Civil Procedure DigestCivil Procedure DigestA2010A2010
Prof. Victoria A.Prof. Victoria A.
JUDICIAL POWERCONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONPRESCRIBED JURISDICTION i.e. OVERSUBJECT MATTER, BY LAWSINDICO V DIAZ
440 SCRA 50CARPIO-MORALES; October 1, 2004
Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of theRTC of Iloilo
-Virgilio Sindico, is the registered owner of a parcel of land, which he let the spouses Eulalio and ConcordiaSombrea cultivate, without him sharing in theproduce, as his "assistance in the education of hiscousins" including defendant Felipe Sombrea-After the death of the Eulalio Sombrea, Felipecontinued to cultivate the lot-On June 20, 1993, Sindico requested Felipe’s wife forthe return of the possession of the lot but the latterrequested time to advise her husband-Repeated demands for the return of the possessionof the lot remained unheeded, forcing Sindico to filea civil case before the RTC against the spousesSombrea for Accion Reivindicatoria with PreliminaryMandatory Injunction
The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, allegingthat the RTC has no jurisdiction over their person andthat as the subject matter of the case is anagricultural land which is covered by theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government, the case is within the exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction of the DARAB in accordance withSection 50 of Republic Act 6657 (THECOMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988)
The plaintiff filed an Opposition alleging that thecase does not involve an agrarian dispute, therebeing no tenancy relationship or leaseholdagreement with the defendants.
The RTC of Iloilo granted the Motion to Dismiss
As their Motion for Reconsideration was denied bythe trial court, the plaintiffs, herein petitioners,lodged the present Petition for Review on Certiorari
WON the Department of Agrarian ReformAdjudication Board (DARAB) has original andexclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar
Jurisdiction over the subject matter isdetermined by the allegations of the complaint. It isnot affected by the pleas set up by the defendant inhis answer or in a motion to dismiss, otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims.
The allegations in petitioner’s complaintshow that the action is one for recovery of possession, not one which involves an agrariandispute.
Section 3(d) of RA 6657 or the CARP Law defines"agrarian dispute" over which the DARAB hasexclusive original jurisdiction as:(d) any controversy relating to tenurialarrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted toagriculture, including disputes concerningfarmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changingor seeking to arrange terms or conditions of suchtenurial arrangements
including any controversyrelating to compensation of lands acquired under thisAct and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenantsand other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether thedisputants stand in the proximate relation of farmoperator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, orlessor and lessee.-
Since petitioners’ action is one for recovery of possession and does not involve an agrariandispute, the RTC has jurisdiction over it.
Petition is granted.
JURISDICTION DISTINGUISHED FROMVENUEMANILA RAILROAD V ATTY. GENERAL
20 PHIL 523MORELAND; December 11, 1911
Appeal from CFI Tarlac’s judgment dismissing theaction before it on motion of the plaintiff upon theground that the court had no jurisdiction of thesubject matter
- On Dec 1907, Mla Railroad Co. began an action inCFI Tarlac for the condemnation of 69,910 sq. m. realestate located in Tarlac. This is for construction of arailroad line "from Paniqui to Tayug in Tarlac," asauthorized by law.- Before beginning the action, Mla Railroad hadcaused to be made a thorough search in the Office of the Registry of Property and of the Tax where thelands sought to be condemned were located and towhom they belonged. As a result of suchinvestigations, it alleged that the lands in questionwere located in Tarlac.- After filing and duly serving the complaint, theplaintiff, pursuant to law and pending finaldetermination of the action, took possession of andoccupied the lands described in the complaint,building its line and putting the same in operation.- On Oct 4, Mla Railroad gave notice to thedefendants that on Oct. 9, a motion would be madeto the court to dismiss the action upon the groundthat the court had no jurisdiction of the subjectmatter, it having just been ascertained by theplaintiff that the land sought to be condemned wassituated in the Province of Nueva Ecija, instead of theProvince of Tarlac, as alleged in the complaint. Thismotion was heard and, after due consideration, thetrial court dismissed the action upon the groundpresented by the plaintiff.
1. WON CFI Tarlac has power and authority to takecognizance of condemnation of real estate located inanother province2. WON Sec. 377
of the Code of Civil Procedure and
Venue of actions
Actions to confirm title to realestate, or to secure a partition of real estate, or to cancel clouds,or remove doubts from the title to real estate, or to obtainpossession of real estate, or to recover damages for injuries toreal estate, or to establish any interest, right, or title in or to realestate, or actions for the condemnation of real estate for publicuse, shall be brought in the province were the lands, or some partthereof, is situated; actions against executors, administrators,and guardians touching the performance of their official duties,and actions for account and settlement by them, and actions forthe distribution of the estates of deceased persons among theheirs and distributes, and actions for the payment of legacies,shall be brought in the province in which the will was admitted toprobate, or letters of administration were granted, or theguardian was appointed. And all actions not herein otherwiseprovided for may be brought in any province where the