Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation owns a large parcel of land where it provides housing for its workers. Petitioners, Spouses Jesus and Evangeline Pasco, were formerly employed by the respondent. Upon their cessation of employment in 1987, they were asked to vacate the house they occupied, but they refused. The respondent subsequently filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. The petitioners claimed they built the house at their own expense and occupied it with the respondent's tolerance, asserting ownership and justification for their refusal to vacate. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises, remove their improvements, and pay monthly rentals and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC decision with modification. The petitioners then moved for reconsideration, arguing that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction due to an agrarian dispute. The RTC denied this motion. Subsequently, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition for review. The petitioners now bring the case before the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review of the Court of Appeals' decision through a Petition for Review on Certiorari. They raise issues concerning whether a potential agrarian reform beneficiary identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) can be ejected by a landowner who has been notified of the land's coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). They also question whether this involves an issue affecting the court's jurisdiction or primary jurisdiction, and whether such jurisdictional matters can be raised for the first time on appeal. The petitioners contend that the issuance of a Notice of Coverage by the DAR and their registration as potential CARP beneficiaries should have divested the lower courts of jurisdiction over the ejectment case.
Issue(s)
Whether the issuance of a Notice of Coverage by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) converts the land into an agrarian reform area, thereby divesting the municipal courts of jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case. Whether the petitioners' status as potential agrarian reform beneficiaries creates an agrarian dispute that deprives the MTCC of jurisdiction. Whether the issue of jurisdiction, not raised before the trial court, can be raised for the first time on appeal. Whether a landowner loses the right to eject occupants by tolerance when the land is covered by CARL and the occupants are potential beneficiaries.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the municipal court retained jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and agrarian dispute: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of a court in ejectment cases is determined by the material averments in the complaint. The issuance of a Notice of Coverage by the DAR is merely a preliminary step for the State's acquisition of the land for agrarian reform purposes and does not automatically divest the landowner of its rights or convert the case into an agrarian dispute. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the Notice of Coverage involves further investigation and determination by the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines, and does not ipso facto render the land a land reform area. Therefore, the municipal court did not lose its jurisdiction over the ejectment case. On the status of potential agrarian reform beneficiaries: The Court clarified that being a "potential" CARP beneficiary does not confer vested rights over the land. Rights and responsibilities of a beneficiary commence only from the time the DAR makes an award of the land, evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award. Since the records did not show any award made in favor of the petitioners, they could not claim any vested rights that would prevent their ejectment. Allowing them to remain would also create a precedent for other potential beneficiaries to occupy lands before any award is made, which is contrary to the principles of agrarian reform. On the change of theory on appeal: While the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may generally be raised at any stage of the proceedings, the Court noted that the petitioners' theory on jurisdiction and agrarian dispute evolved throughout the different levels of the courts. The Court reiterated the rule that a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which a case is tried and decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change theory on appeal. However, it acknowledged the exception for issues of jurisdiction, but found that in this case, the subsequent events (Notice of Coverage and potential beneficiary status) did not automatically oust the MTCC of its jurisdiction. On the landowner's right to eject: The Court affirmed that persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract, are bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand. Failing to do so makes them subject to a summary action for ejectment. The fact that the petitioners occupied the land by tolerance of the respondent, who is the registered owner, established the basis for the unlawful detainer suit. The subsequent issuance of the Notice of Coverage did not extinguish this right to eject unlawful possessors.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a Notice of Coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) does not automatically divest the landowner of its right to eject unlawful possessors, nor does it automatically convert an ejectment case into an agrarian dispute. A potential CARP beneficiary does not acquire vested rights until an award is made by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).