1|Page1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

AAA, BBB
Petitioners,

-versus- CA GR NO. ______________________

CCC, DDD
Respondents.

COMMENT/OPPOSITION

The respondents, thru the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, humbly submits their comment to the instant petition for
review, in compliance with the Courts’ 16 June, 2023 Resolution,
embodying the following contentions, thus:

TIMELINESS OF FILING

Respondents initiated the filing of this comment within the prescribed

period of ten (10) days expiring on July 20, 2023, reckoned from the
undersigned counsel’s receipt thereof on July 10, 2023.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AVERRED

IN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW
2|Page2

Petitioners claim that they are the legitimate tenants of the subject
landholding registered in the name of the late Hhhh, containing an area of
137,446 square meters, more or less, located at Bbbb while herein
respondents are the successor-in-interest of the late HHH. Petitioners
pursued the instant initiative questioning both the 07 October 2021
Decision rendered by the PARAD of Isabela of the original complaint filed
by herein respondent, thereby severing the tenancy relationship between
herein party litigants which was affirmed on appeal by the DARAB, Diliman,
Quezon City in its 16 March 2022. Petitioner narrated that during the
hearing before the PARAD, they admitted that indeed they have not
delivered rentals/ arrears as alleged in the complaint and that they are
willing to pay the unpaid lease rentals within a reasonable period of time.
Petitioner further alleged that the reliquidation of lease rentals shall be
prohibited if it not starts within three (3) years after such cause of action
accrued.

BRIEF COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

Respondents contended that they are the successors-in-interest of

the late Hhhhh, the registered owner of a parcel of land containing an area
of 137,446 square meters, located at BBB and registered in his name
under TCT NO.035111. On June 24, 1975, Hhhhh originally instituted a
certain Mmmmas tenant over the 50,000 square meter portion of the
subject land. On September 4, 1977, Mmmm transferred his cultivation
unto a certain EEEE. In the course of time, petitioner, EEEE surreptitiously
allowed his co-petitioners to cultivate the remaining portion of the subject
landholding without the knowledge and consent of the respondents, as
owners thereof. Since the year 2008 up to the present, petitioners never
paid leasehold rentals on their respective tillage despite repeated demands
from herein respondents.
3|Page3

SOLE ISSUE LAID BY THE PETITIONER:

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS COULD BE HELD LIABLE

OF ALLEGED UNPAID LEASE RENTALS TO WARRANT
EJECTMENT.

ARGUMENTS

Republic Act No.3844, as amended, otherwise known as The

Agricultural Land Reform Code, specifically Section 36 thereof, provides
lawful grounds to cause the eviction of a tenant from his tillage. The
existence of such prohibited tenurial acts accentuated the respective
arguments of herein party litigants, particularly paragraph 6 of Republic Act
3844, which provides:
Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions - Notwithstanding
any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an
agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his
landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the
Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is
shown that:

(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls
due: Provided, that if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to
crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a
fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for
dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that
particular crop is not thereby extinguished.

Consistently, the assailed decisions of the Honorable PARAD of

Isabela and the DARAB, Diliman, Quezon City, accurately appreciated that
the requisite “deliberateness and willful act” in evading payment of
4|Page4

leasehold obligation was clearly proven and attendant in the complained

demeanor of herein petitioners. To quote the reasoning of the DARAB,
“defendant-appellants’ non-payment of lease rentals is not only a
manifestation of refusal to pay the lease rentals but indeed an actual act of
failure to fulfill a responsibility for the period of thirteen years. It must be
emphasized that there are no circumstances mentioned that would qualify
or justify the non-payment of lease rentals, which is one of the obligations
of an agricultural leasehold tenant. The defendant-appellants’ reason for
non-payment is not due to any fortuitous event or one contemplated under
Section 36 of Republic Act No.3844”. Further, it is apparent that petitioners
have reiterated their admission that they have not delivered leasehold
rentals to herein respondents which should be considered as a ground to
cause outright dismissal of the instant action.
Jurisprudence is instructive that 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.
Indeed, 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. 1

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly pleaded of this

Honorable Court that the instant Petition for Review be DENIED and
thereby affirming in toto the assailed October 7, 2021 PARAD Decision and
March 16, 2022 DARAB Decision rendered in this case.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Roxas, Isabela for Court of Appeals, Manila. July 17, 2023

1 Eufrocina Nieves, as represented by her attorney-in-fact, Lazaro Villarosa, Jr., petitioner versus Ernesto Duldulao
and Felipe Pajarillo, G.R. No.190276, April 2, 2014
5|Page5

ATTY. SSS
Counsel for the respondents

Copy furnished:

ATTY. KKK
Counsel for the petitioners

EXPLANATION AS TO MODE OF SERVICE

Due to distance involved and lack of messengerial personnel, copies

of the foregoing comment and opposition were served and filed via
registered mail.

ATTY. SSS