"x x x.
The petitioners’ complaint for amendment and partition is beyond the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB.
Where a question of jurisdiction between the DARAB and the RTC is at the core of a dispute, basic jurisprudential tenets come into play. It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.[12]
Accordingly, we turn to the petitioners’ complaint for amendment and partition, wherein they alleged that:
2. The subject agricultural land identified as Lot No. C, Psd-03-091057 (AR) consisting of an area of 9,536 square meters more or less situated at Brgy. Caingin, Bocaue, Bulacan, was formerly owned by Pedro Lazaro and was tenanted by SPOUSES JOSE DEL ROSARIO AND FLORENTINA DE GUZMAN, the late grandparents of herein petitioners, as the registered tenant-farmers over the subject agricultural land devoted to planting of palay;
3. When the late grandparents of herein petitioners died, the children of the former, specifically, brothers CANDIDO DEL ROSARIO and GIL DEL ROSARIO, predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners, continued in the tillage of the subject agricultural land;
x x x x
6. The EP was issued by the DAR to the respondent with the help of her brother Gil Del Rosario who, aside from shouldering all expenses relative thereto, lodged the petition in Monica del Rosario’s name for the issuance of EP over the subject agricultural land being tilled by them, including the co-tenant farmers that are adjacent and adjoining in that area;
7. The respondent, after receiving the EP over the subject agricultural land, refused to give the shares of her brothers (predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners) and subdivide equally the subject land among them, they being surviving heirs of their late parents who first tilled the subject agricultural land despite persistent demand;
x x x x
10. An agreement was likewise entered into by the respondent and the other tenant farmers of the adjoining lots, with the late Gil del Rosario dated February 1991, committing themselves that after the issuance of their EPs by the DAR, the ONE THIRD (1/3) portion of their tillage will be segregated and given to her brother Gil del Rosario in consideration of the assistance of the latter, x x x;
x x x x
12. The petitioners are seeking the assistance of this Honorable Board to amend and partition the EP issued to the respondent and the subject agricultural land be divided equally among the respondent and the predecessors-in-interest of herein petitioners;[13] (Emphasis supplied)
Based on these allegations, the petitioners sought the following reliefs:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it [is] most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Board that after due hearing, judgment be rendered in the above-entitled petition as follows:
(a) Ordering respondent to partition or subdivide equally among the respondent and herein petitioners, in representation of their respective predecessors-in-interest, the subject agricultural land;
(b) Ordering respondent to stop collecting lease rentals from the herein petitioners relative to their establishments and those erected by their predecessors-in-interest;
(c) Ordering respondent to stop cutting [of] trees and other improvements thereon established by the herein petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest;
(d) Ordering respondent to allow the petitioners to plant palay or vegetable plants (sic) over the agricultural land occupied by them;
(e) Ordering respondent to pay attorney’s fees of [P]50,000.00 to petitioners and costs of litigation.[14] (Emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the foregoing will readily show that the complaint essentially sought the following:first, the enforcement of the agreement entered into by and between Gil and Monica wherein the latter promised to cede to the former one-third portion of the subject land upon the issuance of the emancipation patent over the same; and second, the recovery of petitioners’ purported hereditary share over the subject land, in representation of Gil and Candido.
Indubitably, the said complaint for amendment and partition does not involve any “agrarian dispute,” nor does it involve any incident arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. The petitioners and Monica have no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that will bring this controversy within the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB. Since the PARAD and the DARAB have no jurisdiction over the present controversy, they should not have taken cognizance of the petitioners’ complaint for amendment of the Emancipation Patent and partition.
Further, the instant case does not involve an “incident arising from the implementation of agrarian laws” as would place it within the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB. Admittedly, the petitioners alleged that it was Gil and Candido who continued the tillage of the subject land after the death of Spouses Del Rosario. While the foregoing allegation seems to raise a challenge to Monica’s qualification as a farmer-beneficiary of the subject land, we nevertheless find the same insufficient to clothe the PARAD and the DARAB with jurisdiction over the complaint.
While ostensibly assailing Monica’s qualification as a farmer-beneficiary, the petitioners did not seek the nullification of the emancipation patent issued to Monica and the issuance of a new one in their names. Instead, the petitioners merely sought that the subject land be equally partitioned among the surviving heirs of Spouses Del Rosario, including Monica. Verily, by merely asking for the recovery of their alleged hereditary share in the subject land, the petitioners implicitly recognized the validity of the issuance of the emancipation patent over the subject land in favor of Monica.
x x x."
