This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fifteenth Division, dated September 23, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 468811 [Jaime P. Corpin, Petitioner, versus Amor S. Vivar, Respondent; Rollo, pp. 43-49.] and its Resolution dated January 20, 19992 [Id., at 56.] denying petitioner Jaime P. Corpin’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-299732 issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. Private respondent Amor S. Vivar is in possession of said parcel of land.

On March 16, 1996, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan a complaint3 Id., at 31.] for ejectment against private respondent. The latter refused to vacate the said lot, claiming that he is a tenant of petitioner. In his Answer with Motion to Dismiss,4 [Id., at 33.] private respondent averred that the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over the case since it involved a landlord-tenant relationship. Hence, the same should have been filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform instead.

However, since the Answer was filed out of time, the municipal trial court issued an Order, dated October 17, 1996 declaring that the case was deemed submitted for judgment as may be warranted by the allegations in the complaint.

Thereafter, the municipal trial court rendered a Decision, dated November 25, 19965 [Id., at 38-39.] ordering private respondent to vacate the land in dispute. The dispositive portion of said decision states:

Aggrieved, private respondent appealed the aforementioned decision to the Regional Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan. He submitted thereto the following documents to support his claim that he is a tenant in petitioner's lot:

On August 4, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, Branch 13, rendered its Decision reversing the judgment of the municipal trial court and dismissing petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.15 [Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan dated November 25, 1996; id., at 42.]

Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for review of the Regional Trial Court's Decision with the Court of Appeals. He asserted that the Regional Trial Court erred in finding that a landlord-tenant relationship exists between him and private respondent because, among others, the Regional Trial Court considered the memorandum and the documents attached thereto submitted by private respondent even though these were not presented before the municipal trial court.16 [see Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fifteenth Division, dated September 21, 1998, Id., at 44-45.]

On September 21, 1998, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.17 [Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 21, 1998, Id., at 49.] The appellate court upheld the Regional Trial Court’s finding that the municipal trial court erred in disregarding the Answer filed by private respondent even though the same was belatedly filed because said pleading raised the issue of the municipal trial court’s jurisdiction, an issue which must be resolved by said court despite the late filing of private respondent’s Answer. The Court of Appeals, likewise, affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s ruling that the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over the case, stating that under Rule 40, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, the former may decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.18 [Id., at 45-47.]

Hence, this Petition which makes the following assignment of errors:

We find that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the municipal trial court should not have disregarded private respondent’s Answer but should have proceeded to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case:

In the case of Bayog vs. Natino21 [258 SCRA 378, 393-394 (1996), per Davide, Jr., J.] which the appellate court cited, we held that the metropolitan circuit trial court, which dismissed defendant’s Answer for having been filed out of time and decided the case based on the allegations in the complaint, should not have disregarded defendant’s Answer and should have heard and received the evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not it had jurisdiction over the case.

The Bayog case also involved a complaint for ejectment. Defendant therein filed his Answer beyond the reglementary period, but alleged in said pleading that the metropolitan circuit trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the lot in question involved an agricultural lot owned by plaintiff and tenanted by defendant. Defendant therein attached to his Answer the Agricultural Leasehold Contract between him and plaintiff and the Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold issued in his favor. This Court considered said documents as sufficient to show the municipal circuit trial court’s lack of jurisdiction over the case.22 [Ibid.]

In the case at bar, however, we do not find the documents submitted by the parties as sufficient to have enabled the Regional Trial Court to thoroughly resolve the issue of whether or not the municipal trial court acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. The Court notes that the following documents attached by private respondent to the memoranda which he submitted to the Regional Trial Court were not even submitted to the municipal trial court: (1) Letter dated March 25, 1995 written by the Junior Statistician of the Department of Agrarian Reform in Guiguinto and Balagtas, Bulacan addressed to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Balagtas, Bulacan;23 [Amended Comment, Rollo, pp. 114-115; Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 25, 1996, Id., at 41-42; Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 21, 1998, Id., at 47.] (2) Patunay dated March 24, 1997 issued The BARC Chairman of Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan;24 [Ibid.] (3) Certification dated June 07, 1994 issued by the Barangay Chairman of Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan;25 [Amended Comment, Id., at 115, Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 25, 1996, Id., at 41-42; Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 21, 1998, Id., at 47.] and (4) Certification dated February 23, 1995 issued by the Barangay Chairman of Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan.26 [Amended Comment, Id, at 115; Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 25, 1996, id., at 41-42; Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 21, 1998, id., at 48.] The Regional Trial Court should not have considered the aforementioned in rendering its Decision since said documents were only presented before it on appeal, and were not previously filed with the municipal trial court in the original case.

What were presented to the municipal trial court were limited to the following: (1) Pagtitibay dated February 21, 1996 signed by Angel Torres, Chairman of the BARC of Tabang;27 [Amended Comment, Id., at 114, 123; Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 25, 1996, Id., at 41-42; Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 21, 1998, id., at 47.] (2) Affidavit of Dr. Teodoro Placido dated April 22, 1996;28 [Amended Comment, Id., at 114, 124; Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 25, 1996, Id., at 41-42.] (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Ambrosio T. Mendoza dated April 22, 1996;29 [Amended Comment, Id., at 114, 125.] and (4) Sinumpaang Salaysay of private respondent dated April 22, 1996.30 [Id., at 114, 126.]

Considering the foregoing, it is clear that there is a need to conduct a hearing whereby both parties may present evidence which may shed light on the issue of the municipal trial court’s jurisdiction over the case.

Consequently, the Regional Trial Court’s finding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between petitioner and respondent, which was based on the documents attached by private respondent to his memoranda in the Regional Trial Court but not presented to the municipal trial court, must be set aside due to insufficiency of evidence.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GIVES DUE COURSE to the Petition and SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September 23, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 46881 and its Resolution, dated January 20, 1998, as well as the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated November 25, 1996 in Civil Case No. 26-M-97 and the Decision of the municipal trial court, dated November 25, 1996 in Civil Case No. 870. The records of the instant case are hereby remanded to the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan for hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.