G.R. No. 170478 - SPS. TERESITO Y. VILLACASTIN AND LOURDES FUA VILLACASTIN, VS. PAUL PELAEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly reacquired possession thereof. [3] Meanwhile, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in Cebu rendered a decision in Reg. Case No. VII-76-C-90 dated February 15, 1993, in favor of the tenants, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing view, DECISION is hereby rendered as follows: Declaring complainants herein with the exception of Silbino Arranquez[,] Jr. and Claro Gilbuela who earlier withdraw from this case as bonafide tenant farmers of the parcels in question covered by P.D. [No.] 27; Declaring the mortgage executed by Sps. Paul and Elnora Pelaez to respondent DBP and the subsequent foreclosure and eventual sale thereof to Sps. Teresito and Lourdes Villacastin as null and void ab initio as it is contrary to law, public order and public policy; Declaring complainants herein to properly account their deposited shares/lease rentals before the DAR office of Bantayan[,] Cebu and deliver the said deposited [share/lease] rentals including the forthcoming harvest thereon to respondent landowners Sps. Paul and Elnora Pelaez with the assistance of the MARO of Bantayan, Madridejos, Cebu. No pronouncement as to cost. [4] This decision was affirmed by the DARAB in a Decision [5] dated February 22, 2000. On January 6, 2000, the MCTC rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 79 in favor of petitioners and disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant is hereby ordered: a) To return to plaintiffs possession of the parcel of land above-described and vacate the premises; b) To pay the costs of litigation; c) Moral and exemplary damages not recoverable in ejectment suit is denied; d) Expenses claimed not duly proven are disallowed; e) To release in favor of the plaintiffs the cash bond the sum of P5,000.00 deposited pursuant to the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. [6] In a Decision [7] dated March 10, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dakit, Bogo, Cebu, Branch 61, affirmed the MCTC decision. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that regular courts should respect the primary jurisdiction vested upon the DARAB in cases involving agricultural lands such as the property subject of this case. Accordingly, it set aside the decision rendered by the RTC and the MCTC, and dismissed the complaint for forcible entry filed by petitioners in this case. The appellate court denied reconsideration in its Resolution [8] dated November 11, 2005. Petitioners contend that Civil Case No. 79 did not involve any agrarian matter and thus, the MCTC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the case. In his Comment [9] dated March 21, 2006, respondent underscores the fact that the parcels of land subject of this case are tenanted agricultural lands. Before judgment was rendered in the forcible entry case, the tenants of the property already filed a suit with the DARAB for the annulment of the real estate mortgage executed by respondent over the same in favor of DBP and the subsequent foreclosure an