZ AND ROSARIO CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Paterno and Rosario Cruz, registered owners of a four-hectare agricultural land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Accounting and Damages against petitioner Jesus Velasquez. They alleged that petitioner’s father-in-law, Bernabe Navarro, was a tenant until April 6, 1985, when he relinquished his tenancy rights via a Sinumpaang Salaysay. No other tenant was installed. Respondents discovered that petitioner entered the farmland without their knowledge and consent, never paid rent from 1985 onward, and refused to vacate even after they leased the land to Godofredo Tosco in 1995.
In his Answer with Motion to Dismiss, petitioner contended that the DARAB had jurisdiction, asserting the case involved an agrarian dispute. He claimed he assisted Navarro in tilling the land since 1975 and continued after Navarro’s death. He defended non-payment of rentals, arguing the land lost its suitability for agricultural production and that, since Operation Land Transfer, he was deemed the owner and a farmer-beneficiary paying amortizations to the Land Bank.
The RTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering the RTC to assume jurisdiction, ruling petitioner failed to establish a tenancy relationship due to lack of consent and sharing of harvests, and he was not a qualified successor-tenant under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner became the registered owner of the land via Original Certificate of Title No. EP-992-C (Emancipation Patent). He raised this in a motion for reconsideration, arguing the issue became an agrarian dispute beyond the RTC’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction over the Complaint for Recovery of Possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The RTC retains jurisdiction.
The Court held that for DARAB to have jurisdiction, a tenancy relationship must exist. All indispensable elements of tenancy must be established: (1) parties are landowner and tenant; (2) subject is agricultural land; (3) consent between parties; (4) purpose is agricultural production; (5) personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) sharing of harvest. The absence of one or more requisites negates tenancy.
The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the elements of consent and sharing of harvest were lacking. Petitioner’s mere allegation of being verbally asked to continue working by the heirs of Guillerma Coronel and his occupancy did not establish implied consent or recognition as a tenant by respondents. He presented no evidence of sharing harvests with respondents. Furthermore, petitioner was not a legal successor-tenant under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844, being only a relative by affinity (son-in-law).
Regarding the issuance of the Emancipation Patent, the Court ruled this development did not divest the RTC of jurisdiction over the recovery of possession case. The action was filed prior to the patent’s issuance, and the core issue remained the determination of the better right of possession based on the existence of tenancy at the time of filing. Any challenge to the validity of the Emancipation Patent, including matters relating to petitioner’s qualification as a farmer-beneficiary, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR, not the RTC, and must be resolved in a separate administrative proceeding. Thus, the RTC correctly has jurisdiction over the ordinary civil action for recovery of possession.