In his answer, respondent averred that he was a farmer

beneficiary of a homelot composed of the subject parcels of land. He

alleged that the petitioners unlawfully reclassified the lot from
[G.R. No. 152978. March 4, 2005] agricultural to residential, subdivided it, and evicted the tenants.
Respondent also stated that the same lots were the subject of
DARAB Case No. R-03-028101-98.
On August 21, 1998, the MTC decided Civil Case No. 2288 in
ANICIA U. TECSON, CLEMENT MARSIANEL TECSON and favor of petitioners. It ruled that respondent cannot claim entitlement
VIRGINIA GRECIL TECSON, petitioners, vs. DANTE to acquire the subject lot as his homelot for the following reasons: (1)
GUTIERREZ, respondent. respondent was not a tenant-farmer of the petitioners; (2) the land
was residential and not agricultural, and the respondent was using it
DECISION for purposes other than agricultural; (3) the subject lot was far from
respondents farm; and (4) no certification was issued by the
QUISUMBING, J.:
Department of Agrarian Reform that the land was respondents
homelot.[4] The MTC ordered respondent to vacate the premises and
The Decision[1] dated January 31, 2002 of the Court of Appeals to pay petitioners a monthly rental of P800 beginning January 1997
in CA-G.R. SP No. 60627 set aside that of the Regional Trial Court, until he vacates the premises.[5]
Branch 83, Malolos, Bulacan, in Civil Case Nos. 47-M-99 and 48-M-
99, and dismissed the complaints in Civil Case Nos. 2287 and 2288 On August 24, 1998, the MTC likewise decided Civil Case No.
before the Municipal Trial Court of San Miguel, Bulacan. 2287 in favor of petitioners based on the same reasons. The MTC
ordered the respondent to vacate the parcel of land and to pay
The factual milieu of the present case is as follows: petitioners four cavans of palay or its equivalent per annum
On August 21, 1997, petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful beginning 1995 and every year thereafter until he vacates the
detainer against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) subject land.[6]
docketed as Civil Case No. 2287.[2] They alleged that they were the Respondent appealed the decisions to the Regional Trial Court
owners of a residential lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (RTC). He maintained that it is the Department of Agrarian Reform
(TCT) No. T-62466, which they leased to respondent for and in Adjudication Board (DARAB), not the MTC, which has jurisdiction
consideration of four cavans of palay yearly under an oral lease over the actions. The RTC, however, affirmed in toto the MTC
agreement. The lot was to be used by the respondent as the site of decisions.[7]
his dwelling. They declared that starting the year 1995, respondent
failed to pay the yearly rental. Thus, they considered the lease Undaunted, respondent elevated the cases to the Court of
terminated and made oral and written demands on him to vacate the Appeals in a consolidated petition for review.[8] The latter reversed
property. Respondent, however, stubbornly refused to leave. the rulings of the RTC and dismissed the complaints in Civil Case
Nos. 2287 and 2288 for lack of jurisdiction.[9] The Court of Appeals
On the same day, petitioners also filed a complaint for forcible ruled that the case involved agrarian reform matters which should be
entry against respondent before the MTC docketed as Civil Case No. resolved by the DARAB and not by the MTC. The Court of Appeals
2288.[3] They charged him of occupying, since January 1997, a also declared that the application of agrarian reform laws does not
portion of their residential lot under TCT No. T-62465, without their depend on the existence of a tenancy relationship between the
consent. This lot is adjacent to the subject lot of Civil Case No. 2287. contending parties and that an agrarian reform beneficiary is entitled
to a homelot even when the property where the homelot is located For his part, respondent maintains that only the DARAB has
belongs to a person other than his landlord. jurisdiction to determine whether he is entitled to the homelot or not.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of At the outset, we must point out that this appeal stemmed from
Appeals decision, but it was denied. [10] Hence, this appeal ejectment suits wherein the jurisdiction of the court is determined by
by certiorarialleging that the Court of Appeals erred when: the allegations in the complaint[12] and the character of the relief
sought.[13] In their complaint for unlawful detainer, petitioners alleged
I . . .IT ORDERED THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE DECISIONS that the respondent unlawfully withheld possession of the land
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS, despite several demands on him to vacate the premises, and that
BULACAN AND THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. these demands were made after the latter failed to pay the rent.
2287 AND CIVIL CASE NO. 2288 OF THE MUNICIPAL Likewise, in their complaint for forcible entry, petitioners averred that
TRIAL COURT, SAN MIGUEL, BULACAN; respondent deprived them of physical possession of the land by
means of stealth and strategy. Based on the averments in the
complaint, the Municipal Trial Court indeed properly acquired
II . . . IT RULED THAT IT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF
jurisdiction over the cases below between herein petitioners
AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD THAT
and the respondent.
HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.[11]
Although respondent impugned the validity of petitioners title
Simply put, for resolution now are the issues of jurisdiction and over the property and claimed it to be his homelot, this assertion
of rightful possession. As they are interrelated, we will discuss them could not divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment
together. cases.[14] The court could not be divested of jurisdiction over the
ejectment cases on the mere allegation that the defendant asserts
Petitioners point out that a homelot is a parcel of agricultural ownership over the litigated property.[15] Moreover, a pending action
land used by the agrarian reform beneficiary as the site of his involving ownership of the same property does not bar the filing or
permanent dwelling. Since the lots in question were residential, consideration of an ejectment suit, nor suspend the
petitioners assert that they could not be the subject of land proceedings.[16] The ejectment cases can proceed independently of
distribution under CARP, the comprehensive agrarian reform the DARAB case. The underlying reason for this rule is to prevent
program. the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment
Petitioners aver that respondent was not their tenant but suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed
another landowners, hence they had no tenancy relationship with property.[17]
respondent. They claim that respondent was occupying their land as It is settled that the only issue for resolution in ejectment suits is
a mere civil lessee. the physical or material possession of the property involved,
As there was no tenurial relationship between them and that the independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party
land involved was residential, petitioners contend that the case does litigants.[18] In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the
not involve an agrarian dispute and that jurisdiction was properly with defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the
the MTC. Moreover, petitioners maintain that jurisdiction is question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the
determined by the allegations in the complaint and not by the issue of ownership, the MTC, nonetheless, has the undoubted
defense raised in respondents answer. competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the
sole purpose of determining the issue of possession.[19]
 Going to the issue of rightful possession now, n our view,
petitioners are entitled to possess the parcels of land. For
respondent failed to show that the land had been awarded to him by
the Department of Agrarian Reform as his homelot. There is ,
instead, preponderance of evidence shown before the trial court in
favor of petitioners claim. They were able to show Transfer
Certificate of Titles in their names, whereas the respondent had none
but bare assertions.
We must stress, however, that before us is only the initial
determination of ownership over the lot in dispute, for the purpose of
settling the issue of possession, although the issue of ownership is
inseparably linked thereto.[20] As such, the lower courts adjudication
of ownership in the ejectment case is merely provisional, and our
affirmance of the trial courts decisions as well, would not bar or
prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the
property,[21] if and when such action is brought seasonably before the
proper forum.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision
dated January 31, 2002 and the Resolution dated April 16, 2002 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 60627 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The decisions of the Municipal Trial Court which have
been sustained by the Decisions dated January 31, 2000 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case Nos.
47-M-99 and 48-M-99 are REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.