G.R. No. 165676 - JOSE MENDOZA,*, VS. NARCISO GERMINO AND BENIGNO GERMINO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that pending the resolution of the issue in this case, a restraining order be issued RESTRAINING, ENJOINING, or STOPPING the defendant or any person/s acting in his behalf, from ENTERING OR OCCUPYING the parcel of land, or any portion thereof, described in paragraph 3 of this complaint, nor in any manner committing, performing or suffering to be committed or, performed for him, by himself or thru another, any act indicative of, or tending to show any color of possession in or about the premises subject of this suit; THEREAFTER, making said writ of preliminary injunction PERMANENT; and on plaintiffs damages, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the sum alleged in paragraph 10 above. GENERAL RELIEFS ARE LIKEWISE PRAYED FOR. [33] Based on these allegations and reliefs prayed, it is clear that the action in the MTC was for forcible entry. Allegation of tenancy does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction Although respondent Narciso averred tenancy as an affirmative and/or special defense in his answer, this did not automatically divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the complaint. It continued to have the authority to hear the case precisely to determine whether it had jurisdiction to dispose of the ejectment suit on its merits. [34] After all, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. [35] Under the RRSP, the MTC is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary conference [36] and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if such tenancy relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue. [37] The MTC may even opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative defense of the defendant, although under the RRSP, such a hearing is not a matter of right. [38] If it is shown during the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. [39] In the present case, instead of conducting a preliminary conference, the MTC immediately referred the case to the DARAB. This was contrary to the rules. Besides, Section 2 [40] of P.D. No. 316, which required the referral of a land dispute case to the Department of Agrarian Reform for the preliminary determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship, has indeed been repealed by Section 76 [41] of R.A. No. 6657 in 1988. Amended complaint did confer jurisdiction on the DARAB Neither did the amendment of the complaint confer jurisdiction on the DARAB. The plaintiffs alleged in the amended complaint that the subject property was previously tilled by Efren Bernardo, and the respondents took possession by strategy and stealth, without their knowledge and consent. In the absence of any allegation of a tenancy relationship between the parties, the action was for recovery of pos