Sample Motion For Reconsideration

Republic of the Philippines
Fourth Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
City of Bacoor, Cavite
FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Civil Case No.: BCCV 19-474
For: RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
AND
DAMAGES
NERISSA SILOT and all

persons claiming rights under her,
Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
MARICHELLE DELA CRUZ and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
VICKY VILLALVA and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
JOBERT RUBIO and all
persons claiming rights under him,
Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
JENNILYN SANTIAGO and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
MILLET MALLEN and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
FERNAND RAUMAR and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
JOSUE BOBILIA and all
Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
RAYMART CAPULONG and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
MYLENE PADIOS and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
FERNAND RAUMAR and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
HELEN RAUMAR and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
ROMEO PEREDA and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
NESTORIO VILLALVA and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
ANNALYN VILLALVA and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
ROSELYN CAPULONG and all
Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
LARRY CAPULOG and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
DEMETRIO LETE and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
TELYN RELLOSA and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
ANDOY RAUMAR and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
PEDRO RAUMAR and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
JOHNNY LETE and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
JOY YAESO and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
ANNALIZA YAESO and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
CEZAR CAPULONG and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
LYNETTE ARARACAP and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
For: RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION AND
DAMAGES
JANET YAESO, MARIO CAPULONG

and all persons claiming rights under them,
Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
CONCHITA CAPULONG and all
Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x

Plaintiff,
AND
DAMAGES
JOVELYN TAGLE and all

Defendant/s.
x----------------------------------------x
ORDER
For resolution is the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration filed by

defendants through counsel, Atty. Louie Alfred Pantoni on October 29, 2019.
Plaintiff did not file a Comment/Objection thereto. The motion prays that the Court
revers and set aside its Order dated October 17, 2019 denying the Motion to
Dismiss and further, to refer the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform to
determine and certify if there exists any agrarian dispute on the subject lot.
The contention alleged by the defendant in the Consolidated Motion for

Reconsideration merely reiterates allegations stated in the Consolidated Motion to
Dismiss filed on October 4, 2019.
The Court resolves to deny the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration

pursuant to the ruling in the case of Chailese Development Company, Inc.,
represented by Ma. Teresa M. Chung, Petitioner, v. Monico Dizon, Jimmy V.
Cruz, et. al., Respondents1, which held –
The allegations in petitioner's complaint make a case for

recovery of possession, over which the regular courts have
jurisdiction. However, in response thereto, the respondents filed
their Answer with Counterclaim, assailing the jurisdiction of the
regular court to rule on the matter on the ground that it is agrarian in
nature, which thus complies with the first requisite, viz.:
1
G.R. No. 206788, February 14, 2018, Chailese Development Company, Inc., Represented By Ma. Teresa M.
Chung, Petitioner, v. Monico Dizon, Jimmy V. Cruz, et. al., Respondents
BY WAY OF SPECIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, defendants
further state that:
5. The Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
nature of the action. Verily, the allegations of the complaint would
show that this involves the implementation of Agrarian Reform law
hence beyond the pale of jurisdiction of this Court.39
Anent the second requisite, the Court finds that the respondents
failed to prove that they are farmers, farmworkers, or are
agricultural tenants.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 6657 defines farmers and farmworkers as

follows:
(f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is

cultivation of land or the production of agricultural crops, either by
himself, or primarily with the assistance of his immediate farm
household, whether the land is owned by him, or by another person
under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with
the owner thereof.
(g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as

an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm
regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly,
monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose
work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a
pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially
equivalent and regular farm employment.
An agricultural tenancy relation, on the other hand, is

established by the concurrence of the following elements
enunciated by this Court in the case of Chico v. CA,
(1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an
agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production; (5) that there is personal cultivation on the
part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is
shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
Contrary to the CA's conclusion and as opposed to the first

requisite, mere allegation would not suffice to establish the
existence of the second requirement. Proof must be adduced by
the person making the allegation as to his or her status as a
farmer, farmworker, or tenant.
The pertinent portion of Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 reads:

If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or
tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the
prosecutor to the DAR xxx.
The use of the word "an" prior to "allegation" indicate that the latter
qualifies only the immediately subsequent statement, i.e., that the
case is agrarian in nature. Otherwise stated, an allegation would
suffice only insofar as the characterization of the nature of the
action.
Had it been the intention that compliance with the second

element would likewise be sufficient by a mere allegation from
one of the parties that he or she is a farmer, farm worker, or
tenant, the legislature should have used the plural form when
referring to "allegation" as the concurrence of both requisites is
mandatory for the automatic referral clause to operate.
Further instructive is this Court's ruling in the previously cited

case of Chico. Therein, the Court held that for the purpose of
divesting regular courts of its jurisdiction in the proceedings
lawfully began before it and in order for the DARAB to acquire
jurisdiction, the elements of a tenancy relationship must be
shown by adequate proof. It is not enough that the elements are
alleged. Likewise, self-serving statements in the pleadings are
inadequate.
Hence, in light of the absence of evidence to show any tenancy

agreement that would establish the relationship of the parties
therein, the Court in Chico granted the petition and reinstated the
proceedings before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
Applying these principles in the matter on hand, in here,

respondents merely alleged in their Answer with Counterclaim that
they are previous tenants in the subject landholdings implying that a
tenancy relationship exists between them and petitioner's
predecessor-in-interest, in this wise:
9. That defendants are actually tenants of the land long before the
same was illegally transferred in the name of the plaintiff;
10. That the lot subject matter of this case is formerly a hacienda
devoted to agricultural production;
11. That since the land is within the coverage of the [CARL], the
defendants, are by law, the qualified farm-beneficiaries who should
be entitled to the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the
same;
12. That without the knowledge of the said defendants, the property
was transferred to herein plaintiff who in order to avoid the
compulsory acquisition and distribution of the said land, filed a
"bogus" petition for conversion, x x x.43
Apart from these statements however, respondents failed to

elaborate much less prove the details of such tenancy agreement
and the peculiarities of the subject landholding's previous
ownership. There was no evidence adduced of the existence of
any tenancy agreement between respondents and the
petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. This, as discussed, precludes
the application of Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by
R.A. No. 9700, for failure to satisfy the second requisite.
(Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Consolidated Motion for

Reconsideration filed on October 29, 2019 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
November 14, 2019. Bacoor City, Cavite.
MARIA LUWALHATI C. CRUZ

Acting Presiding Judge
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Clifford E. Chua Atty. Louie Alfred G. Pantoni

Counsel for the Plaintiff Counsel for the Defendant
Unit 304 3rd floor, The Orient Square Buiiding B 17 L 18 Ph 1 Bellazona-Navarre
F. Ortigas, Jr. Road (Ex-Emerald Ave.) Molino III, Bacoor, Cavite
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1603
MLCC/amr
Republic of the Philippines
Fourth Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Bacoor City, Cavite
MARIA ELOISA PINEDA, in

behalf of her minor child, MARIA
TRISHA PINEDA
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.: 14-4042
-versus-
For: DAMAGES
JOSEFINA PARFAN
Defendant.
X-------------------------------------------X
ORDER
Before this Court is defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision dated March 6, 2018 praying for this Honorable Court to delete or
reduce the award of damages and attorney’s fees awarded in favor of the
plaintiff. On May 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed her Comment/Opposition thereto.
After careful analysis and consideration, the Court is inclined to grant

the motion filed by the accused and to reconsider the Decision dated March
6, 2018. Defendant correctly moved for the reconsideration of said decision
which is sanctioned by Rule 37 of the Rules of Court which provides
amongst others:
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for

new trial or reconsideration. — Within the period for
taking an appeal, x x x
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also

move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the
damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that
the decision or final order is contrary to law.
Section 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration. — The

trial court may set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new
trial, upon such terms as may be just, or may deny the motion. If the
court finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the
judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend
such judgment or final order accordingly
Upon revisiting the facts of the case and the circumstances

surrounding same, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant correctly
pointed out that the evidence is insufficient to justify the amount of
damages awarded.
The Supreme Court, in the 2000 case of Ong Chiu Kwan vs. Court of
Appeals, held that
Regarding damages, we find the award of moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to be without
basis. Moral damages may be recovered if they were the
proximate result of defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
An award of exemplary damages is justified if the crime
was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. There is no evidence to support such
award. Hence, we delete the award of moral damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
In the case above-cited, the Municipal Trial Court of Bacolod City
Their allegation, that the April 24, 2018 Order must be reversed for utter
lack of factual and legal merit is misplaced and bereft of merit. In its motion,
the accused erroneously cited Josielene Lara Chan vs. Johnny T. Chan2
case, which unfortunately, applies only to civil cases, hence, not applicable
in this case which is a criminal case for adultery. Furthermore, Section 13(f)
of Republic Act. No. 10173 provides an exception to the applicability of the
said law and its implementing rules and regulations.
On the other hand, the power of the Court to issue subpoenas is

sanctioned by Section 1 of Rule 21 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Section 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. — Subpoena is a
process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the
hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by
competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may also
require him to bring with him any books, documents, or other things
under his control, in which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.
Thus, pursuant to above disquisitions, the motion is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
May ___, 2018. Bacoor City, Cavite.
JANICE L. ANDRADE-UDARBE
Assisting Judge
Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor Norma Mendoza
Bacoor Government Center, No. 61, Dinar St., Camella 3, Las
Bayanan, Bacoor City, Cavite 4102 Pinas City 1740
Atty. Simon D. Victa Rosita Reyes
2
G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013
No.6 Purok 1, Sta. Isabel, Kawit, Navarette Cmpd., Panapaan,
Cavite 4104 Bacoor City, Cavite 4102

Sample Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sample Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

NERISSA SILOT and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

MARICHELLE DELA CRUZ and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

VICKY VILLALVA and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

JENNILYN SANTIAGO and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

MILLET MALLEN and all

FERNAND RAUMAR and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

RAYMART CAPULONG and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

MYLENE PADIOS and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

FERNAND RAUMAR and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

HELEN RAUMAR and all

ROMEO PEREDA and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

NESTORIO VILLALVA and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

ANNALYN VILLALVA and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

LARRY CAPULOG and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

DEMETRIO LETE and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

TELYN RELLOSA and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

ANDOY RAUMAR and all

PEDRO RAUMAR and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

JOHNNY LETE and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

JOY YAESO and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

ANNALIZA YAESO and all

CEZAR CAPULONG and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

LYNETTE ARARACAP and all

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

JANET YAESO, MARIO CAPULONG

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

FINE PROPERTIES, INC.,

JOVELYN TAGLE and all

For resolution is the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration filed by

The contention alleged by the defendant in the Consolidated Motion for

The Court resolves to deny the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration

The allegations in petitioner's complaint make a case for

Section 3 of R.A. No. 6657 defines farmers and farmworkers as

(f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is

(g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as

An agricultural tenancy relation, on the other hand, is