14.

SPOUSES ATUEL ET AL vs SPS VADEZ GR NO 139561 JUNE 10 2003

FACTS: Atty. Manuel D. Cab (Cab) is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Agusan del Sur. Cab
appointed Federico Atuel (Atuel) as administrator of the Cab Property. Cab and Valdez entered into a Lease
of Improved Agricultural Land under which Valdez leased a 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab Property for
P300.00 per year for two years. Cab allowed the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano to occupy a
2,000-square meter portion of the Cab Property. The Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano
constructed their respective houses on this 2,000-square meter lot.
TheS a n g g u n i a n g B a y a n o f S i b a g a t , A g u s a n d e l S u r , a p p r o v e d t h e t o w n p l a n which
classified the Cab Property as residential, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission.
C a b i n f o r m e d V a l d e z t h a t t h e i r l e a s e c o n t r a c t h a d a l r e a d y e x p i r e d , a n d deman
ded that Valdez stop cultivating the 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab Property and vacate the same. The MARO of
Sibagat, Agusan del Sur informed Cab that Valdez was properly identified as a tenant, and thus deemed to be
the owner of the land he cultivated and an emancipation patent was issued to Valdez covering the
subject lot of spouses Valdez and spouses Galdiano.
Cab filed with the DAR in Manila a petition for cancellation of Valdezs emancipation patent. The
S p o u s e s V a l d e z f i l e d a complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages with the
DARAB against the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano. In their complaint, the Spouses Valdez alleged
that the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano stealthily and throughfraud entered and
occupied a portion of the above-described property with an a r e a o f 2 , 0 0 0 s q . m .
m o r e o r l e s s . The Spouses Atuel and Spouses Galdiano maintained that the entire Cab
Property, which is covered by the Free Patent issued to Cab, has already been classified as residential, hence, no longer
covered by PD No. 27.
The DAR Agusan del Sur ordered to segregate the 2,000 SQ.METERS, more or less, from the
land of the complainants, which is covered by Emancipation Patent, and awarded the same to
the respondents; and ordered the case dismissed. Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano
appealed to the DARAB Central Office and
r e v e r s e d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e D A R A B P r o v i n c i a l A d j u d i c a t o r enjoining the resp
o n d e n t s - a p p e l l a n t s f r o m c o m m i t t i n g a c t s o f i n t r u s i o n a n d maintain the possessory rights of
the complainants over the EP covered land.
S p o u s e s A t u e l a n d t h e S p o u s e s G a l d i a n o f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r review with the Court of
Appeals and affirmed the decision of the DARAB Central Office and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
W O N t h e D A R A B h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t a k e c o g n i z a n c e o f t h e s p o u s e s Valdez s
complaint for recovery of possession of the Subject Lot.
HELD: T h e D A R A B h a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t a k e c o g n i z a n c e o f t h e S p o u s e s Valdezs
complaint for recovery of possession of the Subject Lot.
Though thep a r t i e s d o n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e D A R A B , t h e
C o u r t m a y motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The Court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB
validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by
law. It may not be conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise
would have no jurisdiction over thesubject matter of the action.
T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e D A R A B h a s e x c l u s i v e o r i g i n a l jurisdictio
n over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of registered emancipation patents.
However, the Spouses Valdezs complaint for recovery of possession does not involve or seek the
cancellation of any emancipation patent. It was the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano who
attacked the validity of
thee m a n c i p a t i o n p a t e n t a s p a r t o f t h e i r a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s i n t h e i r a n s w e r t o t h e com
plaint. The rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend on the defenses made

by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were the rule, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired
through, or waived by, anyact or omission of the parties. The active participation of the parties in the
proceedingsbefore the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is
conferredo n l y b y l a w . T h e c o u r t s o r t h e p a r t i e s c a n n o t d i s r e g a r d t h e r u l e o f n o n - w a i v e r
o f jurisdiction. Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that hasnone over a cause of
action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of theDARAB does not prevent this Court from addressing the
issue, as the DARABs lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint. Issues of jurisdiction are not
subject to the whims of the parties.
15. Jose Oca, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Sergio O. Abalos G.R. No. 144817 (March 7, 2002)
Facts: Petitioners Jose Oca and Isabelo Oca are the co-owners of a fishpond known in the locality as
the "Purong" property situated in Bolosan, Dagupan City. The four petitioners are the civil law lessees of another
called the "Salayog" property. Petitioner Jose Oca is also the sole and exclusive owner of two fishponds
commonly called the "Perew" and the "Fabian" properties.
Respondent Sergio O. Abalos claims to be the "share tenant-caretaker" of the above fishponds, asserting that he
had been in peaceful possession, cultivation and care of the aforesaid fishponds from the time he received the
same from the petitioners Oca brothers until the first week of May 1992 when he requested from them the share
of the harvest and instead of acceding, petitioners demanded that he vacate the lands.
A complaint for Peaceful Possession, Leasehold and Damages with Motion for the Issuance of Interlocutory
Order was filed by the respondent against the petitioner with the PARAD.
Petitioners in their answer denied that the respondent is a caretaker/tenant of the land. They acknowledged that
the respondent is merely an industrial partner who had waived his right as such, in consideration of the amount
of P140,000.00.
After due proceedings, the PARAD rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent declaring him as a bona fide
tenant of the subject fishponds. The above Decision was appealed by the petitioners to the DARAB but the
Board affirmed in toto the Decision of the PARAD.
Petitioners sought relief with the Court of Appeals and filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Appellate
Court modified the Decision ruling that the private respondent cannot be a tenant of the "Salayog" property, he
having sold his share and interest and had consequently, waived any interests he had thereon.

Issue: WON petitioners be permitted to impugn for the first time the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator at
this stage of the case?

Held: The well-entrenched rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined exclusively by the
Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be
acquired through, or waived or enlarged or diminished by, their act or omission; neither is it conferred by
acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard the
rule, this matter being legislative in character.
This rule on timing, however, is not absolute. In highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, estoppel or
waiver may operate as a shield to prevent a party from belatedly resorting to this form of defense. In the case at
bar, we find the petitioners guilty of estoppel by laches. In the first place, they never disputed the jurisdiction of
the Provincial Adjudicator at any stage of the proceeding: whether in the Provincial Office level, the DARAB, or
the Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the presence of numerous opportunities in the various stages of this case
to contest the adjudicator's exercise of jurisdiction, not once did they register a hint of protest. Neither can they
claim that they were prevented from contesting its jurisdiction during the eight years this case was under
litigation.
The ends of justice and equity require that petitioners should not be allowed to defeat the tenant's right by
belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction. Permitting petitioners to assail the jurisdiction of the Provincial
Adjudicator at this late stage of the case would mean rendering useless all the proceedings held below. A great

deal of time, effort and resources would be put to waste both on the part of the litigants and of the State. This is
especially oppressive for the respondent, a tenant who cannot afford the discomforts of a protracted litigation.
16. REMIGIO ISIDRO VS CA GR NO 105586
FACTS: Natividad Gutierrez owns a parcel of land, over which her sister Aniceta was an overseer.
Aniceta allowed Remigio Isidro to occupy the swampy portion of the land, so that he would have
enough income to meet hisfamilys needs, with thecondition that he vacate the property upon demand. Remigio
occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond.When Natividad demanded
Remigio to return the land, the latter refused to vacate, claiming that he had spent effort and invested capital in
converting the same into a fishpond. Thus, a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by Natividad.
However, it was dismissed bythe trial court, stating that theland is agricultural and is thus an
agrarian dispute under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian relations. The RTCaffirmed
the decision.The CA then reversed the lower courts, and ruled that there was no tenurial arrangement
betweenthe parties, and that Remigio only possessed the property by mere tolerance.
ISSUE: 1.W/N the parties have a tenurial arrangement .
2.
W/N the case falls under the DARABs jurisdiction

HELD: 1. NO. Based on the statutorydefinitions of a tenant or lessee,it is clear that there is no tenancy or
agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the parties. There was no contract
or agreement entered into byRemigio with Natividad nor with the overseer of the property, for Remigio to
cultivate the land for a price certain or to share hisharvests. Remigio failed to substantiate his claim that he
was paying rent for the use of the land.
2. NO. A case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute upon
which theDARAB has jurisdiction. Thelaw provides for conditions or requisites before the possessor
of the land can qualify as an agricultural lessee or tenant, and the land being agricultural is only one of them.
The law states that an agrarian dispute must be acontroversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands
devoted to agriculture. In the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly
within the jurisdiction of the MTC.