G.R. No. 160118 - NORBERTO RIMASUG, JOSE POLICINA, HERIBERTO DE LEON, GENEROSO SILANG, JESUS DEL MUNDO, PAULINO OLIVARES, LEONARDO CRUZ, DIONISIO ATIENZA AND NATIVIDAD HERMOSO, VS. MELENCIO MARTIN, BERNARDO SANTIAGO AND JUAN BAUTISTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly asked them to vacate within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the letter. Respondents refused to heed the demand, however, prompting petitioners to file on June 28, 1999 a complaint for unlawful detainer [19] against them before the MTC of Guiguinto. By their "Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses with Motion to Dismiss and Compulsory Counterclaim," [20] respondents claimed that they are the recognized and registered tenants of agricultural lands owned by the SMC to which they paid corresponding lease rentals; petitioners failed to comply with Sections 409(c) [21] and 412 [22] of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) requiring mandatory conciliation proceedings before the lupon; and the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case, it falling within the primary jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in accordance with Sections 4 and 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988). By Order of January 18, 2000, [23] the MTC, noting that some of petitioners reside in Metro Manila while the rest reside in Bulacan no particular details of which were furnished, [24] held that the case did not call for conciliation proceedings before the barangay before the case could be filed in court. On the issue of jurisdiction, the MTC, finding that the complaint "clearly alleges a situation where an occupant of land[,] at the mere tolerance of the owner, is asked to be evicted, upon the cessation of said tolerance," held that it was a "clear case of unlawful detainer" over which it had jurisdiction. It accordingly denied respondents' Motion to Dismiss. On the merits, by Decision of March 12, 2002, [25] the MTC held that respondents failed to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with petitioners who are the owners of the lots in question. [26] Accordingly, the MTC disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights under each or all of them to vacate the premises covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-143850, T-123637, T-143835, RT-56228 (T-143901), T-105730, RT-25934 (T-143828), RT-31362 (T-143820), RT-69550 (T-143843), and RT-66853 (T-143863), all of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan and to surrender to the respective plaintiffs or their successors-in-interest, their respective possessions of the land thus registered in said plaintiff's (sic) respective names. [27] (Underscoring supplied) Both parties appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan before which petitioners assailed the MTC's failure to grant attorney's fees and damages in the form of reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of their lots. [28] Respondents, on the other hand, again raised the issue of jurisdiction and, in any event, assailed the MTC decision as not in accordance with the facts and the evidence. [29] By Decision of October 9, 2002, [30] the RTC affi