A.M. MTJ-96-1085.

October 8, 1998

SALVACION P. ONQUIT, complainant, vs. JUDGE AURORA BINAMIRA-PARCIA, and SHERIFF IV

DANILO O. MATIAS, respondents.

Facts:

Respondent Judge was assigned a forcible entry case which the complainant and her two brothers
were co-defendants. Complainant raised the issue of jurisdiction stating that said case falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)because it involves tenancy over an
agricultural land. Respondent Judge denied all motions raised by defendants ruling that jurisdiction
is determined by the allegations in the complaint and not those raised by defendants. Moreover,
according to respondent Judge, the claim regarding the nature of the case at bar would not automatically
divest the court its jurisdiction. Subsequently, plaintiff in the lower court filed an injunction bond which was
approved by respondent Judge and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued against the
defendants, including herein complainant. A seizure order followed which directed respondent Sheriff
to seize the palay from the land in question. Complainant details several allegations as follows:(1) That
the land subject of the forcible entry case is an agricultural rice land, thus, it is the Department of
Agrarian Reform which has original and exclusive jurisdiction, and not the respondent Judge's
court;(2) That the plaintiff’s injunction bond was approved by respondent Judge without first serving a
copy to the complainant resulting in a violation of due process. Complainant avers that it left her no
opportunity to object to the sufficiency of the bond. Further, a copy of the writ of injunction was not served
on complainant’s counsel;(3) That a notice regarding the Motion for Issuance of Seizure Order was not
served on the complainant thereby depriving her of a chance to oppose it;(4) That respondent Judge
has been heard saying that complainant and his co-defendants ought to leave the land because it is
certain that they will lose their case;(5) And that, with regard to respondent Sheriff, upon the issuance of
the seizure order, he seized all the palay harvested without issuing a receipt, despite demand therefor,
and delivered the palay to theplaintiff.

Issue: Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of authority, bias and grave misconduct in
assuming jurisdiction

Held:

Considering the Complaint, the Comments, and the Reply as well as the pleadings and exhibits
submitted, we find no grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and bias on the part of
respondent Judge.

The fact that respondent Judge took cognizance of the forcible entry case did not taint her action with
grave abuse of authority, even if defendant had alleged that the land in question was under agricultural
tenancy, and that there was an issue of jurisdiction. Well-settled is the principle that the courts shall not
be divested of jurisdiction over a case merely by what is raised in the answer. What determines the
nature of an action and a court's jurisdiction over it are the allegations set up by the plaintiff .Basic is the
rule that the material averments in the complaint, which in this case is for ejectment, determine the
jurisdiction of the court. And, jurisprudence dictates that the court does not lose its jurisdiction over an
ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence
of a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is the duty of the court to receive evidence to determine
the veracity of allegations of tenancy. In an Order of respondent Judge dated 09 February 1996, it
was ruled that, considering the evidence presented, the land in question is an irrigated rice land,
but not tenanted. This matter was even brought up on a petition for certiorari with prohibition to the
Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, but said petition was denied. These antecedents are sufficient to
convince us that the respondent Judge did not act with grave abuse of authority in assuming
jurisdiction over the case filed in her sala. With regard to the allegation of having failed to furnish to
the defendants a copy of the bond and the writ of preliminary injunction, we give credence to the
findings made by the Office ofthe Court Administrator, as follows: However, Section 8, Rule 58 of the
Revised Rules of Court in conjunction with Section 3, Rule 70 thereof provides that the party filing the
bond shall forthwith served a copy of such bond on the other party, who may except to the sufficiency of
the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. This means that the plaintiff and not the Court or the
respondent Judge for that matter, who is duty bound to serve a copy of the injunction bond to the
defendants. Nevertheless, the failure of the plaintiff to serve a copy of the injunction bond to the
defendant is merely a formal defect and not a reversible error. For in this case the defendant may ask the
court to order the plaintiff to serve upon him the copy of the bond. On the other hand, the records belie
the claim of complainant that the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was not served to (sic) the
defendants. Records show that said writ was served to (sic) the defendants on February 16, 1996 at
their residence but all refused to acknowledge receipt therefor, nevertheless the executing Sheriff left
each a copy to (sic) the defendants.