FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240246. November 23, 2021.]
POL JOSEPH CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.JOSE DIAZ, RICARDO M. HIPOLITO, MARCELO ARCEGA, NICANOR GALVEZ, PABLO R. GALVEZ, EDGARDO DELA FUENTE, PEDRO V. MANGON, MARTIN R. ALDANA, RUFINO R. DE LEON, EMILIANO R. ARCEGA, JOSE V. MANGON, AND ALFONSO A. JULIANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240246 (Pol Joseph Construction Corporation v. Jose Diaz, Ricardo M. Hipolito, Marcelo Arcega, Nicanor Galvez, Pablo R. Galvez, Edgardo Dela Fuente, Pedro V. Mangon, Martin R. Aldana, Rufino R. De Leon, Emiliano R. Arcega, Jose V. Mangon, and Alfonso A. Juliano). — Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 dated February 22, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated June 13, 2018, both rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103286, which affirmed with modification, the Orders dated December 20, 2013 4 and July 18, 2014 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 83 of Malolos City, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 303-M-2000. The RTC dismissed the action for recovery of possession and payment of monthly rentals and damages filed by Pol Joseph Construction Corporation (petitioner) against Jose Diaz (Diaz), Ricardo M. Hipolito, Marcelo Arcega, Nicanor Galvez, Pablo R. Galvez, Edgardo Dela Fuente, Pedro V. Mangon, Martin R. Aldana, Rufino R. De Leon, Emiliano R. Arcega, Jose V. Mangon, and Alfonso A. Juliano (respondents).
The Antecedents
The facts, as culled from the CA decision are as follows:
On May 4, 2000, petitioner filed an action 6 for recovery of possession and payment of monthly rentals and damages against respondents before the RTC, which was later amended, alleging that it was the registered owner of two parcels of land in San Pedro, Bustos, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-122235 7 and T-122236, 8 with a total area of about 94,668 square meters. According to petitioner, respondents possessed the property by its mere tolerance. 9 On March 3, 1998, petitioner sent respondents a letter directing them to vacate the property, but respondents refused to do so. 10 This led petitioners to file a complaint, praying that respondents: (1) vacate and surrender the possession of the subject property in its favor; (2) pay petitioner accumulated monthly rentals from March 3, 1998, attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00, litigation expenses of P1,500.00 per court hearing, exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and the cost of suit. 11
In response, Diaz filed an Answer, 12 alleging that the case involved tenancy and compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. Thus, these are agrarian matters within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and not the RTC. 13 According to Diaz, he and the other respondents were tenants of Atty. Domingo Alejandro (Atty. Alejandro), who was the former owner of the property. They had been paying monthly rentals to Atty. Alejandro without knowing that he had mortgaged the subject property to the Traders Royal Bank. At the time when petitioner bought the property from Traders Royal Bank, respondents were in the process of acquiring ownership of the property under the compulsory acquisition scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 14
The other respondents likewise filed their Answer, 15 arguing that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint. 16 Rather, it is the DARAB that has jurisdiction thereof because the suit involved an agrarian dispute. Further, they averred that their rights were enforceable against petitioner because when the latter purchased the property, it knew that respondents were tenants of subject the property. 17
At pre-trial, the parties admitted the following facts: (1) petitioner was the registered owner of the subject property; (2) it bought the property from Traders Royal Bank; (3) there was no written contract of lease between petitioner and respondents; (4) petitioner paid the real property taxes for the subject property; and (5) at the time petitioner filed the Amended Complaint, respondents were in possession of the subject property. 18
During pre-trial, respondents moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On December 2, 2010, the RTC ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda with regard to such issue. 19
After due proceedings, the RTC issued an Order 20 dated December 20, 2013 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
According to the RTC, it is the DARAB that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because respondents are agricultural tenants of the subject property. Respondents were able to prove that they are agricultural tenants of the subject property, which was supported by certified true copies of documents from the Department of Agrarian Reform. 21 In contrast, the RTC pointed out that petitioner neither presented nor marked any evidence to controvert the evidence presented by respondents. 22
Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. 23
Petitioner filed an appeal 24 before the CA, which was dismissed on February 22, 2018.
While the CA agreed with the RTC when it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint, the CA also found that the DARAB did not have jurisdiction over the case. 25
The CA explained that as a rule, the material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is filed, determine which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon. 26 Since the Amended Complaint for recovery of possession of real property or accion publiciana neither alleged nor attached the tax declaration to show the subject property's assessed value, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. 27
Further, according to the CA, the issue in this case does not pertain to an agrarian dispute because of the absence of evidence to show that there was a sharing of harvest or payment of rental between the parties. 28
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, the following requisites of agricultural tenancy relationship must be proved: (1) landowner and tenant relationship between the parties; (2) the land must be agricultural land; (3) consent to such relationship; (4) the purpose is agricultural product; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvest. 29
Respondents were able to prove the first five requisites of agricultural tenancy thru: the Pagpapatunay where it was established that the property is an agricultural land; respondents personally cultivated the subject property, and planted palay and vegetables; the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, Bustos, Bulacan (MARO) Certification dated January 12, 1998 that respondents were the tenants of Atty. Alejandro; and that petitioner was subrogated to the rights and obligations of Atty. Alejandro. However, the CA stressed that the sixth requisite was not met because respondents did not prove any harvest sharing arrangement between them and petitioner. 30 Here, respondents neither alleged in their pleadings nor presented evidence such as a receipt or other credible evidence, to prove that a harvest sharing arrangement existed between them and petitioner or the previous owner, Atty. Alejandro. 31 Thus, the Amended Complaint does not fall within DARAB's jurisdiction. 32
Hence, the instant petition.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the action for recovery of possession that was filed by petitioner.
Petitioner argues that the CA was correct in ruling that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. However, it disagrees that only the sixth requisite to establish tenancy relationship between it and the respondents, is absent. Rather, petitioner avers that none of the requisites of tenancy relationship was proven in this case. Firstly, there is no tenancy relationship between them, and even with the previous registered owner of the subject property. In the Tax Declaration in Atty. Alejandro's name, which was marked as Exhibit "D," it stated that an "Affidavit of Untenanted" was duly ratified by the Hon. Municipal Mayor of Bustos, Bulacan, Mrs. Alexis G. Santos. 33Secondly, the subject property is not an agricultural land, based on the survey and classification prepared by the Assessor's Office of the Municipality of Bustos, Province of Bulacan, but classified as "gravel and sand." This was further bolstered by the afore-mentioned Tax Declaration, under the name of the previous owner, where the annotation on the bottom portion states, "Reclassification of this land is based on the ocular inspection made by the undersigned as Municipal Deputy Assessor of the Municipality." 34Thirdly, there was no consent from petitioner or from the previous owner for respondents to till the land. 35Fourthly, the purpose for which the land was devoted was not for agricultural production. Fifthly, petitioner has no knowledge of personal cultivation on the part of respondents. Sixthly, there was no sharing of harvest or crops between petitioner and respondents. No evidence was shown to establish that respondents have delivered any of their harvest or crops to petitioner or to Atty. Alejandro. Further, nothing in the Notice of Coverage indicates that there was production and cost of operations. There was also no proof that respondents are depositing any payment to the Land Bank of the Philippines and no statement as to the interest of each of them over the subject properties was delineated. 36
Petitioner also argues that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case on the ground that it failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property in its complaint. Petitioner points out that this matter has not been raised an issue with the RTC. Petitioner also argues that while the assessed value of the property was not alleged in the Amended Complaint, it can be inferred from the allegations that the value of the property, with an area of 94,668 square meters is more than P20,000.00. 37 The assessed value of the property can also be gleaned from the P8,000,000.00 amount claimed from respondents for their use and occupancy of the subject property, as of the filing of the Amended Complaint. In the Tax Declarations made by the previous owner, the same indicate the assessed value of P383,410.00 and Market Value of P852,012.00. In sum, petitioner contends that even without alleging the assessed value, the Tax Declarations under the name of the previous owner, marked and submitted to the RTC duly establishes that the value of the subject property is within the RTC's jurisdiction. Petitioner also proffers that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case when it paid the additional filing fees. 38
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
The DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the case did not involve an agrarian dispute.
Section 50 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6557 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 confers the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) with exclusive and original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 39 R.A. No. 6557 and jurisprudence have delineated the powers of the DARAB and the regular courts, by limiting the former's jurisdiction to the resolution of agrarian disputes. 40 Agrarian disputes include terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farm workers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. 41
This Court stresses that tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. Neither a person's assertion that he/she is a tenant nor the fact that he/she works on another's landholding establishes a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. 42 The person claiming to be an agricultural tenant must prove by substantial evidence, the existence of a tenancy relationship. 43
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties must be proved. 44 The requisites to establish a tenancy relationship are: (i) the parties involved are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessees; (ii) the property involved is an agricultural land; (iii) consent of the parties; (iv) the purpose is agricultural production; (v) the tenant or agricultural lessee personally cultivates the land; and (vi) the parties share the harvest. 45
Here, respondents proved the first to fifth requisites of a tenancy relationship. The Pagpapatunay issued by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Committee (PARC) on October 1, 1998, states:
October 1, 1998 — Issued by Presidential Agrarian Reform Council of San Pedro, Bustos, Bulacan (thru PARC Chairman Aurelio Concepcion):
Ito ay pagpapatunay na ang lupang dating pag-aari ni Atty. Domingo Alejandro na may titulo blg. T-244412 at nalipat kay POL JOSEPH CORP. na nagkaroon ng Titulo Blg. 109568 na may sukat na 9.4668 ektarya humigit-kumulang na matatagpuan sa San Pedro, Bustos, Bulacan ay aktwal na ginagawa, pinoposisyonan at sinasaka ng 27 magsasaka at ang mga lupaing ito ay tinataniman ng palay, mais at iba't-ibang klase ng gulay simula pa noong taong 1950 hanggang sa kasalukuyan at kailanman ay hindi naging Gravel and Sand na nakasulat sa Tax Declaration Blg. 96-06-011-01244.
Ang pagpapatunay na ito ay ibinibigay kay Eduardo Concepcion, et al., na pawang mga magsasaka ng nasabing lupa upang patunayan ang katotohanan at maibigay ang kanilang mga biyaya batay sa programa ng CARP. 46 (Emphasis supplied; underscoring in the original)
The Pagpapatunay proves that the subject property is an agricultural land; respondents personally cultivated the property and planted palay, corn and other vegetables. On the other hand, the Certification 47 dated January 12, 1998 issued by MARO, Bustos Bulacan shows that respondents were tenants of Atty. Alejandro, the previous owner of the subject property; and that petitioner was subrogated to the rights, and was substituted to the obligations of Atty. Alejandro when ownership of the property was transferred to it.
However, the sixth requisite to establish tenancy relationship is absent. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are inadequate. 48
In this case, respondents failed to allege in their pleadings and to present evidence that would prove the existence of a harvest sharing arrangement between respondents on one hand and petitioner or Atty. Alejandro on the other hand. As such, the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondents was not established. Consequently, the DARAB did not acquire jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint.
This Court also finds that since petitioner failed to allege the assessed value of the subject property in its Amended Complaint, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Petitioner filed an action for recovery of possession of a real property or accion publiciana against respondents, before the RTC. Accion publiciana is an action to recover the right of possession when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. 49
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is determined by the type of action filed and the assessed value of the property. It follows that in accion publiciana, the assessed value of the real property determines the jurisdiction of the court that can take cognizance of the action. 50
Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, the prevailing law when petitioner filed its complaint, provides:
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
In this case, the assessed value of the property located at Bulacan or outside Metro Manila must exceed P20,000.00 in order for the RTC to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
It is a hornbook principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts which constitute plaintiff's cause of action. 51 Further, a court's exclusive original jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint cannot be determined, in the absence of any allegation in the Complaint of the assessed value of the subject properties. 52 Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed value and the market value of a property. 53
Here, petitioner's Amended Complaint neither contained any allegation of the subject property's assessed value nor the subject property's tax declaration that would show the assessed value of the subject property. 54 Thus, the CA was correct in ruling that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint because of petitioner's failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property and to attach the subject property's tax declaration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision promulgated on February 22, 2018 and the Resolution promulgated on June 13, 2018 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 103286 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-26.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring; id. at 29-40.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4. Rendered by Judge Guillermo P. Agloro; id. at 73-75.
5.Id. at 76.
6. Records, pp. 1-6.
7. Annex "B," records, p. 334.
8. Annex "C," id. at 336.
9.Rollo, p. 30.
10.Id. at 30-31.
11.Id. at 31.
12. Records, pp. 9-12.
13.Rollo, p. 31.
14.Id.
15. Records, pp. 132-136.
16.Id. at 324-336.
17.Rollo, p. 32.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20. Records, pp. 543-545.
21.Rollo, p. 38.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 76.
24. CA rollo, pp. 10-11.
25.Rollo, p. 34.
26.Id. at 38.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 35.
29.Id. at 36, citing Ofilada v. Sps. Andal, 752 Phil. 27, 44. (2015).
30.Id.
31.Id. at 37.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 17.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 18.
36.Id.
37.Id. at 20.
38.Id.
39. An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, Providing the Mechanism for Its Implementation, and for Other Purposes, [COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988] Republic Act No. 6557 (1988), §50.
SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
40.Eduviges B. Alamazan v. Perla E. Bacolod, Dulce E. Bacolod, Irma E. Bacolod and Belen E. Bacolod, G.R. No. 227529, June 16, 2021.
41.Id.
42.Danilo Romero, Victorio Romero and El Romero, representing their deceased father Lutero Romero v. Crispina Sombrino, G.R. No. 241353, January 22, 2020.
43.Id.
44.Supra note 36.
45.Id.
46. Records, p. 137.
47.Id. at 529.
48.Heirs of Teofilo Bastida, represented by Criselda Bernardo v. Heirs of Angel Fernandez, namely, Fernando A. Fernandez married to Gemma Napalcruz, Ermelita F. Casimiro, Ma. Luisa Fernandez, married to Cesar Enriquez, Sr., Zenaida F. Pelayo married to Ghandie Pelayo, and Lucia F. Pajarito, married to Edito Pajarito, G.R. No. 204420, October 7, 2020.
49.Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco v. Busilak, 824 Phil. 454, 461 (2018).
50.Regalado v. Vda. De la Peña, 822 Phil. 705, 714 (2017).
51.Padlan v. Sps. Dinglasan, 707 Phil. 83, 91 (2013).
52.Supra note 50, at 717.
53.Id.
54. Records, pp. 324-336.