Republic of the Philippines

11th Judicial Region

4th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
MALALAG - SULOP
Malalag, Davao del Sur

ROSITA MALUYA, ALAN

MALUYA, ALMA MALUYA-
ARCE, EDNA MALUYA-TERANIA, Civil Case No.
CECELIA MALUYA CADIZ,
RENILIA MALUYA, LIGAYA FOR: UNLAWFUL
MALUYA BERGET, EVELYN DETAINER, DAMAGES AND
MALUYA BJORKE, EVANSWENDA ATTORNEY’S FEES WITH
SLATSVEEN and CHARITA PRAYER FOR THE
MALUYA ANDERSEN ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF
Plaintiffs, PRELIMINARY
PROHIBITORY &
- versus - MANDATORY INJUNCTION
and/or TEMPORARY
ARLYN PANGGOY, RADIN RESTRAINING ORDER
PANGGOY, ABLING SANAMA
and SABAS SANAMA
Defendants.
X-----------------------------------------------X

MOTION TO DISMISS
` Defendants thru counsels, respectfully moves this Honorable Court
to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds of LACK OF
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE CASE and PERIOD FOR THE INSTITUTION OF A CIVIL
ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.
(Emphasis supplied)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The dispute involves a parcel of land registered in the name of

SORIANO D. MALUYA as the CARP Beneficiary under the Transfer
Certificate of Title CARP No. 02930, containing 142, 339 sq m., located at
Mabini, Banate, Malalag, Davao del Sur. Hence, herein defendants were
legal heirs of now deceased, Soriano D. Maluya. Plaintiffs were tenants of
Motion to Dismiss – Panggoy Et. Al Civil Case No. 1234

the subject property to the deceased Soriano D. Maluya evidenced by the

“Kasabutan Sa Pagrenta sa Yuta” or a contract agreement entered into
between ROSITA MALUYA, wife of the deceased and SABAS SANAMA
regarding the terms and conditions, where they agreed that the amount of
rent would entirely depend as to the sale of the crops planted but not
limited to corn, mongo, peanuts, rice and kamote. The parties executed the
agreement on May 19, 2015, which provides that whenever Soriano should
use the property, the Defendants and all person claiming rights under their
name should vacate the same. Pursuant to the execution of the said
document, defendants occupied the said property and tilled the land.
However, the demand to vacate the premises was allegedly sent to the
defendants on November 2, 2016.

On February 15, 2021, Plaintiffs instituted the civil action for

unlawful detainer with Prayer for the issuance of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction before the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court of Malalag, Davao
del Sur.

ARGUMENTS

This Honorable Court should dismiss the complaint

on the ground that it has no Jurisdiction
over the Subject Matter of the Case
when as such, lies before the DAR
as the proper forum concerning agricultural disputes
and other controversy relating thereto

Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further

amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:

“SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No

court or prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases
pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those
provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended. 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”

Page 2 of 6
Motion to Dismiss – Panggoy Et. Al Civil Case No. 1234

Applying the foregoing to the instant case, tenancy relationship exists

between ROSITA MALUYA and SABAS SANAMA evidencing the
execution of the “Kasabutan Sa Pagrenta sa Yuta.”

Under Section 50-A of RA 6657, it provides that, “In cases where

regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction,
agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their
associations shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning
their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP1.”

Clearly, the land in dispute in the instant case falls within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agricultural Reform (DAR), in which
case has primary and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide concerning
AGRICULTURAL DISPUTE and CONTROVERSY relating to Tenurial
arrangements whether “Leasehold,” “Tenancy”, “Stewardship” or
otherwise, over land devoted to Agriculture. (Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, this Honorable Court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the

case.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT IS
BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION
Article 1147 of the Civil Code on the rules on prescription of actions
provides that:
Art. 1147. The following actions must be filed within one year:
(1) For forcible entry and detainer;
(2) For defamation. (n)

As aptly shown in the statement of facts, the actual occupation and

tilling of the subject property took place on May 19, 2015 after the
execution of the “Kasabutan Sa Pagrenta sa Yuta” and that the demand to
vacate was allegedly tendered on November 2, 2016. It worthy to note that,
it was only on February 15, 2021 or after the lapse of more than 4 years (4
years and 3 months to be exact) that the plaintiffs instituted the action for
unlawful detainer against the defendants; which action is now barred by
prescription. (Emphasis supplied)

1
Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A

Page 3 of 6
Motion to Dismiss – Panggoy Et. Al Civil Case No. 1234

All told, the defendants respectfully submit that there is no reason for
the plaintiffs and this Honorable Court to further continue with the instant
case and thus the same should be accordingly dismissed outright for lack
of jurisdiction.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendants respectfully

prays that the judgement be rendered, DISMISSING the case in the
interest of justice and fair play, with costs against the plaintiffs.

City of Davao, Philippines, March 15, 2021.

BOSS LAW FIRM

Counsels for the Defendants
Door 13, Leonora Complex,
Tahimik Street, Davao City
(082) 286 1246
bosslaw@gmail.com

Counsel for the Defendants

By:

ATTY. DARCY MAI Y. REPOLIDON

Counsel for the Defendants
Until 31 December 2021
Serial No. 2018-128-2019 ● Roll No. 62817
PTR No. 1477667 ● 12/06/18 (for 2021) ● DC
IBP No. 056892 ● 12/14/18 (for 2021) ● DC
Door 13, Leonora Complex, Tahimik Street, Davao City

NOTICE OF HEARING

Page 4 of 6
Motion to Dismiss – Panggoy Et. Al Civil Case No. 1234

The Branch Clerk of Court

4th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
MALALAG - SULOP
Malalag, Davao del Sur

TO: COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

ADDRESS: Almendras District, Padada,
Davao del Sur, Philippines

GREETINGS!

Please take notice and include in your calendar for hearing

the foregoing Motion to Dismiss on Monday, March 22, 2021 at 3
p.m., or as soon as matter and counsel may be heard and for the
kind consideration of the Honorable Court.

ATTY. DARCY REPOLIDON

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE

Page 5 of 6
Motion to Dismiss – Panggoy Et. Al Civil Case No. 1234

Copy of the Motion to Dismiss was served to the Plaintiffs

thru registered mail due to time and distance constraints, and for
lack of the undersigned’s staff who can serve the same in person.

ATTY. DARCY REPOLIDON

Copy furnished:

AIANNA BIANCA BIRAO Registry Receipt No:

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Almendras District, Padada,
Davao del Sur, Philippines
Date:____________________

Page 6 of 6