SPOUSES ATUEL vs.

SPOUSES VALDEZ
G.R. No. 139561, June 10, 2003

FACTS:

Atty. Cab is the registered owner of two parcels of land (the CAB Property). Cab then
appointed Atuel as administrator of the Cab Property. Cab and Valdez entered into a "Lease
of Improved Agricultural Land" under which Valdez leased a 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab
Property. After several years, Cab informed Valdez that their lease contract had already
expired, and demanded that Valdez stop cultivating the 1.25-hectare portion of the Cab
Property and vacate the same. MARO informed Cab that Valdez was properly identified as a
tenant, and thus deemed to be the owner of the land he cultivated. The MARO added that an
EP was issued to Valdez for a 2.3231-hectare portion ("PD 27 Land") of the Cab Property.

Spouses Valdez filed a complaint for "Recovery of Possession with Damages" with
the DARAB against the Spouses Atuel and Spouses Galdiano In their answer, the Spouses
Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano asserted that the Spouses Valdez had no cause of action
against them because Cab is the owner of the Subject Lot while Atuel is the administrator of
the Cab Property.

DARAB issued a decision sustaining the validity of the EP issued to Valdez. Upon
appeal, CA affirmed DARAB’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether the Spouses Valdez are entitled to seek redress from the DARAB in recovering
possession of the Subject Lot from the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano.

RULING:

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed because of DARAB’s lack of

jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present controversy.

For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy
relations between the parties and that in order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a
dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5)
that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the
harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

In the instant case, the Spouses Atuel and the Spouses Galdiano are not and do not
claim to be the owners of the 2,000-square meter Subject Lot where their houses are
constructed. They also do not claim ownership to any other portion of the PD 27 Land. They
and the Spouses Valdez have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that
will bring this controversy within Section 3(d) of RA No. 6657. Since the DARAB has no
jurisdiction over the present controversy, it should not have taken cognizance of the Spouses
Valdez’s complaint for recovery of possession. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is
vested in a court of general jurisdiction.