REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

DEMETRIO S. FRUCTUOSO,
Complainant, DARAB Case No. 01-07-4967-EP-22
FOR: EJECTMENT ON THE
-versus- GROUND OF SUBLEASING

TOM ABAN and TIMOTEO ABAN,

Respondents.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Respondents, through undersigned Legal Officer and unto this Honorbale Board hereby
most respectfully file this Notice of Appeal from the DECISION dated September 20, 2022
rendered by the Honorable Regional Adjudicator Marivic C. Casabar and was received by the
undersigned on September 28, 2022, and a copy of ORDER dated November 16, 2022 denying
the Motion For Reconsideration filed by herein respondents.

The undersigned received the copy of the ORDER on November 17, 2022 and has until
December 2, 2022 within which to file this Notice of Appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

December 1, 2022, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.

LEGAL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN
Counsel for the Respondents-movant

BY:

SANTIAGO MARTIN I. PEREGRINO

COS-Legal Officer
DAR Pangasinan Legal Division
Alexander St., Gacutan Building
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

DEMETRIO S. FRUCTUOSO,
Complainant-Appellee, DARAB Case No. 01-07-4967-EP-22
FOR: EJECTMENT ON THE
-versus- GROUND OF SUBLEASING

TOM ABAN and TIMOTEO ABAN,

Respondents-Appellant.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

APPEAL MEMORANDUM

Respondents-Appellant, through the undersigned and unto this Honorable Board most
respectfully submit this Appeal Memorandum and for this purpose, respectfully avers;

That the appellant received on November 17, 2022 the ORDER issued on November 16,
2022 by the Regional Adjudicator Atty. Marivic C. Casabar which DENIED the respondents
Motion for Reconsideration on the Decision dated September 20, 2022.

PREFATORY STATEMENT
The Complainant in this case is Demetrio S. Fructuoso, of legal age, Filipino
citizen, and resident of Brgy. Flores, San Manuel, Pangasinan where summons, notices
and other processes of this Honorable Board may be served.

The Respondents in this case are Timoteo Aban and Tom Aban (Father and Son,
respectively) both of legal age, Filipino citizens, and residents of Brgy. Flores, San
Manuel, Pangasinan, where summons, notices, and other processes of this Honorable
Board may be served.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

THE HONORABLE ADJUDICATOR ERRED IN GRANTING THE

EXTINGUISHMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD
 RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND
RESPONDENT TIMOTEO ABAN

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
Herein respondents-movant is a hapless tenant of the subject landholding and
seeks refuge and justice before this office.

Respondent-movant, Timoteo Aban, is a duly instituted tenant, possessing all the

qualifications and none of the disqualifications as provided by law. He has been in the
landholding subject of this case continuously and spending almost his entire life in
cultivating the landholding subject of this case and lease rentals were duly delivered and
accepted. There was no problem, agrarian or otherwise that ever cropped up with his
landholder-owner Demetrio S. Fructuoso.

The tenurial status of the respondents-movant is at stake and thus he sought for the
DARAB to reconsider her Decision to protect his rights as duly instituted tenant. Once a
tenant, always a tenant. He enjoys security of tenure and can only be removed therefrom
only for causes provided by law.

In accordance with R.A. 1199 provides: “Section 3. Agricultural Tenancy

Defined. - Agricultural tenancy is the physical possession by a person of land devoted to
agriculture belonging to, or legally possessed by, another for the purpose of production
through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household, in
consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter, or to pay a
price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both.”

Further in “Sec. 5 par. (o) Immediate farm household includes the members of
the family of the tenant, and such other person or persona whether related to the tenant
or not, who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him operate the
farm enterprise.”

With all due respect to the Honorable Adjudicator, on the alleged subleasing,
Respondent-appellant Timoteo Aban is the duly instituted tenant of herein complainant,
while respondent-movant Tom Aban is the son of Timoteo Aban.
 With all due respect to the Honorable Adjudicator, respondent Timoteo Aban did
not act like a landowner in allowing his son in the cultivation of the subject landholding
because it is his own family member that helps him in the cultivation of the subject
landholding. He did not install any other tenant except in the person of his own family
member. Tom Aban, is the one who has capability, is willing and aptitude in succeeding
the cultivation and possession of the landholding subject of this case

Granting the admission of respondent Timoteo Aban that by reason of his old age,
the ground being pointed out in section 36 of R.A. 3844 which is opposed because in the
instant case, no sub-leasing was committed for the reason that Tom Aban is an immediate
family household member and is his direct descendant.

In case of tenancy succession under R.A. 3844, SEC. 9 provides:

“Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the
Parties.—In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his
landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person
who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within
one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the
surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest
descendant or descendants in order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or
permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such
choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, further, That in
the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein
provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established.”

In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall
bind his legal heirs.”

In the afore-mentioned provision, Tom Aban succeeded tenancy rights from his
father Timoteo Aban from 2013 up to the present. By the time that Tom Aban succeeded
the tenancy rights of his father, he followed the sharing basis of his father and herein
complainant which is 50% - 50% sharing on the expenses and on the crops produced.
Since 2013, caretaker of the subject landholding continued to receive such just and
rightful share of respondent Tom Aban.
 Under “SECTION 27. Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee. — It shall be unlawful
for the agricultural lessee: (1) To contract to work additional landholdings belonging to
a different agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an economic
familysize farm, without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor with whom
he had entered first into household, if the first landholding is of sufficient size to make
him and the members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its cultivation;
or (2) To employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however, That in case of
illness or temporary incapacity he may employ laborers whose services on his
landholding shall be on his account.”
That herein respondents-movant did not violate any of the abovementioned
prohibition by reason of subleasing. Timoteo did not employ subleasing to any third
person. By reason of his incapacity, old age and failing health condition, he needed the
help of the members of her family who is able and willing to continue the cultivation of
the landholding.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, herein respondents-movant
most respectfully pray to the Honorable Board that in the interest of substantial justice,
the Decision dated September 20, 2022 be set aside and the herein appeal be given due
course.

Other reliefs just and equitable on the premises are likewise prayed for.

December 1, 2022 Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

LEGAL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN
Counsel for the Respondents-movant

BY:

SANTIAGO MARTIN I. PEREGRINO

COS-Legal Officer
DAR Pangasinan Legal Division
Alexander St., Gacutan Building
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
Copy furnished:
ATTY. JANELLE DAPHNE L. RABANG-ORDONA
Counsel for the Complainant
04 Asuncion St. Gueset Sur, San Manuel
2438 Pangasinan