Back

Flordeliza Rivera, Petitioner, Vs. Gregoria Santiago, Felicitas Santiago-Nicolas, Corazon Santiago-Nicolas, Ruben Santiago, Remedios Santiago, Priscilla Santiago-Castaneda, As Legal Heirs Of The Late Jovito Santiago, Represented By Their Attorney-In-Fact Panfilo Santiago; And Panfilo Santiago, Also One Of The Legal Heirs Of The Late Jovito Santiago And Benedicto Alquiroz, Respondents.

FLORDELIZA RIVERA, petitioner, vs. GREGORIA SANTIAGO, FELICITAS SANTIAGO-NICOLAS, CORAZON SANTIAGO-NICOLAS, RUBEN SANTIAGO, REMEDIOS SANTIAGO, PRISCILLA SANTIAGO-CASTANEDA, as legal heirs of the late JOVITO SANTIAGO, represented by their Attorney-in-fact PANFILO SANTIAGO; and PANFILO SANTIAGO, also one of the legal heirs of the late JOVITO SANTIAGO and BENEDICTO ALQUIROZ, respondents.

G.R. No. 146501 | 2003-08-28

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Mere invocation of agricultural tenancy does not ipso facto divest the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of jurisdiction over a complaint for ejectment. This is especially true in the instant case in which the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship have not been duly established.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the June 13, 2000 Decision[2] and the December 20, 2000 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4] (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 55146. The dispositive part of the assailed Decision reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered,...