TENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 54698. October 19, 2000.]
GARY BUENAVENTE, petitioner, vs. MA. LUISA INFANTE VDA. DE DONATO, represented by MA. TERESA DONATO FERNANDEZ, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
COSICO, J p:
Before us is a Petition for Review appealing the Decision, dated July 23, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago City, Branch 62 in Civil Case No. 856, which affirmed the private respondents' right to possess that certain parcel of land claimed by them under an action for unlawful detainer.
The RTC's decision affirmed with slight modifications the Decision, dated September 11, 1997, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bago City in Civil Case No. 1595, ordering the petitioners herein to vacate the subject parcel of land in favor of the private respondents.
The dispositive portion of the MTCC's decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:
1. Ordering the defendant, his agents, representatives, assigns and/or any person acting for and in his behalf to immediately vacate the premises subject of the instant case and to turn over possession of the same to the plaintiff;
2. Ordering the defendant to reimburse plaintiff the sum of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, as attorney's fees and the sum of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos for plaintiff's counsel every court appearance;
3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos as litigation expenses;
4. Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum P20,000.00 Pesos for damages for breach of contract as stipulated in the Lease Contract;
5. To pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED."
The RTC's ruling, on the other hand, disposingly states:
"WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing findings, the court hereby affirms the decision of the MTCC, Bago City dated September 11, 1997 with the modification as follows:
1. The award of damages for breach of contract in the amount of P20,000.00 is hereby reconsidered;
2. Defendant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff 17 cavans of palay or its equivalent per cropping/harvest per hectare from the filing of the complaint until possession of the property is restored to the plaintiff;
3. All other awards and pronouncements in the assailed decision are hereby affirmed.
SO ORDERED."
The proceedings arose from a complaint for unlawful detainer, with prayer for preliminary injunction and damages filed by herein private respondent Ma. Teresa Donato-Fernandez, representing Ma. Luisa Infante Vda. de Donato, against petitioner Gary Buenavente.
It appears from the evidence presented that petitioner came into possession of a parcel of land owned by the private respondents by virtue of a contract of lease executed by them as lessee and lessor, respectively, with a period from January 1, 1990 up to December 31, 1991 or two years. Subsequent contracts were later entered into, each time extending the period of the lease upon the same terms and conditions. Upon the termination of the period of the last lease agreement, private respondents notified the petitioner of the termination of the lease, and of their demand for petitioner vacate the leased premises. Despite such demand to vacate, petitioner refused and failed to deliver the possession of the subject property, prompting the private respondents to institute unlawful detainer proceedings in the MTCC.
Objecting to the private respondents action, petitioner essentially claimed that there was no valid civil lease contract existing between the parties. Also, the jurisdiction of the MTCC was impeached, on the ground that there existed a tenancy relation between him and the land owner.
In due course, the MTCC rendered its decision, where it was ruled that the petitioner's possession became illegal when he failed to deliver the leased premises to its owners when the last lease expired. The several contracts of lease executed by the parties were also upheld as valid, it being clear that the same were in plain and clear language and did not violate any law, morals, public order or public policy. The parties never intended to make the petitioner a tenant over the leased property.
The same findings were upheld by the RTC on appeal. The said court further explained that not all of the requisites for tenancy relationship were present. The RTC, however, modified the award of damages, such that only the reasonable rent or compensation for the use of the property in question was awarded to the private respondents.
Unhappy with the aforesaid rulings of the lower courts, petitioner is now before us on a petition for review, setting forth the following arguments:
1. THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 62, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGO CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED AND SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), IN BAGO CITY IN CIVIL CASE NO 1595 FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER, INVOLVING AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE OF TENANCY RELATIONSHIP AND CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988 NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE;
2. THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 62, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN BAGO CITY, COMMITTED AN ERROR, WHEN IT RULED THAT THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A TENANT, WHEN THE SAME IS NOT WITHIN ITS ORIGINAL OR APPELLATE JURISDICTION BUT A MATTER THAT SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR);
3. THAT, LIKEWISE, THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 62, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGO CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), IN BAGO CITY, IN ITS DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 1595 THAT THE CIVIL LAW LEASE CONTRACTS EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT WERE VALID CONTRACTS INSPITE OF THEIR NON-REGISTRATION WITH THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BAGO CITY; AND
4. THAT ALSO, THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 62, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGO CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, COMMITTED AN ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF BAGO CITY IN ITS DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 1595 WHEN THE SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORDS OF THE CASE.
After due study, the Court finds the petition to be without merit.
Contrary to the posturings of the petitioner, it is quite clear that the MTCC below had jurisdiction over the action filed before it. The complaint filed by the private respondents in the said court clearly set forth an action for unlawful detainer, which under prevailing procedural rules is exclusively cognizable by the inferior courts, including the MTCC below.
It is a basic rule of procedure that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. (Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 390 [1998])
A court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties, as done here by the petitioners. The court continues to have the authority to hear the evidence for the purpose precisely of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction. (Isidro v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503 [1993])
As held in a case of similar import, well-settled is the principle that the courts shall not be divested or jurisdiction over the case merely by what is raised in the answer. What determines the nature of an action and a court's jurisdiction over it are the allegations set up by the plaintiff. Basic is the rule that the material averments in the complaint, which in this case is for ejectment, determine the jurisdiction of the court. And jurisprudence dictates that the court does not lose its jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is the duty of the court to receive evidence to determine the veracity of allegations of tenancy. (Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia, 297 SCRA 354 [1998])
There is likewise no merit in the petitioner's assault on the lower court's finding that there existed no tenancy relationship in the instant case.
The requirements for the existence of tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowners 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. (Rovillos v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 400 [1998])
Unless a person establishes his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy law. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. Therefore, the intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important in establishing tenancy. (Isidro v. Court of Appeals, supra)
In the instant case, at the inception of the lease, and in all the time that the said lease was in effect, it was never the intention of the parties to enter into a tenancy relationship.
In all the civil lease contracts entered into by both the petitioner and the private respondents, it was the clear purpose of the said parties to enact only a relationship of civil lessor and lessee, and not otherwise. There was never any consent from either party to enter into a tenancy relationship.
Furthermore, as aptly pointed out below, our agrarian laws also require that the tenant farmer must cultivate the land personally or with the aid available from his immediate farm household. By immediate farm household, the law means the members of the family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in his activities, (De Jesus v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 175 SCRA 559 [1989]), and this should not extend to all his relatives, friends and in-laws, which is what transpired in the petitioner's case. It is highly improbable that all the 16.62 hectares that comprise the property in controversy were cultivated exclusively by the petitioner and his immediate family members.
In addition, the fact that neither the petitioner nor any of the persons that he claims to possess certain areas of the subject property are listed as tenants of the private respondents in the office of the Department of Agrarian Reform bolsters the conclusion that the petitioner is not the private respondents' tenant.
All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the validity of the findings and conclusion made by the lower court confirming the validity of the petitioner's ejectment from the property in controversy.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby DISMISSED. The appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Barcelona and Reyes, JJ., concur.