Republic of the Philippines

Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board
Region III
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM ADJUDICATOR
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
Branch I

Landline: (044) 600-6957; Email:darabbranch1ne@gmail.com

Facebook: Darab Nueva Ecija

DAISAY B. DAGA,
Petitioner,
-versus-
DARAB CASE NO. 6529 ’NNE’21

NIDA B. JULIAN,
Respondent,
x--------------------------------------x

ORDER
BEFORE US is the Motion to Dismiss incorporated in the Answer
filed by the respondent through counsel on February 8, 2021.

In his Motion, the respondent alleged that: the Board has no

jurisdiction to hear and decide the case since there was no allegation
found in the complaint as to the presence of agrarian dispute between
the herein parties nor was there any allegation of any tenancy relation
between them; A case involving agricultural land does not immediately
qualify it as an agrarian dispute. The mere fact that the land is
agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural
lessee or tenant; there are conditions or requisites before he can qualify
as an agricultural lessee or tenant, and the subject matter being
agricultural land constitute simply one condition. In order to qualify as
an agrarian dispute, there must likewise exist a tenancy relation
between the parties; There could be no agrarian dispute in the case
because the land subject of this case is residential and not agricultural
as shown by the photograph showing the actual use of the land which is
merely a little over 1000 sqm which is indeed not suited to farming.
Hence, it follows that there can be no tenancy relationship between the
parties. Respondent is also submitting other proof that indeed the Board
ORDER
DARAB CASE NO. 6529 ’NNE’2
X-----------------------------------------X Page 2 of 4

has no jurisdiction of the case considering the nature of the land and
said proof (Pagpapatunay). Thus, the instant case should be dismiss;
The petitioner does not in reality own the entire lot because her siblings
(respondent included) have legitimate right and possessions because
they are heirs of Ambrocio. The marriage contract of respondent will
show who are her parents. The parties’ parents died on October 8, 2012
(Ambrocio) and August 9, 2014 (Marina), respectively. The petitioner was
the first to marry so she was the first one given by her parents a portion
of the lot where she could erect her house while the other siblings of her
were also allocated with their respective portions. Without knowledge
and consent of her siblings, petitioner illegally tilted the lot in her name.
The respondent is the one actually paying the taxes pertaining to her
portion as shown by the tax payment receipt; No earnest effort to settle
the case amicably, no BARC Certification or Certificate to File Action.
Condition precedents before filing the case were also not complied with.
Petitioner and respondent are siblings. They reside in one barangay.
However, no earnest effort to arrive at a compromise was first made and
there was no referral to BARC and to the Barangay Conciliation and
Mediation. Hence the case should be dismissed for failure to comply
with conditions precedent.

In the hearing of October 6, 2021, an Order was issued directing

the petitioner thru counsel to file a Reply to the Motion to Dismiss
incorporated in the Answer within ten (10) days from the date of such
Order. Thereafter, the Motion to Dismiss shall be submitted for
resolution. The Petitioner failed to comply with the said Order.

After considering the arguments of the parties, we find the

Motion NOT impressed of merit.

After considering the arguments of the parties, we find the

Motion NOT impressed of merit.
ORDER
DARAB CASE NO. 6529 ’NNE’2
X-----------------------------------------X Page 3 of 4

There is no doubt that the Board has jurisdiction over the

instant case pursuant to Rule II, Section 6-8 of the 2021 DARAB
Rules of Procedure which states that:

“SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive

Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The
Board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes
involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
under R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No.
9700, E.O. Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No.
3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, Presidential
Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
Implementing Rules and Regulations. Specifically,
such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to
cases involving the following:

XXXXX

d. Those cases involving the

ejectment and dispossession of tenants
and/or leaseholders;

XXXXX”

The allegation of the respondent that the case must be dismiss

for failure of the petitioner to attach BARC Certification is
untenable. It is clear from the Petition that there is BARC
Certification attached therein.

With regard to the contention of the respondent that she has a

legitimate right over the subject landholding because she is one the
of children of the late Ambrocio and Marina Belza who were the
original owners of the subject landholding and father of the
petitioner, the Board is in the opinion that this issue should be
discuss in a full blown trial.
Prudence dictates that merits of the case must be discussed or
threshed out in further proceedings. The respective allegations of
ORDER
DARAB CASE NO. 6529 ’NNE’2
X-----------------------------------------X Page 4 of 4

the contending parties must be proven through substantial

evidence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss is

hereby DENIED. The preliminary conference is set on November
10, 2021 at 1:30 in the afternoon.

SO ORDERED.

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. November 9, 2021.

JOSEPH NOEL C. LONGBOAN

Presiding Adjudicator

Copy furnished:

Atty. Joel Santos

208 2nd Floor, Hardrock Building,
Mabini Homesite, Cabanatuan City

L.O Donato Estrella

DAR-BALA, Cabanatuan City

Nida B. Julian
Brgy. Del Pilar, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija

Daliay B. Daga
Brgy. Del Pilar, Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija