Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Orbe Vs Lahoylahoy - Motion For Reconsideration

    Uploaded by

    Khalil Fedmar Maranda
    The respondent files a motion for reconsideration of the decision granting the complaint for ejectment. The motion argues that [1] the plaintiffs failed to allege a valid cause of action for ejectment under the law and [2] the respondents have substantially complied with their obligations as tenants, making ejectment an unduly harsh penalty. The respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed for lack of cause of action or that the respondents be allowed to maintain peaceful possession of the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Orbe Vs Lahoylahoy - Motion For Reconsideration

    Uploaded by

    Khalil Fedmar Maranda
    81 views5 pages
    The respondent files a motion for reconsideration of the decision granting the complaint for ejectment. The motion argues that [1] the plaintiffs failed to allege a valid cause of action for ejectment under the law and [2] the respondents have substantially complied with their obligations as tenants, making ejectment an unduly harsh penalty. The respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed for lack of cause of action or that the respondents be allowed to maintain peaceful possession of the land.

    Original Title

    Orbe vs Lahoylahoy - Motion for Reconsideration

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent files a motion for reconsideration of the decision granting the complaint for ejectment. The motion argues that [1] the plaintiffs failed to allege a valid cause of action for ejectment under the law and [2] the respondents have substantially complied with their obligations as tenants, making ejectment an unduly harsh penalty. The respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed for lack of cause of action or that the respondents be allowed to maintain peaceful possession of the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views5 pages

    Orbe Vs Lahoylahoy - Motion For Reconsideration

    Uploaded by

    Khalil Fedmar Maranda
    The respondent files a motion for reconsideration of the decision granting the complaint for ejectment. The motion argues that [1] the plaintiffs failed to allege a valid cause of action for ejectment under the law and [2] the respondents have substantially complied with their obligations as tenants, making ejectment an unduly harsh penalty. The respondent requests that the complaint be dismissed for lack of cause of action or that the respondents be allowed to maintain peaceful possession of the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    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

    You might also like