[ OCTAVIO VS. PEROVANO, G.R. No. 172400 , June 23, 2009]
ejectment vs. agrarian dispute
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the law at the time the action is commenced, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. It cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.
A scrutiny of the material allegations in respondent’s complaint before the MTCC shows that it involves possession de facto, the only issue involved in ejectment proceedings. Enrico alleged he is the lawful and registered owner of Lot No. 412 and that on or before the first week of January 1999, petitioners Zosimo and Jesus, by threat, intimidation, strategy and stealth, entered the premises of the land, ploughed it and started planting sugarcane
Records show that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) promulgated on June 3, 2005 a Decision ruling that Zosimo and Jesus are not recognized farmer-beneficiaries. Without waiting for an award of any CLOA, complainants-appellants occupied the landholding. The acts of the complainants-appellants are similar to that of land grabbing. The agrarian reform law is not enacted to give license to anybody to grab somebody else’s land. Neither [is it] enacted to protect the land grabbers or the squatters (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners’ argument that the case involves an agrarian matter divesting the regular courts of jurisdiction therefore has no merit. They are not farmer-beneficiaries but mere usurpers of the land.
Clearly, therefore, the action is one for ejectment and the MTCC has jurisdiction over it.
