Lawyerly

GR No. 191660

2012-12-03

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

To be sure, the tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations referred to may be established with the concurrence of the following: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[23]

GR No. 165676

2010-11-22

JOSE MENDOZA v. NARCISO GERMINO

BRION, J.

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[22] 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.[23]

GR No. 171253

2009-04-16

LAKEVIEW GOLF v. LUZVIMIN SAMAHANG NAYON

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which was denied on March 9, 2004. The appellate court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to adjudicate regarding the issue of the coverage of the subject property under the CARP since there is no tenancy relationship between the parties. It cited the case of Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, [15] where the Court held that for the DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must exist a tenancy relation between the parties. In this case, petitioner never recognized private respondents as farmworkers and cultivators of the subject property. The appellate court also found that the matter of exemption from CARP coverage had already been resolved in the negative by the DAR. The appellate court held:

GR No. 178672

2009-03-19

JULIO MERCADO v. EDMUNDO MERCADO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[29] Precisely, respondent filed the complaint against petitioner to question the regularity of the issuance to petitioner of the EP on which EP petitioner anchors his denial of the existence of a tenancy relationship. Ayo-Alburo v. Matobato[30] instructs:The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents may be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. Section 12(g) of P.D. 946 (issued on June 17, 1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D. 266. Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases was later lodged with the DARAB under Section 1 of Rule 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.[31] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Jurisdiction over a case does not thus disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued, for the issuance of such certificate is not a mode of transfer of property but merely an evidence of such transfer.[32]

GR NO. 169372

2006-12-06

NARCISO GUIANG v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is essential to establish the following indispensable elements: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[45] In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[46] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the DAR is limited to the following:a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;

GR NO. 166833

2006-11-30

FELIXBERTO CUBERO v. LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action, as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[15] In the determination of jurisdiction, the status or relationship of the parties, as well as the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy, is also considered.[16]

GR No. 162890

2005-11-22

HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In Morta, Sr. v. Occidental,[31] this Court held that there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. It is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the DAR is limited to the following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and c) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.[33] The petitioners themselves categorically admitted in their pleadings that there was no landlord-tenancy relationship between them and Alberto over the landholding. Nor did they have any tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations whatsoever when petitioners Leonora and her son Mario executed the deed of sale in May 1980 in favor of Alberto, nor when the petitioners filed their petition with the DARAB. The sole tenant-beneficiary over the landholding was Julian dela Cruz. There is no showing that before the execution of the deed of transfer/sale, Alberto was a tenant or farmer, or that he was landless.

GR No. 161973

2005-11-11

FRANCISCO RAMOS v. STATELAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the first issue, the Court finds that the MTC had jurisdiction over the respondent's action. It is axiomatic that the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court is to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint as well as the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.[27] The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the subject matter of the action is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission. Neither is it conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character.[28] Thus, the jurisdiction over the nature of an action and the subject matter thereof is not affected by the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or motion to dismiss.

GR NO. 132561

2005-06-30

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[28] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[29] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[30] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program

GR NO. 139254

2005-03-18

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[21] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Again in David v. Rivera,[22] this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB. Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. 6657 confers on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-A created the DARAB to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure enumerates the cases falling within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[23] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[24] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program

GR No. 119900

2001-08-16

SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. CA

PARDO, J.

What determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[12] "Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon a claim asserted therein - a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Neither can the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant."[13]

GR No. 109992

2000-03-07

HEIRS OF LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case of Morta v. Occidental, et al.,[10] this Court held:For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 885), we held that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.

	GR No. 191660 2012-12-03	DELIA T. SUTTON v. ROMANITO P. LIM PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To be sure, the tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations referred to may be established with the concurrence of the following: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[23]
	GR No. 165676 2010-11-22	JOSE MENDOZA v. NARCISO GERMINO BRION, J.
It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[22] 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.[23]
	GR No. 171253 2009-04-16	LAKEVIEW GOLF v. LUZVIMIN SAMAHANG NAYON QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals which was denied on March 9, 2004. The appellate court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to adjudicate regarding the issue of the coverage of the subject property under the CARP since there is no tenancy relationship between the parties. It cited the case of Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, [15] where the Court held that for the DARAB to have jurisdiction, there must exist a tenancy relation between the parties. In this case, petitioner never recognized private respondents as farmworkers and cultivators of the subject property. The appellate court also found that the matter of exemption from CARP coverage had already been resolved in the negative by the DAR. The appellate court held:
	GR No. 178672 2009-03-19	JULIO MERCADO v. EDMUNDO MERCADO CARPIO MORALES, J.
1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[29] Precisely, respondent filed the complaint against petitioner to question the regularity of the issuance to petitioner of the EP on which EP petitioner anchors his denial of the existence of a tenancy relationship. Ayo-Alburo v. Matobato[30] instructs:The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents may be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. Section 12(g) of P.D. 946 (issued on June 17, 1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D. 266. Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases was later lodged with the DARAB under Section 1 of Rule 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.[31] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Jurisdiction over a case does not thus disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued, for the issuance of such certificate is not a mode of transfer of property but merely an evidence of such transfer.[32]
	GR NO. 169372 2006-12-06	NARCISO GUIANG v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is essential to establish the following indispensable elements: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[45] In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[46] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the DAR is limited to the following:a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
	GR NO. 166833 2006-11-30	FELIXBERTO CUBERO v. LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE CARPIO MORALES, J.
It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action, as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[15] In the determination of jurisdiction, the status or relationship of the parties, as well as the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy, is also considered.[16]
	GR No. 162890 2005-11-22	HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Morta, Sr. v. Occidental,[31] this Court held that there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case. It is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the DAR is limited to the following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and c) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.[33] The petitioners themselves categorically admitted in their pleadings that there was no landlord-tenancy relationship between them and Alberto over the landholding. Nor did they have any tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations whatsoever when petitioners Leonora and her son Mario executed the deed of sale in May 1980 in favor of Alberto, nor when the petitioners filed their petition with the DARAB. The sole tenant-beneficiary over the landholding was Julian dela Cruz. There is no showing that before the execution of the deed of transfer/sale, Alberto was a tenant or farmer, or that he was landless.
	GR No. 161973 2005-11-11	FRANCISCO RAMOS v. STATELAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, the Court finds that the MTC had jurisdiction over the respondent's action. It is axiomatic that the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court is to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint as well as the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.[27] The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the subject matter of the action is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission. Neither is it conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character.[28] Thus, the jurisdiction over the nature of an action and the subject matter thereof is not affected by the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or motion to dismiss.
	GR NO. 132561 2005-06-30	PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[28] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[29] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[30] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program
	GR NO. 139254 2005-03-18	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Orders Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. In the relatively recent case of Rivera v. Del Rosario,[21] this Court cited Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure and reiterated that: The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Again in David v. Rivera,[22] this Court pointed out that the jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is now expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB. Indeed, Section 50 of R.A. 6657 confers on the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-A created the DARAB to assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure enumerates the cases falling within the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. In an earlier ruling rendered in the case of Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[23] reiterated in Morta, Sr. v. Occidental[24] and Heirs of the late Herman Rey Santos v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court decreed: Section 1 of Executive Order No. 229 sets out the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); it states that the program
	GR No. 119900 2001-08-16	SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. CA PARDO, J.
What determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[12] "Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon a claim asserted therein - a matter resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Neither can the jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant."[13]
	GR No. 109992 2000-03-07	HEIRS OF LATE HERMAN REY SANTOS v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case of Morta v. Occidental, et al.,[10] this Court held:For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 885), we held that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following: a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform; b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.

JAIME MORTA v. JAIME OCCIDENTAL