This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-06-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| To determine whether tenancy relationship exists, the concurrence of all the following essential requisites must be established by substantial evidence:[21] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. In the instant case, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano are not and do not claim to be the owners of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot where their houses are constructed. They also do not claim ownership to any other portion of the PD 27 Land. They and the Spouses Valdez have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that will bring this controversy within Section 3(d) of RA No. 6657.[31] The instant case is similar to Chico v. CA,[32] where this Court ruled that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over a case which did not involve any tenurial or agrarian relations between the parties. Since the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the present controversy, it should not have taken cognizance of the Spouses Valdez's complaint for recovery of possession. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.[33] Specifically, the regional trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve x x x possession of real property."[34] However, if the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over actions to recover possession of real property.[35] Moreover, the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. | |||||