Mendoza v.
Germino  Ordered to vacate the property and pay 500 canvas od palay as actual
G.R. No. 165676 (2010)
Digest Author: Princess Cariño
Petitioner: Jose Mendoza
Respondents: Narciso Germino and Benigno Germino
Doctrine:
It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and
the law.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
 Petitioner owned a land (5 hectare of land) in Nueva Ecija. They filed with MTC
an action for forcible entry against Narciso.
 According to Jose, Narciso unlawfully entered the subject property by means
of strategy and stealth, without his knowledge. Despite repeated demands,
Narciso failed to vacate the property.
 According to Benigno (brother of Narciso), Narciso is Jose’s agricultural lessee
and he merely helped the latter in the cultivation as a member of the
immediate farm household.
 Jose filed a motion to remand the case to Department of Agrarian Reform
Ajudication Board (DARAB) in view of the tenancy issue raised by Narciso. MTC
remanded the case without conducting a hearing and with Narciso’s
objection.
 Jose filed an amended complaint with the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD), impleading Benigno as defendant.
 Jose alleged that Efren Bernando was the agricultural lessee and Benigno
unlawfully entered the property, sometime in 1982, without his consent;
withheld the same until 1987; appropriated the land’s produce to himself
despite Jose’s repeated demands to return the property. In 1987, they
discovered that Benigno transferred the possession of the land to Narciso who
still refused to return the same and appropriate land’s produce for himself. The
respondents were able to harvest 13,000 cavans of palay during their
possession so petitioner then demanded respondents be jointly and severally
held liable for the palay’s monetary equivalent as actual damage, return the
possession of the property and attorney’s fee.
 Respondents then answered that petitioner has no right over the property as
he agreed to sell the same to Benigno for P87k and Benigno already paid P50k,
but petitioner refused to receive the balance and execute a deed of
conveyance, despite repeated demands. They also asserted that jurisdiction
over the case lies with RTC since ownership and possession are the issues.
Ruling of Lower Courts:
1. PARAD ruled in favor of petitioner.
 Respondents were mere usurpers and failed to prove that they were
agricultural lessees of Jose.
 DARAB has the jurisdiction because the amended complaint sufficiently
alleged an agrarian dispute, not the MTC’s referral of the case.
damage.
(Respondents elevated to CA via petition for review under Rule 43 of
ROC.)
2. CA reversed DARAB’s ruling.
 The allegations in the complaint are for forcible entry, not agrarian dispute.
 The subsequent filing of the amended complaint did nor confer jurisdiction
upon DARAB. (remanded to MTC)
Contentions of the Private RESPONDENTS (Benigno and Narciso):
1. MTC’s referral to DARAB was invalid as RA 6657 repealed the rule on referral
under PD 316.
2. Neither ROC nor Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (RRSP) provises that
forcible entry cases can be referred to DARAB.
3. The jurisdiction over the case lies with RTC since ownership and possession are
the issues.
ISSUE: Whether MTC or DARAB has the jurisdiction over the case. – MTC.
RULING:
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
 It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution
and the law.
 It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or
acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission,
nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither
for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being
legislative in character.
BP 129 and not RA 6657
 BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, MTC have the exclusive original jurisdiction
over the cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. RRSP governs the
remedial aspect of these suits.
 Under Sec. 50 of RA 6657, as well as Sec. 34 of EO 129-A, DARAB has primary
and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and other agrarian laws and their
implementing rules and regulations.
 In this case, Jose (plaintiff in MTC) alleged an action for forcible entry.
Allegation of tenancy does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction
 MTC continued to have the authority to hear the case precisely to determine
whether it had jurisdiction to dispose of the ejectment suit on its merits. After
all, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the
defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would
become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.
 Under the RRSP, the MTC is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary conference
and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if such tenancy
relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue.
 MTC may even opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative
defense of the defendant, although under the RRSP, such a hearing is not a
matter of right. If it is shown during the hearing or conference that, indeed,
tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
 In the present case, instead of conducting a preliminary conference, MTC
immediately referred the case to DARAB. This was contrary to the rules.
 Besides, Sec. 2 of PD 316, which required the referral of a land dispute case to
the Department of Agrarian Reform for the preliminary determination of the
existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship, has indeed been repealed
by Sec. 76 of RA 6657 in 1988.

Amended complaint did not confer jurisdiction on DARAB

 Jose alleged in the amended complaint that the subject property was
previously tilled by Efren, and respondents took possession by strategy and
stealth, without their knowledge and consent. In the absence of any allegation
of a tenancy relationship between the parties, the action was for recovery of
possession of real property that was within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
 CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in setting aside the DARAB
decision. While we lament the lapse of time this forcible entry case has been
pending resolution, we are not in a position to resolve the dispute between the
parties since the evidence required in courts is different from that of
administrative agencies.

Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 6, 2003 Decision and October 12,
2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48642 are AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

OTHER POINTS:
1. Agrarian disputes
 refers to any controversy relating to, among others, tenancy over lands
devoted to agriculture.
 Essential requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship:
(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
(2) the subject is agricultural land;
(3) there is consent;
(4) the purpose is agricultural production;
(5) there is personal cultivation; and
(6) there is sharing of harvest or payment of rental.

Portion of Petitioner’s complaint in MTC (determination of forcible entry)

x xx
“8. The plaintiffs are entitled to the relief demanded or prayed for, and the whole
or part of such relief/s consist of immediately or permanently RESTRAINING,
ENJOINING or STOPPING the defendant or any person/s acting in his behalf, from
entering, occupying, or in any manner committing, performing or suffering to be
committed or performed for him, any act indicative of, or tending to show any
color of possession in or about the tenement, premises or subject of this suit, such
as described in par. 3 of this complaint; x x x”