SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 37040. December 8, 1995.]
VICTORINO BASCO, petitioner, vs. HON. CEZAR A. BORDEOS, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 16, Tabaco, Albay, and ADORACION BELANO, represented by her Attorney-in-fact, ISIDRO BELANO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, R. T., J p:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court 1 sustaining the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, 2 finding the petitioner to be a non-tenant of the riceland in question and ordering him to vacate the premises. 3
No comment having been filed by private respondent, the petition is now ripe for decision.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Private respondent Adoracion Belano is the registered owner of a parcel of irrigated riceland located in Gogon-San Pedro, Bacacay, Albay. The riceland was tenanted and cultivated by the late Agapito Basco. Prior to his death, Agapito transferred his tenancy rights over the property to petitioner Victorino Basco, without the consent of private respondent. Petitioner thereafter stealthily entered private respondent's property and started cultivating it, without the knowledge and consent of private respondent. Private respondent made repeated demands, both oral and written, for the petitioner to vacate the property. The latter, however, refused to heed the demands, thus, forcing private respondent to file the ejectment case. 4
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court ordered petitioner to vacate the premises. 5 On appeal, the Regional Trial Court sustained the findings of the inferior court. 6 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the Regional Trial Court. 7
Hence, this appeal by way of petition for review.
Essentially, the petitioner contends that (1) he is entitled to the possession of the subject property, he being a tenant thereof, and (2) the Municipal Circuit Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, it being agrarian in nature. 8
The petition is bereft of merit.
FIRST. After a thorough perusal of the records, we find that the petitioner is not entitled to the possession of the subject property.
. . . a person deprived of possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, or a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at anytime, within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper inferior court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the reconstitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. . . . 9
In the case at bench, it appears that petitioner Victorino Basco stealthily entered private respondent's riceland and started cultivating it, without the knowledge and consent of the private respondent. 10
Petitioner Victorino Basco thus committed a forcible entry and could, therefore, be validly ejected from the premises pursuant to Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioner's allegation that "he has been tolerated to cultivate the land in question and later on instituted as tenant of the same land" 11 lacks factual and legal basis. It is beyond cavil that when private respondent learned about petitioner's illegal entry and cultivation of the land in question, private respondent made repeated demands for the petitioner to vacate, the last of which being on August 10, 1993. 12 It is also indubitable that there is no tenancy relationship between petitioner Victorino Basco and private respondent Adoracion Belano. It is admitted by the petitioner that the tenant of the land was Agapito Basco; 13 that the transfer of the tenancy rights and possession from Agapito Basco to petitioner Victorino Basco was made without prior knowledge and consent of private respondent Adoracion Belano. 14 Thus, respondent judge correctly ruled that "petitioner cultivated and possessed the property in question through a mode prohibited by law and from which no right could emanate . . . To allow mortgaging of tenancy rights would be deprivatory of the landowner's right to select who his tenant would be . . .." 15
xxx xxx xxx
SECOND. We agree with respondent judge that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bacacay-Malilipot, has jurisdiction to try the ejectment case.
It has been held in a long line of decisions that forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases fall within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts, regardless of the amount of rentals and damages. This is explicitly provided for in B.P. 129 (Sec. 33) and R.A. 7691, the latter expanding the jurisdiction of the inferior courts.
Petitioner's contention that the Department of Agrarian Reform (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) and not the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, 16 has jurisdiction to try the case, is devoid of merit. The DAR can validly acquire jurisdiction only when there is a landlord-tenant relationship. In the instant case, the tenancy right of the petitioner was not sufficiently established. One of the obvious requisites for the existence of a tenancy relationship is consent between the parties on the subject matter of the tenancy. Petitioner Victorino Basco was never instituted as tenant of the subject riceland. His "continued stay in the property after the execution of Annex A (complaint) could not be taken to mean as acquiescence or admission on the part of the plaintiff (private respondent) of his tenancy rights over the land. . . . it was the result of their agreement . . . to till the land as a hired help (contract worker) on a season-to-season basis, with his compensation to be taken from the produce every harvest". 17
There being no landlord-tenant relationship between petitioner and the private respondent, the DAR cannot validly acquire jurisdiction over the case. As held in Isidro vs. Court of Appeals, 18 . . . "in the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, as provided in Sec. 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129."
Petitioner further argues that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bacacay-Malilipot has no jurisdiction over the case because there was no conciliation proceeding before the Barangay Lupon.
The argument is untenable. R.A. 7160, which requires conciliation proceedings before the Barangay Lupon, is only a condition precedent, and not a jurisdictional requirement. Said the Supreme Court in Felizardo vs. Court of Appeals, 19
"While referral of a case to the Lupon Tagapayapa is a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in court, non-compliance therewith cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has already acquired over the subject matter and over the person of the defendant."
Since the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bacacay-Malilipot took cognizance of the case even without conciliation proceeding before the Lupon, it can validly acquire jurisdiction and decide the case on the merits.
Finally, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court when he asked for affirmative relief in his counterclaim. Settled is the rule that one who attacks the jurisdiction of the court cannot ask the same court for relief, for it would be inconsistent to ask the court for relief and at the same time, attack it for acting without jurisdiction.
"Generally, jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be conferred by consent of the parties or by their failure to object to the lack of it. However, one who submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court even where he would otherwise be subject to suit becomes subject to any valid claim asserted against him directly relating to the subject matter of his voluntarily initiated proceeding . . . a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that jurisdiction". 20
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Abad-Santos Jr. * and Vasquez Jr.** , JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. RTC, Tabaco, Albay, Branch 16, presided by Judge Cezar A. Bordeos.
2. MCTC, Bacacay-Malilipot, Bacacay, Albay, Fifth Judicial Region.
3. RTC Decision, pp. 1-3; Rollo pp. 40-42.
4. Complaint, pp. 1-2; Rollo pp. 13-14.
5. MCTC Decision, pp. 3-4; Rollo pp. 37-38.
6. RTC Decision, pp. 1-3; Rollo pp. 40-42.
7. RTC Order, p. 1; Rollo p. 46.
8. Petition and Rollo, p. 5.
9. Sec. 1, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court.
10. MCTC Decision, p. 3; Rollo p. 40.
11. Answer, p. 1; Rollo p. 16.
12. Plaintiff's Position Paper, p. 1; Rollo p. 31.
13. Defendant's Position Paper, p. 1, Rollo p. 19.
14. Plaintiff's Position Paper, p. 1, Rollo p. 31.
15. RTC Decision pp. 2-3; Rollo pp. 41-42.
16. Petition and Rollo pp. 10-11.
17. Plaintiff's Position Paper, p. 3; Rollo p. 33.
18. 228 SCRA 503 (Dec. 15, 1993).
19. 233 SCRA 220 (June 15, 1994).
20. Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29; Lee vs. Presiding Judge, 145 SCRA 408.
* Acting Chairman. Vice Justice A.B. Buena on leave, per Office Order No. 153-95-DP.
** Acting Third Member. Vice Justice C.Y. Santiago on leave, per Office Order 152-95-DP.