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.
