G.R. No. 165501 Case Digest

G.R. No. 165501, March 28, 2006

Spouses Jesus and Evangeline Pasco

vs Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corp.

Ponente: Carpio-Morales

Facts:

Pison-Arceo is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Negros Occidental, of which houses were constructed and occupied by its workers. Spouses Pasco, along with other workers have ceased to be employed in 1987, so Pison-Arceo asked them to vacate the house they occupy. Spouses refused to vacate, hence Pison-Arceo filed an unlawful detainer case in Talisay City.

In their answer, the workers claimed that they built the house they occupied at their own expense and their stay was upon the tolerance of the corporation. Pison-Arceo claimed that the houses built by the workers were destroyed by a typhoon, forcing them to built it at their expense. Pison demands for them to vacate as they had paid rental thru salary/wage deductions. The workers, on the other hand, say that their refusal to vacate is justified for they are owners and actual possessors.

MTC Talisay favored the corporation, saying that the corporation built the [original] houses for their workers without requiring for payment of rentals, but with an implied promise that the same be vacated upon cessation from work.

After the promulgation of the judgment, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Talisay sent a notice of coverage and filed investigation advising the corporation that the land is now covered under RA 6657. In the meantime, the workers have appealed the decision in RTC Bacolod.

The workers argued that the land is covered by CARL and that they are qualified beneficiaries and that it is material to the determination whether they are planters, sowers or builders in bad faith. Ultimately saying that MTCC has no jurisdiction. RTC Bacolod affirmed MTCC Talisay.

Workers filed a petition before the appellate court, attaching the copy of the notice of coverage and field investigation. In the mean time, MARO of Talisay declared Jesus Pasco as potential beneficiary of the land.

CA denied the petition of the workers, saying that the material averments in the petition were not raised in the trial court, making their contention untenable. MTCC Talisay does not lose jurisdiction over the case. Hence, this petition.

Issues:

1. Whether or not one who has been identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as potential agrarian reform beneficiary may be ejected from the land where he is identified as such, by the landowner, who has already been notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government.

2. Whether or not the foregoing issue involves an issue affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action or it involves primary jurisdiction.

3. Whether or not the matters involving jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action could be raised for the first time on appeal.

Ruling:

Although the issue of jurisdiction may be considered by the reviewing court at anytime, the mere issuance of notice of coverage does not automatically make the ejectment case an agrarian dispute. The issuance of notice of coverage is a mere preliminary step for the States acquisition of the land and does not automatically vests title or ownership of the land to the government.

Purpose of notice of coverage and field investigation is to identify the landholding and determine its suitability for agriculture and its productivity.

The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land. The potentiality of the beneficiary does not prevent the owner to exercise ownership also.