You are on page 1of 8

Page 1 of 8

Republic of the Philippines


DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
Mankilam, Tagum City, Davao del Norte
RE: DETERMNATION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE
PENDING IN THE MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURT
IN
CITIES
BRANCH 2, ISLAND GARDEN
CITY OF SAMAL, ENTITLED
ARSENIO LUGO VS. SPOUSES
JIMMY SUARIO AND VIOLETA
SUARIO DOCKETED AS CIVIL
CASE NO. CL-127-02-D FOR
UNLAWFUL
DETAINER,
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS
FEES
INVOLVES
AN
AGRARIAN DISPUTE.
ARSENIO LUGO,
Complainant,
-versusSPOUSES JIMMY SUARIO AND
VIOLETA SUARIO,

Defendants.
x.........................
.....x

DEFENDANTSS POSITION PAPER


UNTO

THIS

HONORABLE

DEPARTMENT/OFFICE,

defendants,

through counsel, in above-captioned case, submit most respectfully,


the foregoing POSITION PAPER for consideration, to wit:
PREFATORY
This is a civil case originally files with the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC Branch 2), Babak, Island Garden City of Samal for
UNLAWFUL DETAINER, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES, by the
complainant against the herein defendants.

FACTS OF THE CASE


Complainants filed a case for Unlawful Detainer, Damages and
Attorneys Fees against the defendants anchored on the ground that
the latter failed and refused to vacate the land despite oral and
written demands served upon them, based on complainants beliefs
that the respondents are just temporary occupants of portion of
complainants land. That defendants answer was received and issues
were joined, hearing was conducted and the Honorable Court, out
rightly ordered to refer the case to DAR, being that the case involved
agrarian issues and it is tainted with issues of tenancy relationship,
hence the Honorable Court acquired no jurisdiction over the case.
THE PARTIES
The defendants were formally installed and instituted tenants by
Mary Jane Lugo of her land sometime August 2008, before the latter
migrated to Japan as she got married to a Japanese. Whereas, the
complainant is the father of Mary Jane Lugo who instituted defendants
as tenants of her land. That defendants have no knowledge
whatsoever, that a portion of the land that the defendants are
tenanting belongs to the complainant when the former were installed
as

such

tenants.

Noted

that

complainant

summarily

ordered

defendants to vacate the land they are presently tenanting.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION


Stating briefly, defendants Jimmy Suario and wife Violeta were
paid farm workers of the land of Mary Jane Lugo, daughter of herein
plaintiff, which land was entrusted to one of Mary Janes brothers while
the latter was in Japan. That sometime early part of 2008, Mary Jane
Lugo came back to the Philippines and went to her farm and found

that the land was partially abandoned, upkeep and farm maintenance
neglected and farm production virtually mismanaged. That to salvage
a losing venture and to recover losses, Mary Jane Lugo formally
installed Jimmy Suario and wife as tenants of the entire property
sometime in 2008. That since then, defendants cultivated, maintained
and made the farm productive and regularly segregated landowners
shares which were spent wholly for the upkeep and maintenance of
the farm as shown in several production receipts herein attached and
marked as ANNEXES ____ to ____, inclusive.
Significantly observed, that products of the entire area were that
basis of the sharing scheme between the landowner (Mary Jane Lugo)
and the defendants (Jimmy Suario). The demand letters received from
the complainant ordering defendants to vacate the whole area was a
great surprise to the latter, when it stated that portion of said farm
with an area of 2,872 square meters is owned and titled in the name
of the complainant. Noted however that the notice was to vacate the
entire farm which the defendant was tenanting which the latter, in
their answer, objected and refused t vacate for it was not the
complainant who installed defendants as tenants, but Mary Jane Lugo.
It is the settled position of the defendants (Jimmy Suario and Wife)
that plaintiff is not the right party who can eject them from the
contested premises as the latter was a complete stranger to the
transaction between the defendants and the landowner (Mary Jane).
The claim of ownership of the portion of the tenanted farm by the
plaintiff with an area of 2, 872 square meters, was not disclosed to the
tenants, hence has no information or knowledge relative hereto. If
indeed, complainant is a registered owner of the portion of the said
land, then necessarily, he should inform defendants about the facts.
There was no mention of the name of complainant when the entire
farmland was turned over to the defendants by Mary Jane Lugo at the
time defendants were installed as tenants thereof. It was just recently
that defendants were informed of this fact. Had this fact disclosed to
the latter, then this matter will not be an issue in this case. The
established fact was that defendants are bona fide tenants of the
entire property subject of this case.
It is noteworthy to stress in this point that the occupation and
possession of the defendants as tenants of subject premises was not
by tolerance by the complainant and the landowner Mary Jane. It
was by expressed appointment or installation made by said Mary Jane
as tenants of the whole farm, to the exclusion of herein complaint.

It is now settled and established that defendants are the


instituted tenants of the entire area subject of this case and therefore,
cannot be ousted much less disposed nor ejected therefrom without
just and valid cause by RA 6657. Tenancy relationship, as provided by
law, maybe expressly or impliedly, the cardinal rules of creation of
tenancy will play in the instant case as ruled by the Supreme Court in
Caballes vs. DAR, No. L-78214, the six (6) concurring cardinal rules in
the creation/establishment of tenancy relationship are as follows: (1)
the parties are the landowner and the tenant (2) that the subject is an
agricultural land (3) that there is consent (4) the purpose is
agricultural production (5) that there is personal cultivation and (6)
that there is sharing of harvest. All of these requisites are present and
therefore, defendants (Jimmy Suario), has established a status of de
jure tenant and forthwith entitled to security of tenure and cannot, in
any manner be ejected from landholding without just, valid and
justifiable cause.
Abundantly noted and observed that defendant did no wrong
nor commit any act violative of existing tenancy laws, hence shall be a
tenant and shall remain a tenant. The Honorable Court a quo, rightly
resolved the case for referral to the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), for it involved and tainted with tenancy relationship of the
parties pursuant to the spirit and language of OCA Circular No. 622010 and sec.19 of RA 9700, knowing so well that with the issue of
tenancy relations, such Court is stripped and undressed of jurisdiction
over the case and to rule otherwise would be ultra vires.
CONCLUSION

CONCLUDING, plaintiff is not the right party to order ejectment


of the defendants, being stranger to the agreement into by the
landowner (Mary Jane) and the tenant (Jimmy Suario). If indeed,
defendants violated tenancy laws and in strict observance of due
process, the land owner is the correct party to file the case for
ejectment against the defendants. For the defendant having fully
established status of a de jure tenant of his land holdings, he is
entitled to the protective cocoon of security of tenure pursuant to law
and can never be disposed much less ejected from his landholdings
without just and valid cause provided by law.
With the salient provision of law and jurisprudence herein
discussed, the referral ordered by the Court of origin found properly

placed and the case is within the jurisdiction of the Department of


Agrarian Reform (DAR) and issues therein be resolved by the said
body/office.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered. It is most respectfully prayed


that the case be resolved in favor of the defendants and be ordered to
stay as tenants of subject property.
Babak, Island Garden City of Samal, Philippines.

SUSTAINED POSITION OF PROTESTEES


It is the established position of the protestees that the filing of
the instant protest by the protestants for disapproval of the subject
survey plan was done after it was approved, a fortiori, the protest
must fail and be dismissed outrightly. Besides, the process undertaken
by the protestants was not the correct remedy. They must have filed
the proper action for amendment and not just ordinary protest. The
approval of the survey by this Department must not be unnecessarily
disturbed muchless questioned as it has attend its validity. It must
therefore be enforced and implemented.

OTHER LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE


If,

indeed

protestants

are

determined

to

pursue

its

objection/opposition to the process taken, then they have still


available remedies open for the purpose. However, the questioned
approved survey shall remain valid and enforceable and the same
must now be ordered released in favor of the protestee, Menilla
Maranga-Dayanan.

CONCLUSION
CONCLUDING, the instant protest which was filed after the
survey plan was approved, found misplaced and the same be
dismissed and the same shall stand legally valid.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Department/Office, outright dismissal of the instant protest for being
filed out of time and shall therefore be ordered released to Menilla
Maranga-Dayanan, one of the protestees hereof.

MENILLA MARANGA-DAYANAN
Co-protestee

ASSISTED:

CAMPOREDONDO LAW OFFICE:

BY:
CAMPOREDONDO

MARDOCHEO
Counsel for the Defendants
CAMPOREDONDO LAW OFFICE

S.

Villarica, Babak District


Island Garden City of Samal
IBP O.R. No. 838484
Issued at Davao City
On May 16, 2011
PTR No. 4186724
Issued at Babak, Samal City
On January 2, 2012
Roll No. 32042
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0002011
Issued at Pasig City
On June 6, 2011
V E R I F I C A T I O N
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL NORTE
ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL

)
)
)

SSS

I, MENILLA MARANGA-DAYANAN, under oath state:


1. That I am one of the protestees, this case;
2. That I have caused to be prepared the foregoing POSITION PAPER;
3. That I have read the same and understood all the contents hereof and
all allegations therein contained are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and beliefs;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
____________ in Babak, Island Garden City of Samal, Philippines.

MENILLA MARANGA-DAYANAN
Affiant
Res. Cert. No. ____________
Issued at ________________
On _____________________
WITNESSES TO THUMBMARKS:
_______________________________ and _______________________________

SUBSCRIBED
AND
SWORN
to
before
me
this
_______________________ in Babak, Island Garden City of Samal, Philippines.
Affiants exhibited to me all their residence certificates, numbers of which
are clearly shown as above-written.

MARDOCHEO S. CAMPOREDONDO
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2013
PTR No. 4186724 issued at Samal City
on January 2, 2012
TIN 880-114-418-669
Doc. No. _______;
Page No. _______;

Book No. _______;


Series of 2012.

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Ruby Dela Cerna Teleron-Malanog
Office of the Regional State Prosecutor
Region X, 2nd Floor, Hall of Justice Bldg.,
Hayes Street, Cagayan de Oro City