[HOW JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED AND DETERMINED]

BAYOG vs.HON. ANTONIO M. NATINO (258 SCRA 378) Related Topic: HOW JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED AND DETERMINED Facts: Magdato had been issued a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold over a land owned by Bayog. Subsequently Bayog executed a so called Deed of Equitable Mortgage in favor of Santiago Pesayco. Bayog then asked Magdato to remove his house from the land. As Magdato did not comply, Bayog and Pesayco filed with the MCTC a complaint for Ejectment and/or Abatement of Nuisance. Magdato filed his Answer three days late, in which he admitted Bayogs ownership but asserted that he was in actual possession thereof as agricultural lessee, and further averred that the court had no jurisdiction over the case, it being agrarian disputes.The MCTC issued an Order holding that since MAGDATO's Answer was filed outside the reglementary period, it could not take cognizance thereof without exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 36 of B.P. Blg. 129. It then considered "needless" for the court to resolve all pleadings subsequently filed, such as the answer; and then claiming authority under Section 5 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, the MCTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs BAYOG and Pesayco. When appealed to RTC, it ordered to set aside the final and partly executed judgment of MCTC. Hence; Bayog filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of Rules of Court to annul the decision of the RTC. Issue: Whether or not the MCTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter in the case at bar? Held: No. While it may be said that the MCTC correctly applied the Rule on Summary Procedure since BAYOG's complaint for ejectment therein suppressed the fact of an agrarian relationship between him and MAGDATO, it should not have refrained from taking cognizance of MAGDATO's Answer,although filed late asserting that the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the case in light of the agricultural tenancy relationship, which is clearly evidenced by their Agricultural Leasehold Contract and the Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold issued in MAGDATO's favor by then President Marcos. While this assertion, per se, did not automatically divest the MCTC of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case, nevertheless, in view of MAGDATO's defense, the MCTC should have heard and received the evidence for the precise purpose of determining whether or not it possessed jurisdiction over the case. And upon such hearing, if tenancy was shown to be at issue, the MCTC should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Verily, if indeed MAGDATO were an agricultural lessee under agrarian law, then the MCTC was devoid of jurisdiction over the ejectment case.