Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR
2nd Floor, LVD Law Bldg., Avenida Veteranos
Tacloban City, Leyte
-oOo-

VICENTA C. CIMAFRANCA DARAB Case No: R-0801-

Petitioner, 0722-17
For: CANCELLATION OF
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
-versus- AND EJECTMENT WITH
DAMAGES

SALVADOR OLAZO
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENT, thru the assistance of the Agrarian Legal

Assistance Division of the Department of Agrarian Reform Program
Office (DARPO) of Leyte, respectfully avers: THAT-

1. On February 1, 2019, defendant received a copy of the

Decision, dated December 7, 2018, rendered by this Board the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Declaring the tenancy relationship between

Salvador Olazo and Vicenta Cimafranca
terminated;

2. DIRECTING Salvador Olazo to vacate the land

subject land hereof and peacefully turn-over its
physical possession to the plaintiff;

3. DIRECTING Salvador Olazo to account the

unpaid rentals to the plaintiff since 2011 up to
2017, and until he finally relinquish the possession
of the subject land to the plaintiff.
 SO ORDERED”

2. Pursuant to the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure1

respondent has fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Decision or until
February 18, 2019 within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration
considering that February 16, 2019 falls on a Saturday. Hence this
Motion for Reconsideration is filed within the said period;

GROUNDS

3. Respondent respectfully moves for the reconsideration of

the above-cited Decision on the following grounds:

a. The finding of fact in the Decision is not supported by

substantial evidence.

b. The conclusions stated therein are contrary to law

and jurisprudence.

“The finding of fact in the

Decision is not supported by
substantial evidence”

4. Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion;2

5. It is glittering in the complaint itself that the plaintiff’s cause

of action are not supported by substantial evidence. What stated
therein as her cause of action are mere self-serving statements;

6. Plaintiff attached in her complaint the following

documentary evidence, to wit:

a. Deed of Sale which is not even subscribed before a

Notary Public marked as Annex “A”;

b. Contrata dated April 16, 2008 marked as Annex “B”;

1
Section 10, Rule X, 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure
2
Hilaria Ramos Vda. De Brigino –vs- Dominador Ramos and Filomena Ramos, February 6, 2006, G.R. No.
130260.

2
 c. Compromise Agreement dated May 12, 2011 marked as
Annex “ C”

d. Notice for Mediation/Pre-Litigation Conference dated

May 5, 2011;

e. Certificate of Non-Agreement dated August 19, 2016

marked as Annex “D”;

f. Notice of Mediation and Pre-Litigation Conference

dated August 25, 2017 marked as Annex “E”; and,

g. Certification issued by Edwin F. Pingol dated October

30, 2017.

7. The above documents cannot support a conclusion of non-

payment of lease rental and substantial non-compliance by the
defendant of the terms and conditions of their leasehold agreement.
The “Contrata” and Compromise Agreement are mere proofs of the
existence of an agricultural leasehold relation between the plaintiff and
the defendant. While the Notice of Mediation and Certificate of Non-
Agreement prove only the conduct of mediation between the parties;

8. Though the “pisadas” as stated in the Decision are proofs

of the transactions between Salvador and the palay buyer, the same is
not proof of non-payment of lease rental. It is a known fact that it is
customarily done by tenants and landowners to indicate in the
“pisadas” their respective shares;

“The conclusions stated therein

are contrary to law and
jurisprudence.”

9. Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844 otherwise known as

the “Agricultural Land Reform Code” provides:

Section 37. Burden of Proof.- The burden of proof to

show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment

3
 of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the
agricultural lessor. –( emphasis supplied)

10. This Honorable Board anchored its decision in favor of

Plaintiff on Section 36 of R.A. No. 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:
xxx
(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially
comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract
of any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is
caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
xxx

(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 herby extinguished:”

11. While Section 36 as stated above provides the grounds for

the dispossession of an agricultural lessee, Section 37 thereof
expressly provides that the burden of proof to show the
existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural
lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor;

12. Clearly, the ruling of this Honorable Board that the burden
of proof to prove payment of the obligation rests upon defendant is
contrary to what is expressly stated by the law;

13. The existence of an agricultural leasehold relation between

the plaintiff and the defendant, as shown in the Contrata and the
Compromise Agreement, holds the presumption of law that defendant
pays the lease rental when it falls due;
4
 14. Plaintiff alleges non-payment of lease rental and the non-
compliance by defendant with their compromise agreement, the onus
probandi rests upon her;

15. As pleaded under the first ground of this Motion, plaintiff

failed to prove non-payment of lease rental and non-compliance by the
defendant to their compromise agreement;

16. While it is true, that plaintiff is entitled to the protection of

her rights, defendant on the other hand, as the agricultural lessee is
entitled to security of tenure;

17. Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural

lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their
landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of
livelihood.3

18. A decision declaring the tenancy relationship between

plaintiff and defendant terminated, directing defendant to vacate the
land he is tilling, and directing him to account unpaid rentals based on
facts not supported by substantial evidence is tantamount to
deprivation of his only means of livelihood.

19. Furthermore, Section 38 of R.A. No. 3844 provides:

“Section 38. Statute of Limitations.- An action to enforce

any cause of action under this Code shall be barred if not
commenced within three years after such cause of action
accrued.”

20. In the Decision this Honorable Board directed defendant to

account the unpaid rentals to the plaintiff since 2011 to 2017;

21. Clearly by applying the above-cited provision, plaintiffs

cause of action from 2011 to 2014 is already barred by prescription;

22. But again said allegations of the plaintiff are self-serving

not being supported by substantial evidence;

3
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 439, 1988.

5
 PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that the Decision dated December 7, 2018 be RECONSIDERED and
an Order be issued:
(1) DISMISSING the Complaint for failure to prove a cause of
action;
(2) DIRECTING plaintiff to maintain defendant’s peaceful
possession and cultivation of subject land;
(3) Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant as follows:
a. Actual and Moral Damages – Php 50,000.00
b. Exemplary Damages - Php 30,000.00
Such other reliefs deemed just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.

Done this 15th day of February, 2019.

SALVADOR OLAZO
Defendant

Assisted by:
BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE (BALA)
Counsel for the Respondent
DAR Provincial Office of Leyte
LVD Compound, Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City

By:
NIEL PATRICK P. ENAGE
ARPT/Legal Officer Designate

6
 VERIFICATION

I, SALVADOR OLAZO, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a

resident of Zone 1, Brgy. Comatin, Javier, Leyte, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the defendant of the above entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of this Motion for
Reconsideration; and,

3. That I have read and understood the contents therein and the
same are true and correct to the best of my own personal
knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto our signatures this

___ day of __________________, 2019 in Tacloban City, Philippines.

SALVADOR OLAZO
Affiant
VIN: 3724-0025A-C1963SEO10000
Issued in Javier, Leyte

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of

__________________, 2019 in Tacloban City, Philippines, affiants
exhibiting to me his proof of identity as indicated above.

7
 REQUEST

To: The Receiving Clerk

Depatrtment of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration for

the kind consideration and approval of the Provincial Adjudicator of
Leyte immediately upon receipt hereof without further oral arguments.

NIEL PATRICK P. ENAGE

Copy furnished:
ATTY. KARAH JANE ACUIN TAMBOONG
PUMA Law and Notarial Office
2nd flr. Rm. 007, S & A Realty building
Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City, 6500.
Registry Receipt No. __________________.

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion for Reconsideration is being served

and filed thru registered mail due to lack of personnel to effect personal
service.

NIEL PATRICK P. ENAGE