Title
Active Realty and Development Corp. vs. Ferdez
Case
G.R. No. 157186
Decision Date
Oct 19, 2007
The Supreme Court resolved a jurisdictional dispute by ordering an occupant to vacate a parcel of land in a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by a realty corporation.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 125028)

Facts:

  • The case involves Active Realty and Development Corporation (petitioner) and Bienvenido Fernandez (respondent).
  • The dispute concerns a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-85541.
  • The petitioner claims to have acquired the land from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) through a Deed of Sale.
  • On November 27, 1997, the petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the respondent.
  • The petitioner alleged that the respondent occupied the land with the previous owner's tolerance and failed to vacate despite a demand letter sent on March 6, 1997.
  • The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod City ruled in favor of the petitioner on July 27, 1998, ordering the respondent to vacate and pay damages.
  • The respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, which reversed the MTCC's ruling on February 3, 2000, citing lack of jurisdiction due to an agrarian dispute.
  • The RTC stated that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) had primary jurisdiction over agrarian issues as per the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657).
  • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision on May 30, 2002.
  • The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, challenging the CA's ruling and jurisdictional issues.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA's decision, and reinstated the MTCC's ruling, affirming the jurisdiction o...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court determined that the case did not involve an agrarian dispute that would remove jurisdiction from regular courts.
  • The Court noted that the respondent did not establish a tenancy relationship, which is necessary to invoke agrarian laws.
  • The respondent was not a party to the agrarian case he cited, lacking standing to claim that the DAR had primary jurisdiction.
  • The investigation re...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.