Title
Velasquez vs. Spouses Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 191479
Decision Date
Sep 21, 2015
Petitioner occupied respondents' land without consent, claiming tenancy rights. Court ruled no tenancy relationship existed, affirming RTC jurisdiction for recovery of possession. Emancipation patent issuance did not resolve jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142961)

Facts of the Case

The respondents, Spouses Paterno and Rosario Cruz, are the registered owners of a four-hectare parcel of land situated in Barangay Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, under Tax Declaration No. 020-10-022-11-027. On May 7, 2007, they filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Accounting and Damages against petitioner Jesus Velasquez, alleging that Velasquez unlawfully occupied their farmland without consent after the tenant, Bernabe Navarro, relinquished his tenancy rights in 1985. The respondents asserted that Velasquez had not paid any rent since 1985 and had refused to vacate the property even when they leased it to another party, Godofredo Tosco, in 1995.

Petitioner’s Defense and Initial Ruling

In his Answer, the petitioner claimed that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and argued he was a tenant, having assisted Navarro since 1975 and continued to cultivate the land after Navarro's death. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City initially dismissed the case, stating a lack of jurisdiction over the agrarian dispute.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contending that the RTC's dismissal was improper as they had established the absence of a tenancy relationship. The appellate court found merit in the appeal, ultimately reversing the RTC's decision and ordering the RTC to assume jurisdiction over the case, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an existing tenancy relationship.

Petitioner’s Claim of Ownership

After the appellate court's initial ruling, the petitioner registered ownership of the subject land under Original Certificate of Title No. EP-992-C and indicated that the issuance of his emancipation patent further negated any questions regarding the existence of a tenancy relationship. He asserted that since he became a farmer-beneficiary, any dispute about tenancy should be deemed moot.

Jurisdictional Dispute

The core issue remained whether the RTC or DARAB had jurisdiction over the case. R.A. No. 6657 assigns primary jurisdiction over agrarian disputes to DARAB, specifically concerning matters involving the rights and obligations of those engaged in the management and cultivation of agricultural lands. The appellate court determined that a true tenancy relationship must be established; otherwise, the RTC retains jurisdiction to hear the possession claim.

Requirements for Tenancy Relationship

For a tenancy agreement to exist, several elements must be established, including mutual consent, the cultivation of land by the tenant, and sharing of harvests. The Court of Appeals found that none of these elements were sufficiently proven by the petitioner. His occupancy alone did not equate to recognized tenancy, and he failed to demonstrate any actual sharing of harvests with the owners.

Conclusion of the Court’s Analysis

The Court of Appeals upheld

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.