Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB)
REGIONAL OFFICE 10
Macanhan, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City

HEIRS OF SPOUSES QUINTINO

EBLACAS III and DELMA
EBLACAS, herein DOROTHY A. DARAB CASE NO. X (05) RO-
EBLACAS and QUINTINO A. 1166-1167-2019
EBLACAS, IV, represented by
BEULAH EBLACAS-CAAGBAY, For: EJECTMENT OF
and BETHEL C. EBLACAS, AGRICULTURAL LESSEE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, PAYMENT OF
BACKRENTALS, DAMAGES,
-versus- and ATTORNEY’S FEES

EMELIE T. SUYAT,
Defendants-Appellees.
x-------------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
(for the Plaintiff-Appellants)

COMES NOW, Plaintiff-Appellants, through the undersigned

counsel and unto this Honorable Board, most respectfully submits the
instant Memorandum of Appeal and in support thereof avers that:

PARTIES
 Plaintiff-Appellees Dorothy A. Eblacas and Quintino A. Eblacas IV
herein represented by Beulah Eblacas-Caagbay and Bethel C. Eblacas,
are the heirs of Spouses Quintino Eblacas III and Delma Eblacas who
are the registered owner of the subject property covered by a Certificate
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 01002391 under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. AT-32133. Herein plaintiffs may be served with
pleadings, notices, decision, orders, and other processes of this
Honorable Office through their undersigned counsel at 2/F Gonzalo M.
Chavez Bldg., Capistrano-Tirso Neri Sts., Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines.

Defendant-Appellant Emelie T. Suyat is of legal age, Filipino, and a

resident of Kinawe, Libona, Bukidnon, Philippines. She may be served
with notices, orders, decision, and other processes of this Honorable
Office in her given address.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff-Appellees filed for an ejectment against the agricultural

lessee, herein defendant-appellee, with claims for back rentals,
damages, and attorney’s fees over the parcel of agricultural land
covered by Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No.
01002391 under Transfer Certificate of Title No. AT-321331
containing an area of Twenty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-
Nine (29,899) square meters, more or less registered in the name of
Spouses Quintino Eblacas III and Delma Eblacas, the predecessors of
herein plaintiff-appellants.

As a background, the instant case came into being by reason of

the obstinate, willful, and deliberate refusal of the defendant-appellee

1 Annex “F” of the attached position paper of the plaintiffs.

to pay the agricultural lease rentals to the plaintiff-appellants without
justification and even after repeated demands for almost ten (10) years.

An agricultural leasehold contract was made starting agricultural

year 2008 providing for a Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P6,500)
per hectare between defendant-appellee Emelie T. Suyat and the the
land owner through his siblings as his representative named Harry and
Quintino Eblacas II.

Plaintiffs-appellant who were the surviving children of the

registered land owners Spouses Quintino Eblacas III and Delma
Eblacas, have long been clamoring for the defendant-appellees to pay
to them the rentals for the agricultural leasehold for the subject
property, however they were ignored by defendant-appellee who has
now claimed that she is the owner of the subject property and not them.

During repeated confrontations before the Municipal Agrarian

Reform Officer (MARO) in Libona, Bukidnon, instead of even
acknowledging the Agricultural Leasehold, defendant-appellee went as
far as to claim that she is now the owner of the subject property.

Without any other recourse, plaintiff-appellants filed a

complaint for ejectment against defendant-appellees now subject of
the instant appeal.

However, even before the Honorable Adjudicator, parties failed

to arrive at a compromise and were thus ordered to submit their
respective position papers.

For the plaintiff-appellants, they have submitted their position

paper alleging obstinate, willful, and deliberate failure of the
defendant-appellee to pay the agricultural leasehold rentals for almost
ten (10) years.

Affidavits of witnesses Ernesto Boholano and Gene Eblacas, who

are adjacent land owners and neighbors of the defendant-appellee
were given in evidence attesting to the fact that they have witnessed
that Emelie T. Suyat have been charged with the knowledge since the
year 2009 that Harry and Quintino Eblacas II are no longer authorized
to collect the agricultural rentals by the heirs of Benjamin Eblacas who
was then the owner of the subject property.

As such, plaintiff-appellants have made it clearly known that

starting the next agricultural year from date of their notice to
defendant-appellee, they will now be personally collecting the rentals
for the subject property.

However, defendant-appellant, did not pay heed to them. No

payment was ever received by the plaintiff-appellee’s parents who were
then the successors of Benjamin Eblacas and owners of the subject
property.

Witnesses of the plaintiff-appellants manifested that they have,

for several times, witnessed the demands made by plaintiff-appellees
and their predecessors back then to collect the rentals from defendant-
appellant to no avail.

Thus, for almost ten (10) long years, plaintiff-appellees as well as

their parents-predecessors, were deprived of the rentals from the said
land.

The refusal and failure to pay the rentals by the defendant-

appellee can only be described as willful, deliberate, and without any
justification considering the knowledge she was charged with and the
repeated demands made upon her to pay the rentals.

The testimony of the witnesses of the plaintiff-appellants bears

weight as they are disinterested parties who are in the best position to
observe the facts they have testified and sworn to and considering their
proximity to the defendant-appellee who is their neighbor.

Defendant-appellee on her part, aside from the bare allegations

on her answer and position paper that she has paid the lease rentals for
the agricultural leasehold, she has not presented a single receipt
covering the agricultural year 2010 and so on.

A mere self-serving affidavit executed by defendant-appellee

herself as well as her daughter in law and other family members was
the only evidence proffered claiming payment of the rentals, however,
the alleged payment was made to Quintino Eblacas II and not to herein
plaintiff-appellant or any of their authorized representatives.

Plaintif-appellants quickly pointed out in their reply-position

paper that the defendant-appellant failed to sufficiently prove the fact
of payment which was a positive defense on her part.

However, despite the glaring and indisputable facts proven by

the plaintiff-appellants that defendant-appellee have not paid the lease
rentals since the year 2010 and have in fact, despite her defense
claiming payment, failed to show a single proof that she has indeed
paid her rentals to the plaintiff-appellants, the Honorable Adjudicator
surprisingly found for the defendant-appellee as shown in the now
assailed Decision.
 Copies of the assailed decision, position paper of the plaintiff-
appellant, position paper of the defendant-appellee, and the reply-
position paper of the appellant, are hereto attached for reference.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

With all due respect to the Honorable Adjudicator, the

undersigned believes that he has committed errors in the findings of
fact and conclusions of law which if not corrected would cause grave
and irreparable damage or injury to the plaintiff-appellants, to wit:

1. In failing to find that the plaintiff-appellants have proven their

right to demand payment of the rentals and that there was in fact
deliberate, willful, and unjustified non-payment of lease rentals
which is sufficient grounds for the ejectment of the erring
agricultural lessee, defendant-appellee;

2. In failing to find that defendant-appellee has the burden to prove

her claim of payment as it is a positive allegation on her part
which charges her with the burden of proving the same, and that
which she has failed to do so;

3. In erroneously applying the statue on limitations in interpreting

that plaintiff-appellants can no longer recover rentals or enforce
their right to eject defendant-appellee from their property;

4. In dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence and not

awarding to the plaintiff-appellee the reliefs prayed for.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Plaintiffs have sufficiently
proven their right to demand
payment from defendant-
appellant and the fact of non-
payment of lease rentals of
the latter as basis for
ejectment.

It must be noted that plaintiff-appellants, in their complaint and

position paper have adduced evidence proving that they have the right
to demand payment of rentals from defendant-appellee and that the
latter has the obligation to pay the same.

On their part, plaintiff-appellants have already shown that they

are indeed the rightful successors and owners of the property subjected
to the agricultural leasehold with defendant-appellee as the lessee.

Defendant-appellee have not denied the same in her answer and

has in fact alleged that she has paid the rental obligations to Quintino
Eblacas II.

Considering the matter in issue is the unjustified non-payment

of agricultural leasehold rentals, plaintiff-appellants only need to
prove that they have the right to demand payment from the defendant-
appellee and that the latter is obliged to respect the same.

As for the allegations of non-payment, it is a negative allegation

which need not be proven provided that the basis for the right to
demand payment of the obligation have been duly established.

Thus, the plaintiff having proved the existence of the obligation,

the burden of proof was upon the defendant to show that it had been
discharged. (Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. F. Rosatzin, G.R. No. L-2715,
February 27, 1906)

Further, it is basic that evidence need not be given in support of

a negative allegation except when such negative allegation is an
essential part of the statement of the right or title on which the cause
of action or defense is founded, nor even in such case when the
allegation is a denial of the existence of a document the custody of
which belongs to the opposite party. (Maria Lopez y Villanueva vs.
Tan Tioco, G.R. No. L-2827, October 3, 1907)

To emphasize, plaintiff-appellants need not prove the

fact of non-payment as it is sufficient that they are able to
show that they have the right to demand payment of rentals
from the defendant-appellee and that the latter has the
obligation to pay the same.

As in this case, plaintiff-appellants have proven that they are the

heirs and successors of the land owner Benjamin Eblacas and then
Spouses Quintino Eblacas III and Delma Eblacas as shown by the
Certificate of Title of the subject property, Certificate of Marriage and
Certificates of Death of the Spouses Quintino II and Delma Eblacas, as
well as the Certificates of Live Birth of plaintiffs attached as Annexes
“A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F” on the position paper of plaintiff-
appellants.

Moreover, the allegation of non-payment of the defendant-

appellant to the rental obligations are in fact supported by the
testimonies of the witnesses Ernesto Boholano and Gene Eblacas who
executed their respective affidavits marked as Annexes “L” and “M” of
the plaintiff’s position paper in this case. The same facts remain to be
uncontroverted.
 Indubitably, evidence on record is filled with uncontroverted
proof showing that defendant-appellee has willfully and deliberately
failed and obstinately refused to pay without justification the
agricultural lease rentals for the subject property for a period of almost
ten (10) years.

Meanwhile, jurisprudence state that agricultural leasehold

rentals, as in rentals in ordinary lease contracts, constitute fixed
payments which the lessor has both the right and expectation to
promptly receive in consideration of being deprived of the full
enjoyment and possession of his property. (Eufrocina Nieves vs.
Ernesto Duldulao and Felipe Pajarillo, G.R. No. 190276, April 2, 2014)

Thus, plaintiff-appellants, having proven the fact that they have

the right to expect payment from the defendant-appellee and that the
latter is obliged to pay the same, are entitled to its payment.

It should likewise be noted that defendant-appellee was not

ignorant of the fact that it is plaintiff-appellants who are the real land
owners and have the authority to demand payment from her.

As early as the year 2009, defendant-appellee have been charged

with the knowledge that Harry Eblacas and Quintino Eblacas II are no
longer authorized to receive the rentals of the leasehold as herein
plaintiff-appellee’s parents, the Spouses Quintino III and Delma
Eblacas are the ones who will be collecting the said rental payments
starting agricultural year 2010.

Testimonies of witnesses Ernesto Boholano and Gene Eblacas2

who witnessed the repeated demands made by the plaintiff-appellee’s

2 Annexes “L” and “M” of the attached position paper of the plaintiffs.
predecessors and representatives indubitably show that defendant-
appellee is not ignorant of the fact that she is obliged to pay to them
the rental since the time of demand.

However, and without any valid justification, defendant-appellee

refused to pay the lease rentals of the land and despite repeated
demands on the part of the plaintiff-appellees, year after year, still
deliberately and willfully refused to pay the same.

The same non-payment shown to have been done by the

defendant-appellee willfully and deliberately and without any
justification. Hence, plaintiff-appellants who are land owners are
entitled to the remedy of ejecting defendant-appellee from their
property.

Verily, jurisprudence is clear, unless caused by a fortuitous event,

or reprieved by virtue of a finding that the non-payment of leasehold
rentals was not actually willful and deliberate, there appears to be no
credible justification, both in reason and in law, to deny the
agricultural lessor the right to recover his property and thereby eject
the agricultural lessee in the event that the latter fails to comply with
his rent obligations as they fall due. (Eufrocina Nieves vs. Ernesto
Duldulao and Felipe Pajarillo, G.R. No. 190276, April 2, 2014)

It is a matter of record that aside from the defense of alleged

payment, no other justification was made by the defendant-appellee.

As it should, defendant-appellee should be ejected from the

property by reason of her deliberate, obstinate, willful and repeated
failure to pay the lease rentals for an unjustifiable long period of time
until present.
Defendant-appellee has failed
to prove her defense of
payment of rentals.

Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon
him who asserts it, not upon him who denies, since, by the nature of
things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it. (MOF
Company, Inc. vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Corporation, G.R. No.
172822)

As already discussed, after plaintiff-appellants have proven that

they have the right to demand payment from the defendant-appellee
and that the latter has the obligation to pay the same, the former are
no longer burdened to adduce further evidence of non-payment, it
being a negative allegation.

Thus, when defendant-appellee interposed the defense

of payment as her positive defense, she is now burdened to
prove the same. The necessity of proof always lies with the
person who alleges, hence the maxim semper necessitas
probandi incumbit illi qui agit.

A mere allegation of payment will not suffice as it is elementary

that bare allegations are not proof. He who alleges a fact has the burden
of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. (Luxuria Homes
Inc. vs. CA, 302 SCRA 315)

In this case, the best evidence of payment which defendant-

appellee, Emelie T. Suyat could have adduced are receipts of her
payments for the agricultural years wherein she was alleged to have not
paid.
 However, instead of showing receipts of payment for the rentals
of Agricultural year 2010 until present, defendant-appellee merely
insisted in a self-serving affidavit in her answer to the complaint and
repeated by bare allegations in her position paper that she has paid her
rental obligations to Quintino Eblacas II until his death.

Quite a convenient defense as dead men tell no tales. By claiming

that she has paid to Quintino Eblacas II rentals by mere allegations
without showing any documentary proof, defendant-appellee is in
effect putting words unto a dead man’s mouth.

Under the Dead Man's Statute Rule, "if one party to the alleged
transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other
mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue
advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account
of the transaction. (Apolonio Garcia vs. Dominga Robles Vda. de
Caparas, G.R. No. 180843, April 17, 2013)

It must be noted that herein plaintiff-appellants are not the ones

who should be in possession of whatever receipts or documents of
transactions between Quintino Eblacas II and defendant-appellee.

Moreover, the claim of the defendant-appellee that she has paid

to Harry Eblacas and Quintino Eblacas II her rentals without even
presenting documentary proof denies herein plaintiff-appellees the
right to verify the truthfulness of her claims as the person who could
best testify as to the truthfulness of her claim of payment has long died.

Hence, it is only right for defendant-appellee to prove her claim

of payment through sufficient evidence. She cannot just rely on her
bare allegations as proof.
 In this light, it is respectfully submitted that the portion of the
decision of the Honorable Adjudicator insisting that plaintiff-
appellants should have presented controverting proof to the bare
allegation of payment of the respondent by some sworn declaration of
the heirs of Harry Eblacas and Quintino Eblacas II is erroneous as the
same sworn declarations would still be inadmissible under the dead
man’s statute rule. Moreover, the same need not be given, as evidence
need not be given when the claim of the plaintiff-appellants is the non-
payment of lease rentals, a negative assertion.

There is therefore no basis for the pronouncement in the decision

assailed that by reason of the insistence of payment by the defendant,
it is the plaintiff who has the burden to show proof of non-payment in
view of the above discussions.

As it is, records will show, as clear as the position paper of the

defendant-appellee attached herein, that there is no proof whatsoever
adduced by the latter proving payment of the rentals except as to her
bare allegations in the same submission.

Thus, as above discussed, defendant-appellee failed to discharge

her burden of proving the fact of payment alleged in her defense.

The statue of limitations does

not bar plaintiff-appellants
from seeking ejectment and
demanding payment of
rentals from the defendant-
appellees for the recent
violations.
 Indeed, while it is true that the statute of limitations provided by
Section 38 of Republic Act 3844 as amended limits the causes of
actions of any party claiming right under said law to be enforced within
three (3) years, it does not preclude parties from claiming relief for
recent transgressions giving rise to causes of actions not barred by the
said limitation.

As in this case, plaintiff-appellants’ claim of non-payment of

rentals of the defendant-appellees span from the year 2009 until
present.

By simple logic, while it may be held that the claims of plaintiff-

appellants for the years 2009 until the year 2015 may be barred, they
are not precluded from claiming and bringing forth their causes of
actions for the year 2016 until present.

Thus, still, plaintiff-appellants have the right to pursue the

remaining portions of their causes of actions still existing as these were
within the three (3) year limitation.

However, the Honorable Adjudicator has erroneously treated the

entire causes of actions of the plaintiff-appellants to have been entirely
barred by the statute of limitation.

On the basis thereof, the statute of limitations should not be a bar

for the plaintiff-appellants to claim for the non-payment of rentals
starting the year 2016 as part of their cause of action for ejectment of
defendant-appellees.

There is sufficient evidence to

prove the claims of the
plaintiff-appellants in the
instant case.

In view of the foregoing discussions, it is the respectful

submission of the plaintiff-appellants that they have sufficiently
adduced evidence in support of their claims and reliefs prayed for.

First, plaintiff-appellants have shown substantial proof in their

complaint and position paper that (1) they are in possession of a right
which is the right to demand payment of rentals from the defendant-
appellant; (2) that the defendant-appellee has the obligation to respect
the said right and pay the rentals; and (3) there is a willful, deliberate,
and unjustified non-payment of the rentals in violation of the said right
of plaintiff-appellants.

Secondly, the position paper of the plaintiff-appellant would

bear out documentary evidences marked from Annex “A” to “M”
showing the certificate of title, certificates of live birth of plaintiffs,
certificates of marriage, certificates of death, and other documentary
evidences showing the rights of the plaintiff-appellants to claim the
reliefs they are now praying for.

In addition to documentary evidences are sworn statements by

plaintiff-appellee’s representatives including two disinterested
witnesses named Ernesto Boholano and Gene Eblacas attesting to the
fact of non-payment of rentals of defendant-appellants as well as
underlying circumstances pointing to the conclusion that the non-
payment is willful, deliberate and without justification, in violation of
the rights of herein plaintiff-appellants to receive what is due them. All
of the aforementioned are stated in plaintiffs’ position paper and
supported by documentary proof and testimonial evidences in the form
of sworn statements executed by the witnesses.
 In contrast, the position paper submitted by the defendant-
appellee bears not a single attachment of documentary proof to prove
her claims. Aside from the bare allegations made by defendant-
appellee in the said position paper, nothing therein can be found to
support her defense of payment or at the very least, a justification of
why she was unable to pay her rental obligations.

Lastly, the plaintiff-appellants have proven through substantial

evidence that there exists a violation of their right as land owners by
reason of the willful and deliberate non-payment of lease rentals of the
property by the defendant. Records will show the documentary and
testimonial evidences adduced by the plaintiff-appellants have more
than discharged the quantum of proof required to show the violations
committed by the defendants in relation to the agricultural lease
contract.

On the other hand, defendant has not even substantiated her

defense claiming payment of rentals. Bare allegations do not constitute
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla
of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds
equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. (Primo C. Miro
vs. Marilyn Mendoza Vda. de Erederos et al., G.R. No. 172532,
172544-45, November 20, 2013)

In this case, the rule of interpretation in favor of the tenant or

agricultural lessee should not be applied as the facts in the case is clear.
It is an uncontroverted fact that the defendant-appellees did not pay
the lease rentals of the subject property deliberately, willfully and
without any justification, to the damage and prejudice of the land
owners, herein plaintiff-appellants.
 While the Constitution commands the government to
tilt the balance in favor of the poor and the underprivileged
whenever doubt arises in the interpretation of the law, the
jural postulates of social justice should not sanction any
false sympathy towards a certain class, nor be used to deny
the landowner's rights, as in this case.( Eufrocina Nieves vs.
Ernesto Duldulao and Felipe Pajarillo, G.R. No. 190276, April 2,
2014.)

To rule in favor of the defendant in this case is to sanction

injustice, inequity, and oppression of innocent land owners.
Defendant-appellee will likewise be unjustly enriched at the expense of
the plaintiff-appellants who were not only unjustifiably deprived of
their rights to the said rentals but at the same time have to suffer in
silence from the arrogance of an ungrateful lessee.

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff-appellants appeals to this

Honorable Board that the assailed decision of the instant case be
reversed and to grant to them the relief as prayed for in their
complaint.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Board to REVERSE the decision of the
Honorable Adjudicator dismissing the instant case and order the
EJECTMENT of the defendant-plaintiff from the agricultural
leasehold and award all the other reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

 Most respectfully submitted.

February 13, 2020. Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

ALPI ANDRO B. CABATINGAN

Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellants
2/F Gonzalo M. Chavez Bldg., Capistrano St.,
Cor. Tirso Neri St., Cagayan de Oro City 9000
Roll No. 63879
PTR No. 4520729 - 1/7/20 – Cagayan de Oro City
IBP Receipt No. 105424 - 1/7/20 – Cagayan de Oro City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0016298 1/11/2019
Email & Contact No.: alpicabatingan@gmail.com ;+63916-788-8661