Case Digest: VIRGILIO SINDICO and VIRGINIA TORCUATOR SINDICO v. HON. GERARDO D. DIAZ et al.

VIRGILIO SINDICO and VIRGINIA TORCUATOR SINDICO
v. HON. GERARDO D. DIAZ et al.

440 SCRA 50 (2004), THIRD DIVISION

Spouses Virgilio and Virginia Sindico (Sindico) sued respondents Felipe and Erlinda Sombrea (Sombrea) who refused to return the land owned by the former. The arrangement arose from the request of Sombrea‘s parents from the Sindicos that former will cultivate the disputed land in exchange of an income sharing.

After the death of the Sombrea‘s parents, Spouses Sindico demanded the return of the said land which brought about the suit filed with the Regional Trial Court. The Sombreas assailed the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case as they assert that the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has exclusive and original jurisdiction as provided under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

The RTC dismissed the case ruling in consonance with the Sombreas‘ contention and subsequently denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the spouses Sindico.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the pending case

HELD:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas set up by the defendant in his answer or in a motion to dismiss, otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent on his whims. The allegations in petitioner‘s complaint show that the action is one for recovery of possession, not one which involves an agrarian dispute.

Section 3(d) of RA 6657 or the CARP Law defines agrarian dispute over which the DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction as “refer[ing] to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture…”

That respondents only basis in assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court is that the subject matter of the case is an agricultural land and that they do not deny at all the allegation of the complaint of petitioners that there is no tenancy or leasehold agreement between them unmistakably show that there is no agrarian dispute to speak of over which the DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction.

Finally, since petitioners‘ action is one for recovery of possession and does not involve an agrarian dispute, the RTC has jurisdiction over it.