FLORDELIZA RIVERA v.

GREGORIA SANTIAGO

 Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

 The Santiagos (respondents) originally owned the five (5) parcels of land subject
of the instant case.
 Raymundo Santiago, who later became the owner, mortgaged the subject lots
with the (DBP)-----defaulted in payment----- foreclosed.
 Alejandrina Tuzon purchased the properties from DBP then filed an action for
injunction against the defendants ([respondents] herein), to prevent them from
tilling and working on the landholding
 Tuzon sold the said parcels of land to Flordeliza Rivera (PETITIONER)
 Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against defendants with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
 Respondents: filed their Answer with Counterclaim, alleging that they are the
actual tillers/tenants of subject parcels of land and questioned the jurisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Court to hear and decide the case
 MTC rendered a decision in favor of [petitioner]
 RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the MTC.
 Meanwhile, respondents filed a case before the DARAB to annul the Deed of Sale
executed by and between Tuzon and Rivera covering the subject parcels of land.
 DARAB dismissed the complaint and ruled against the existence of any tenancy
relationship.
 CA held that the MTC and the RTC "committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to clear want of jurisdiction in not finding that the instant case is one
of tenancy dispute."

ISSUE: WON a tenancy relationship exists between the parties so as to divest the MTC of
jurisdiction over the Complaint for ejectment

HELD:

 Under Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129,[15] as amended by Republic Act No. (RA)
7691, the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP) governs
the remedial aspects of such suits.
 Under Section 50 of RA 6657, however, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is
vested with "primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform."
 In the present appeal, the Court is faced with the question of which of these two
laws apply. We hold that it is BP 129, not RA 6657.
 RULE: Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint
o petitioner lodged an action for ejectment before the MTC
 However, when tenancy is averred as a defense and is shown prima facie to
be the real issue, the MTC must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
  Under RA 6657, it is the DAR that has authority to hear and decide when tenancy is
legitimately involved.
 In the instant case, respondents averred tenancy as an affirmative and/or special
defense in their Answer with Counterclaim. Under the RSP, the MTC was supposed
to conduct a preliminary conference to determine if such relationship was indeed
the real issue.
 We emphasize that the MTC did not automatically lose its jurisdiction simply because
respondents raised tenancy as a defense. It continued to have the authority to hear
the case precisely to determine whether it had jurisdiction to dispose of the
ejectment suit on its merits.
 While the MTC conducted a preliminary conference, respondents contend that a
preliminary hearing, being mandatory, should have been held instead.
 Under the Revised Rules of Court, a preliminary hearing may be conducted on
any of the affirmative grounds raised in an answer as though a motion to dismiss
had been filed. Although no motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter was filed in the MTC by herein respondents, they
nonetheless insist that a preliminary hearing should have been held as a matter of
right. We hold, however, that a hearing is merely discretionary. It is not a matter of
right under the RSP and the Rules then and now. Instead of a hearing, the MTC
conducted a preliminary conference among the parties. This is enough compliance
with the Rules.

 Prevailing rule. Trial court has to refer the matter to the
DARAB for purpose of determining whether there exists
tenancy relationship. The DARAB then reports its finding
with the trial court. The trial court determines whether there
is jurisdiction or not.

The MTC will have to dismiss the case, not transfer the
case to DARAB