Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
Region IV- CaLaBaRZon
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
Province of Laguna
San Pablo City, Laguna

MARIA FE TALISAY
Complainant,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO. R-0403-

0002-2023
For: Illegal EJECTMENT,
Payment of Disturbance
Compensation and Damages
DENNIS NABATILAN
Responde
nt
x-----------------------------------------------------
x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the Respondent through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Board, most respectfully states:

1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint is partially admitted in so far as the personal

circumstances of the Respondent is concerned and denied lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the allegations;

2. Paragraph 2 in so far as the personal circumstances of Respondent

Nabatilan is concerned, is admitted;

3. Paragraph 3 is partially admitted in so far as Emiliano Nabatilan is tenant

of ALMEDA of the property located at Brgy. Dila, Bay, Laguna;

4. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are strongly and vehemently denied subject to

special and affirmative defenses, hereunder foreclosed;

5. First sentence of paragraph 7 is admitted in so far as to the death of

Emiliano Nabatilan is concerned;

Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 1 of 7
 Second sentence of paragraph 7 is admitted in so far as Complainant and
her family are workers of the Respondent;
Third sentence of paragraph 7 is admitted in so far as Respondent
instructed Complaint and her family to leave the Subject Property;

Fourth sentence of paragraph 7 is denied for Respondent lack of

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the allegations;

6. Paragraphs 8 , 9, 10 and 11 are denied for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations;

7. Paragraph 12 is admitted as to the existence of the provision of Section 36

of R.A. No. 3844;

8. First sub-paragraph 13 is denied for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations;

Second sub-paragraph 13 is admitted as to the existence of the provision

of Section 31.

9. First sub-paragraph 14 is denied for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations;

Second sub-paragraph 14 is admitted as to the existence of the provision

of Section 25;

10. First sub-paragraph 15 is denied for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations;

Second sub-paragraph 15 is admitted as to the existence of the provision

of Section 27;

11. Paragraph 16 is denied for being a conclusion of law.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

12.Respondent reiterates, re-pleads and incorporates all the foregoing

averments and further alleges:

The Honorable Board has no jurisdiction on the

instant case

13.The Complaint dated 27 December 2022 filed by the Complainant failed

to established that the Honorable Board has jurisdiction on the instant
case for Payment of Disturbance of Compensation of Complainant;

Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 2 of 7
14.Payment of disturbance compensation presupposes that there is
agricultural lessor and lessee, there created tenancy relationship between
the Complainant and Respondent;

15.Section 166(2) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides:

"(2) Agricultural lessee' means a person who, by himself and with

the aid available from within his immediate farm household,
cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the
latter's consent for purposes of production, for a price certain in
money or in produce or both. It is distinguished from civil lessee
as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines.

(3) "Agricultural lessor" means a person, natural or juridical,

who, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal
possessor, lets or grants to another the cultivation and use of his
land for a price certain.

16.The essential requisites of tenancy relationship are: 

(a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;

(b) the subject is agricultural land;
(c) there is consent;
(d) the purpose is agricultural production;
(e) there is personal cultivation; and
(f) there is sharing of harvests. 

All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship

between the parties.

17.The tenancy element in the instant is here to discuss, wit:

(a) The parties are the landowner and the tenant, in the instant case
Complainant is a paid hired worker of Respondent, while Respondent
is the agricultural lessee of Almeda as admitted by the Complainant in
her Complainant;1

(b) The subject matter of their relationship is agricultural land, but

the Complainant failed to prove and attached a title or documents that
may identified that the Subject Property is an agricultural land;

1
See Complaint paragraph 3
Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 3 of 7
 (c) They mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by during the
lifetime of Emiliano Nabatilan;2

(d) The purpose of their relationship is Complainant is a hired worker

of the deceased Emiliano Nabatilan;

(e) Respondent is the one who personally cultivate the Subject

Property with the help of hired worker;

(f) Respondent pays Complainant in all the worked done in the

Subject Property;

18.With the present requisites, there is no indeed created an agricultural

tenancy relationship.

19.Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844 provides payment of disturbance

compensation. The agricultural lessee is entitled to the payment of
disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the
gross harvest on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar
years;

20. Complainant have no right to disturbance compensation because

Complainant is not Respondent’s agricultural lessee but a hired worker.

Complainant has no cause of action against

the Respondent for failure to implead the
real-party-in-interest, who is the landowner,
likewise Respondent is the not the real party-
in interest in the payment of disturbance
compensation

21.Basic in procedural law is the rule that every action must be prosecuted
or defended in the name of the real party in interest. 3

22.A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured

by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.4

2
See Complaint paragraph 4
3
G.R. NO. 161298. January 31, 2006, Sps. Oco,vs Limbaring
4
G.R. No. 196028. April 18, 2016, Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, inc.
[sammana], vs. Tan

Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 4 of 7
23.The landowner of the Subject Property should be impleaded in the instant
case for the determination whether or not Complainant is the agricultural
lessee in order to be entitled for disturbance compensation;

24.Complainant has no cause of action against the Respondent for failure to

implead the landowner, in order to be entitled to disturbance
compensation and to recognized her as de jure tenant of the Subject
Property.

25.Granting, for purposes of argument, Complainant is the agricultural

lessee of the Subject Property still Complaint should establish the
elements of tenancy relationship with the landowner;

26.Respondent is the recognized agricultural lessee of the Almeda as

evidence by the receipt of sharing;

Photocopies of receipts are attached and marked as

Annexes 2, 2-A to 2-I and made integral part thereof;

27. Therefore, Complainant’s demand of payment of disturbance

compensation to Respondent as fellow tenant of Complainant loses the
Honorable Board its jurisdiction.

Complainant is not entitled to damages

28.Section 25 of R.A. No. 3844 provides for the right to be indemnified for
labor:

SECTION 25. Right to be Indemnified for Labor. — The

agricultural lessee shall have the right to be indemnified for the
cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation, planting or
harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of
his crop in case he surrenders or abandons his landholding for
just cause or is ejected therefrom. In addition, he has the right to
be indemnified for one-half of the necessary and useful
improvements made by him on the landholding: Provided, That
these improvements are tangible and have not yet lost their utility
at the time of surrender and/or abandonment of the landholding,
at which time their value shall be determined for the purpose of
the indemnity for improvements.

29.Further, the right to be indemnified for labor is not absolute, the

improvement should be exist at the time of demand, here Complaint
failed to present that the improvement is still in present at the time of the
filing of the instant case;

Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 5 of 7
 30.Furthermore, the Complainant is not entitled to damages for failure to
present evidence that the expenses made by the Complainant is for the
benefit of Respondent.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Respondent respectfully prays of

this Honorable Board, as follows:

a. the instant action be DISMISSED for failure to state cause of action and
for lack of jurisdiction,

b. for such other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises.

Sta. Cruz for San Pablo City, Laguna, 28 April 2023.

BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Counsel for Respondent
Department of Agrarian Reform
2nd Fl. Josefina Lo Bldg.
Brgy. Pagsawitan, Santa Cruz, 4009 Laguna
09182334158/ 09260791599
darlag_legal@yahoo.com

By:
MAHEL D. ABUT
ARPO II

ATTY. PERSEUS A. ANTIGUA, REB

Attorney V/Chief, Legal Division
PTR No. [PGL No.] 1517344A/10Jan23/Province of
Laguna
MCLE Compliance No. VII-000018602/24May22
Roll No. 62492
IBP Life Member Roll No. 018594/16Jan18

Original filed:
DARAB
2nd Floor Iluminada Bldg.
Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 6 of 7
 Lopez Jaena St, cor. Rizal Ave.
Brgy. II, San Pablo City, 4000
Laguna

Copy served:
Atty. Ma. Sheryl L. Harina-Laure Reg. No. _________________
DOJ Building, A. Mabini St. 8 May 2023
San Pablo City Sta. Cruz, Laguna

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE

The foregoing Answer was served through registered mail

considering that personal service is not practicable due to distance and
personnel constraints, and current pandemic situation.

MAHEL D. ABUT

Answer
Talisay v. Nabatilan
Page 7 of 7