Case Digest: AGUSTIN RIVERA vs. NEMESIO DAVID. G.R. NO.

157307; FEBRUARY 27, 2006

 Does the Dar have jurisdiction?

 Respondent Nemesio David, with the other heirs of Consolacion Suarez David, owned in
common five hectares of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47588-R in
Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.
 Rivera averred that he occupied the land, at first, as a tenant; then, as an owner in 1957.
He alleged that the land became his own as disturbance compensation.
 David sought the dismissal of the case before the PARAB alleging that the PARAB lacked
jurisdiction, considering that the property was not an agricultural land and the case
involved the issue of ownership.
 Initially, the PARAB held that David was guilty of laches or estoppel since he and his
predecessors-in-interest had allowed petitioner to retain the property.
 On appeal, the DARAB affirmed the PARAB’s finding of estoppel and added that the
action to recover the property was barred by the Statute of Limitations under Section
389 of Rep. Act No. 3844.10
 The appellate court ( Court of Appeals) reversed the decisions of both the PARAB and
the DARAB It reasoned that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) no longer had
jurisdiction over the case because by petitioner Rivera’s own admission, the tenancy
ended in 1957. The appellate court set aside the decisions of both the PARAB and
DARAB for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed petitioner’s complaint, to wit:
 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the challenged decisions of both the
PARA[B] and the DARAB are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, including the writs of execution
issued by the PARA[B], and another is rendered DISMISSING the respondent Agustin
Rivera’s complaint. No costs.
 Petitioner Rivera failed to prove that he indeed owned the property. All he submitted
was an affidavit from a Feliciano Manansala stating that there was a verbal agreement
between him and the respondent’s predecessor-in-interest giving him the 1.8 hectares.
However, petitioner did not present the affiant in court. Where the affiant did not
appear, nor was he presented during the administrative investigation to identify his
sworn statement, his affidavit is hearsay, hence inadmissible in evidence. 19
Ruling:

 First, on the matter of jurisdiction. We agree with petitioner that the DAR has
jurisdiction over his case. In the 2004 case of David v. Rivera,16 a case involving the same
parcel of land here, filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Mabalacat
by the respondent against petitioner, the issue raised was whether the MCTC or the
DAR had jurisdiction. Therein, we held that the existence of prior agricultural tenancy
relationship characterizes the controversy as an "agrarian dispute", adding that–

 Even if the tenurial arrangement has been severed, the action still involves an incident
arising from the landlord and tenant relationship. Where the case involves the
dispossession by a former landlord of a former tenant of the land claimed to have been
given as compensation in consideration of the renunciation of the tenurial rights, there
clearly exists an agrarian dispute. On this point the Court has already ruled:

 Indeed, section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, provides that 'all cases involving the
dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and
disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and tenant . . . shall be
under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

 Although the cause of action now may differ from that in the 2004 case of David v.
Rivera, under the facts of the cases, and by our prior judgment on the issue of
jurisdiction, the parties herein are bound by the conclusiveness of judgment in the 2004
case of David v. Rivera, in accordance with Rule 39, Sec. 4(c), of the Rules of
Court.18 Conformably then, the DAR has jurisdiction.

 On the issue of ownership, we find that petitioner Rivera failed to prove that he indeed
owned the property. All he submitted was an affidavit from a Feliciano Manansala
stating that there was a verbal agreement between him and the respondent’s
predecessor-in-interest giving him the 1.8 hectares. However, petitioner did not present
the affiant in court. Where the affiant did not appear, nor was he presented during the
administrative investigation to identify his sworn statement, his affidavit is hearsay,
hence inadmissible in evidence.

 On the other hand, respondent David presented TCT No. 47588-R, dated September 29,
1965, tax declarations from 1941 to 1963 under the name of respondent’s
predecessors-in-interest, and tax declarations from 1965 to 1971 under the name of the
respondent and his co-heirs. Compared to petitioner’s dearth of evidence, these
sufficiently show that respondent and his co-heirs still owned the land. As a corollary,
since it has been established that petitioner Rivera is not the owner of the land, he and
his heirs are not entitled to peaceful possession thereof.
 In sum, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Agustin Rivera’s
complaint, not because the DAR had no jurisdiction over the case but because his
complaint lacks merit.

 The petition is DENIED