G.R. No. 191479 - JESUS VELASQUEZ, VS. SPOUSES PATERNO C. CRUZ AND ROSARIO CRUZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The April 15, 2008 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Branch 79, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The Regional Trial Court is hereby ordered to assume jurisdiction over the case and act on it with dispatch. [9] The appellate court ruled that petitioner failed to establish tenancy relationship between the parties. According to the appellate court, the elements of consent and sharing of harvest are lacking. Moreover, petitioner was held as unqualified to be a successor-tenant by virtue of hereditary succession because he is not among those listed under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, he being only a relative by affinity. In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner claimed absolute ownership over the disputed land by virtue of the issuance of an emancipation patent in his favor and the corresponding registration of the same With the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on 19 September 2008. Resultantly, petitioner argued that the issue of tenancy is now immaterial and any and all matters relating to the identification, qualification or disqualification of petitioner as a farmer-beneficiary, as well as the validity of his emancipation patent are in the nature of an agrarian dispute, hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. On 24 February 2010, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. [10] Aggrieved, petitioner file d the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari contending that the award of an emancipation patent in the name of petitioner is the best proof that Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has identified him as the bonafide successor of his deceased father-in-law, Navarro. Petitioner adds that by becoming the farmer-beneficiary and registered owner of the subject lot, the issue of the existence or non-existence of tenancy relationship between the parties has become moot and academic. Petitioner maintains that since Original Certificate of Title No. EP-992-C was issued pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and Operation Land Transfer, any and all actions pertaining to the right and obligation of petitioner in connection thereto is vested in DARAB which has primary and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction. Similarly, any and all matters relating to the identification, qualification or disqualification of petitioner as a farmer-beneficiary over the subject land and the validity of his emancipation patent over the same land are in the nature of an agrarian dispute beyond the jurisdiction of the RTC. Lastly, petitioner asserts that respondents had clearly recognized the authority of the DAR to take cognizance of the dispute between the parties when they had previously submitted the matter involved herein with the various DAR offices. Respondents counter that not all the elements of agricultural tenancy are present in this case. Petitioner could not have succeeded Navarro as tenant of respondents because he is not among those li