Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD – REGION I
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

A
Complainants,
DARAB CASE No. _____________
- versus - For: Extinguishment of
Agricultural Leasehold
Relationship
B
Respondents.
x---------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(RE: Motion for Reconsideration dated December 16, 2020)

COME NOW complainants, by and through the undersigned counsel, and

unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submit this comment/opposition,
and further aver that:

1. On December 22, 2020, the undersigned counsel received a copy of

respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration on the ground of failure to provide
sufficient evidence to prove the alleged subleasing;

2. The respondents alleged therein that respondent Cesario Pantaleon

was merely helping her mother-in-law in the cultivation of the subject agricultural
lot, also, being the husband of the eldest daughter of respondent Esperanza, he
(Cesario) falls under the qualification “eldest direct descendant by consanguinity”.
We beg to disagree.

It is no argument that respondent Cesario is the son-in-law of respondent

Esperanza. What was raised as issue was if respondent Esperanza can let Cesario
perform all the farm works without having to personally cultivate the farm herself.
We argued in the negative.

Based on the pieces of evidence presented by the complainants, it was duly

proven that respondent Esperanza sublet the agricultural lot to her co-respondent.

As to the contention that respondent Cesario can legally succeed the

agricultural leasehold, the same is bereft of merit. Cesario cannot succeed the
same because he is not a relative of respondent Esperanza by consanguinity, but
rather by affinity.
3. They further averred that respondent Esperanza’s act of allowing her
grandsons in the cultivation of the subject landholding was only a mere act of
help. Again, we disagree.

As correctly noted by the Honorable Office that as between the conflicting

claims of the respondent Esperanza on who is actually cultivating the subject
landholding and the categorical claim of the complainants’ witnesses (Porfirio
Sardina and Lydia Sardina) that respondent Esperanza was no longer personally
cultivating the subject lot, the latter is more worthy of belief and credence.

4. Lastly, the respondents claim that they were not duly represented
during the hearing. Before the start of the hearing, the Honorable Provincial
Adjudicator asked the respondents if they have counsel and they answered that
they are represented by Legal Officer Nilo Aquino, but the latter failed to appear.
Respondents cannot simply retract their admissions under oath by using the excuse
that they cannot compose themselves because they do not have any idea what was
happening. The Honorable Provincial Adjudicator explained and made it clear to
the respondents that they were testifying under oath.

5. Considering the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the

respondents should be DENIED.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the
instant Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED.

Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.

Urdaneta City, December 23, 2020.