G.R. No. L-20288 June 22, 1965
JOSE CASARIA AND MILAGROS MESTIDIO, petitioners, vs. RICARDO ROSALES, MERCEDES GLORIA, Spouses and RAMON BLANCO, in his capacity as Associate Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, 8th Regional District, respondents.

FACTS

A petition for liquidation of harvests and for ejectment, with a prayer for an interlocutory order to deposit the palay from said harvests, was filed on September 15, 1960, in the Court of Agrarian Relations by Ricardo Rosales and Mercedes Gloria against Jose Casaria, Pablo Mercado, and Elias Gimeno. The court issued the interlocutory order. Jose Casaria filed an answer, stating that while he cultivated portions of the land, the Agrarian Court had no jurisdiction because no tenancy relationship existed with Ricardo Rosales, and the land he cultivated belonged to Milagros Mestidio. Milagros Mestidio filed an answer in intervention, alleging she owned the land cultivated by Jose Casaria and praying for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Ricardo Rosales filed an opposition with affidavits supporting his ownership. The Acting Clerk of Court conducted an ocular inspection. The description in Ricardo Rosales’ tax declaration matched the ocular report, while Milagros Mestidio presented a deed of sale with different boundaries. The Agrarian Court rendered a decision declaring Ricardo Rosales and Mercedes Gloria as the landowners, ordering Jose Casaria to deal with them, dismissing the intervention, and ordering delivery of 25% of the deposited palay to Rosales. Jose Casaria and Milagros Mestidio filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They appealed. During the appeal, Jose Casaria filed a manifestation withdrawing his appeal, but his counsel opposed it, praying for a decision on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction over the case despite the issue of ownership of the land being raised.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Agrarian Relations had jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or petition. The petition filed set forth allegations for liquidation of harvests and ejectment of a tenant by the landholder without putting ownership of the land in issue. All cases involving the dispossession of a tenant fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Once the Agrarian Court acquired jurisdiction, it subsisted even if the answer denied the landlord-tenant relationship and adversely interposed ownership of the land. Furthermore, the Agrarian Court acted within its limited jurisdiction and did not adjudicate the question of ownership for the purpose of determining who the landholder was to receive the landholder’s share from the tenant. The finding that Ricardo Rosales and Mercedes Gloria were the landholders was supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed on appeal. The decision appealed from was affirmed.