REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

Lanao del Norte
Pala-o, Iligan City

CONCEPCION J. ORBE DARAB CASE NO. X-

Represented by: ROLANDO J. ORBE 3057-LN-2022
And RODOLFO J. ORBE SR.

Plaintiffs, FOR: EJECTMENT

---- versus ----

NARCISO LAHOYLAHOY,
CLARITA MAHUSAY, WARLITO MAHUSAY

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Respondent-Movant, through the Department of

Agrarian Reform Legal Services Division, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers:

TIMELINESS OF THE SUBMISSION

1. On December 21, 2022 a DECISION was promulgated by

Provincial Adjudicator, Jemima Anzorah M. Pacasum the
dispositive portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint for

Ejectment and collection of rentals and damages is hereby rendered:

1. DIRECTING the respondent with the assistance of the Sheriff and

MARPO of Iligan City to account for the unpaid and unremitted
shares to the complainant commencing 2019 to 2022, and to pay
the same to the complainant.

2. DECLARING the tenancy relationship between complainant and

respondents terminated for the latter’s willful violation of his
obligation to pay the lease to the former;

1
 3. ORDERING the Respondents to immediately vacate the subject
property.

SO ORDERED.”

2. Under the 2021 DARAB rules, the party adversely affected by any
decision may file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from
receipt thereof. Petitioner-movant has received a copy of the decision
on January 18, 2023. Thus, the Respondent-movant is given on or
before February 3, 2023 to file the same. Hence, it is filed on time.

GROUNDS

3. The Respondent-movant most respectfully submits before the

Honorable Office that the decision is not supported by the evidence on
recorded and is aided by errors of law or irregularities which have
been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant. Thus, this
motion has been filed.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

a. With highest respect, the Honorable Board failed to dismiss this

case outright for failure of the plaintiff to allege a cause of action.

I. DISCUSSION

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT

WARRANTS THE EVICTION OF HEREIN DEFENDANTS

As provided by Section 50 of RA 1199:

“Sec. 50. Causes for the Dispossession of a Tenant. - Any of the

following shall be a sufficient cause for the dispossession of a tenant from
his holdings:

(a) The bona fide intention of the landholder to cultivate the land himself
personally or through the employment of farm machinery and implements
xxx

(b) When the current tenant violates or fails to comply with any of the terms
and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Act: Provided,
however, That this subsection shall not apply when the tenant has
substantially complied with the contract or with the provisions of this
Act.

2
(c) The tenant's failure to pay the agreed rental or to deliver the landholder's
share: Provided, however, That this shall not apply when the tenant's
failure is caused by a fortuitous event or force majeure.

(d) When the tenant uses the land for a purpose other than that specified by
agreement of the parties.

(e) When a share-tenant fails to follow those proven farm practices which
will contribute towards the proper care of the land and increased agricultural
production.

(f) When the tenant through negligence permits serious injury to the land
which will impair its productive capacity.

(g) Conviction by a competent court of a tenant or any member of his

immediate family or farm household of a crime against the landholder or a
member of his immediate family.”1

In this case, PLAINTIFFS failed to state and prove by substantial evidence

which among the seven (7) grounds defendants have committed which
would warrant their eviction. Their main allegation that Respondents are not
remitting the shares of the harvest to the landowner is belied by the
overwhelming receipts of the harvest. (Annex A to A-26 in the Answer).

Notably, the non-remittance of the shares which Complainants posits in their

complaint was due to the real estate mortgage made by Rodolfo Orbe Sr.,
which contract is subject to an Annulment of contract as filed by one of the
Plaintiffs (Annex E in the Complaint).

Whatever may be the result of the case for the Annulment of the Real Estate
Mortgage, whether the real estate mortgage is valid or invalid, one thing is
certain, the DEFENDANTS are in no way involved or connected with the
issues concerning ownership of the property. As far as they are
concerned, Defendants are only performing their duties as a TENANT. If
there may be lapses as to the remittance of the harvest, this only through the
fault of the landowners. In other words, Defendants cannot be faulted in the
crossfire between the internal problems of the landowners.

Lastly, granting that any of the allegations in the Complaint are true, such
violation would not warrant the grave penalty of dispossession and
1
RA 1199, An Act to govern the relations between landholders and tenants of Agricultural lands, August
30, 1954.

3
ejectment of the tenant in the landholding. In all good faith, Defendants are
merely performing their task as a tenant in the landholding which they have
been doing for more than a decade. In all those years, they have been
accustomed with the presence of Rodolfo Sr. in the landholding. Defendants
planted coconuts, harvested ‘copras’ and maintained the landholding under
the direct control and supervision of Rodolfo Sr. In return, Defendants
would then write the name “ORBE” in the receipts (pesadas) of the harvest
as shares for the landowner. Thereafter, when Defendants were informed
personally by Rodolfo Sr. that he is mortgaging the property, Defendants
had all the reason to believe him in all good faith. In other words,
Defendants had no intention to withhold the share of the harvest to the
Plaintiffs where it not for the instruction of Rodolfo Orbe Sr.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Office to reconsider its Decision promulgated on
December 21, 2022 and a new judgment be rendered:

1. DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of cause of action

2. ORDERING the PLAINTIFFS to maintain the RESPONDENTS
peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject landholding; and/or

RESPONDENT-MOVANT also prays for such other remedy as this

Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Iligan City, Philippines. ________________.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM LANAO DEL NORTE

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION
Diwanide Suite, Tubod, Iligan City

By:

ATTY. KHALIL FEDMAR D. MARANDA

Legal Officer

4
Copy furnished:

ATTY. EULALIO G. GAITE

Garcillano Gaite Zalsos Law Offices
2nd floor, Villania Zalsos Bldg., Quezon Ave.
Poblacion, Iligan City