IRENE D. OFILADA vs. SPS.

RUBEN AND MIRAFLOR ANDAL

G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015,

FACTS:

Ofilada, together with her husband, brought from the heirs of Teresita Liwag a parcel of land
principally planted with rambutan and coconut trees, evidenced by an extra -judicial settlement
of estate with absolute sale wherein Miraflor Andal signed as “tenant”. Ten days prior to the said
sale, Andal appeared before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council Chairman and executed a
Pagpapatunay stating that the land would be transferred to Ofilada.

Two weeks after the said sale, Miraflor executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein she
acknowledged the Ofiladas as the new owner of the property and waived any tenancy rights she
might have.

Eight years later, Ofilada filed a complaint for ejectment and damages before the MTC against
spouses Andal, averring that the spouses were mere caretakers of her lands and as such, there is
no agrarian dispute. On the other hand, spouses Andal claimed that they were tenants of Irene’s
predecessor in interest and continued to be such despite the transfer of ownership of the
properties and that DARAB should have jurisdiction, not the MTC.

MTC ruled that spouses Andal failed to adduce proof that they are tenants. This was affirmed by
the RTC. The CA held that the existence of tenancy relations between previous owners and
spouses Andal was undisputed, the question of whether they can be dispossessed constitutes an
agrarian dispute despite the severance of such relations, so jurisdiction remains with DARAB.

ISSUE: Whether or not a tenancy relationship between Ofilada and spouses Andal exists as to
strip the MTC of its jurisdiction over the suit for unlawful detainer

HELD: NO. The relationship was severed prior to the purchase by way of an express
declaration.

The tenancy relationship between the former owners of the properties and the spouses Andal was
clearly severed prior to Irene’s purchase of the same. Both the Pagpapatunay  and Sinumpaang
Salaysay contain express declarations which evidence that at the time the property was bought
by Ofilada, the tenancy relationship between spouses Andal and Liwag had already ceased and
that no such relations would continue between spouses Andal and Ofilada. Furthermore, Miraflor
executed her Pagpapatunay stating that she and her parents have received sufficient
consideration for her to release her landlord and new purchaser from liability. As such, no
relationship was subsequently created between Irene and spouses Andal.

As to whether a new tenancy relationship exists between Ofilada and spouses Andal, there was
dearth of evidence to prove that a tenurial relationship exists.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, requires that in actions for forcible entry, it must be
alleged that the complainant was deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and that the action was filed anytime within one year
from the time the unlawful deprivation of possession took place. As such, the complainant must
allege and prove prior physical possession (in the concept of possession de facto, or actual or
material possession and not one flowing out of ownership) of the property in litigation until he or
she was deprived thereof by the defendant. In this regard, it has been settled that tax declarations
and realty tax payments are not conclusive proofs of possession. They are merely good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in one’s right mind
would be paying taxes for a property that is not in one’s actual or constructive possession.
The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. The fact alone
of working on another’s landholding does not raise a presumption of the existence of agricultural
tenancy. For tenancy to be proven, all indispensable elements must be established, namely: 1) the
parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject is agricultural land; 3) there is consent by
the landowner; 4) the purpose is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation; and 6)
there is sharing of the harvests. The first and sixth element were not sufficiently proven, thus no
tenancy relationship so the action to dispossess spouses Andal is cognizable by MTC.

The material averments in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of a court. A court does not
lose jurisdiction over an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense
therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties.