ENRICO S. ZAFRA, FRANCISCO B. BATAL AND MARLYN M. BANGCONG, PETITIONERS, VS. CARLOS R. CRUZ AND FRANCISCO SANTIAGO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Zafra versus Cruz

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Enrico Zafra, Francisco Batal, and Marlyn Bangcong against Carlos Cruz and Francisco Santiago, Jr., arising from a complaint for forcible entry over a private market in Bocaue, Bulacan. The petitioners were the defendants below; the respondents, the plaintiffs who claim ownership of the Santiago-Cruz Private Market. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every examinee must command on jurisdiction over ejectment suits, on what truly constitutes an agrarian dispute, and on when forum shopping and res judicata may be invoked as grounds for dismissal.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for forcible entry with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction before the Municipal Trial Court of Bocaue, Bulacan. The Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment for the respondents, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and to pay reasonable compensation for their occupation. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 83, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in its entirety. From that affirmance, the petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Facts

The respondents alleged that they own the Santiago-Cruz Private Market, covered by a transfer certificate of title registered with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. On May 6, 2009, the petitioners, aided by a deputy sheriff and by laborers and other persons, forcibly entered the property, removed the market's enclosure, installed their own barbed wire, and opened a passage through the market. Thereafter, the petitioner Bangcong erected a building on the property to operate a beerhouse. Despite demand, the petitioners refused to vacate.

The petitioners answered that the petitioner Zafra owns a separate parcel of land registered in his name, which he inherited from his father, Simeon Zafra. The father had been declared the bona fide tenant of the landholding in a decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, which the Supreme Court affirmed. The petitioners claimed that the respondents blocked the execution of that agrarian decision, first by filing this ejectment case and later by causing the dispossession of the petitioner Zafra through a resolution of a provincial adjudicator.

The petitioners set up forum shopping, res judicata in reference to the agrarian case, lack of jurisdiction because the controversy is an agrarian dispute, lack of cause of action, and the claim that their entry was by virtue of a writ of execution issued by the agrarian board. Both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court rejected these defenses, finding no agrarian complexion and no forum shopping, and the petitioners came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court validly assumed jurisdiction over the complaint for forcible entry despite the petitioners' claim that the controversy is an agrarian dispute.
• Whether or not the respondents are guilty of forum shopping on the ground that res judicata had already set in by reason of the agrarian case and the motion filed before the agrarian adjudicator.

Applicable Provisions

Section 50 of Republic Act Number 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, defines the adjudicatory power of the Department of Agrarian Reform:

Sec. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. – The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

This provision fixes the boundary of the agrarian board's jurisdiction, which the petitioners invoke and which the Court measures against the allegations of the complaint.

Section 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs the certification against forum shopping and provides:

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.- The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

This provision supplies the consequence of willful forum shopping and anchors the Court's inquiry into whether the elements of litis pendencia or res judicata are present.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and by the Constitution and the law alone. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act of the parties, nor acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by their acts or omissions, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act as amended, the Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The agrarian board, on the other hand, has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, which require the concurrence of all the essential requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship: that the parties are the landowner and the tenant; that the subject is agricultural land; that there is consent; that the purpose is agricultural production; that there is personal cultivation; and that there is sharing of harvest or payment of rental. The Court found that none of these requisites are present, and that the allegations and reliefs prayed for in the complaint clearly made out an action for forcible entry. The Court added that the petitioners' averment of tenancy in their answer did not automatically divest the Municipal Trial Court of jurisdiction, for jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant, otherwise jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.

On the second issue, the Court defined forum shopping as the institution of two or more suits in different courts, simultaneously or successively, to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. The most important factor is whether the elements of litis pendencia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The Court held that res judicata requires a final judgment, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, disposing of the case on the merits, and an identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the first and second actions. The controversy fell short of these elements: the parties in the agrarian case are entirely different from those in this case; the subject property in the agrarian case is a smaller parcel covered by a different title than the property here; and the causes of action are different, since the motion before the agrarian adjudicator merely questioned the execution effected by the deputy sheriff, while the recovery of possession would be at most an incidental effect. The Court likewise deferred to the factual findings of the trial court, which are entitled to respect absent facts of weight and substance overlooked or misinterpreted.

Doctrine

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint and by law, and is not affected by the defenses or theories raised in the answer. A complaint alleging forcible entry confers jurisdiction on the Municipal Trial Court, and the agrarian board's jurisdiction over agrarian disputes arises only when all the requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship concur, the absence of one or more being fatal. Forum shopping is measured by the elements of litis pendencia or res judicata, and res judicata demands a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction and an identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two actions.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed and the decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the Municipal Trial Court was affirmed, so the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint and is not affected by the pleas or theories in the answer. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between ejectment jurisdiction and agrarian dispute jurisdiction, and to test the elements of res judicata as the measure of forum shopping.