Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR
_____________
Petitioners,
-versus- Termination of Lease,
Ejectment, Damages and
________________ Attorney’s Fees
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x
RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER
UNTO THIS HONORABLE DEPARTMENT/OFFICE, respondent,
through the Public Attorney’s Office-Tagum District Office, by the
undersigned Public Attorney, in above-captioned case, submit
most respectfully, the foregoing POSITION PAPER for
consideration, to wit:
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioners filed a complaint before this Honorable Office
anchored on the ground that respondent violated the terms and
conditions on the Agricultural Leasehold Contract executed by
Petitioner __________ and the Respondent dated 24 November
1999.
The allegations of the Petitioners were denied by the
Respondent during the conference conducted by the Honorable
Office. Subsequently, respondent was directed to submit his
answer and evidence in response to the complaint filed agaisnt
him.
1|Page
The respondent’s answer was recieved and rightly ordered
both parties to sumit and file each position papers for the
resolution of the instant case.
RESPONDENT’S CLAIM
(Arguments/Discussion)
Respondent was formally installed and instituted tenant by
the Petitioners of their land upon the execution of the leashold
contract. From then on, the respondent has religiously and
constantly discharged his obligations as a tenant of the
petitioners.
The allegations in the complaint is an outright falsity as it
has no basis in fact and in law. Respondent has continuously and
uninterruptedly tilling the land and had has faithfully been
delivering the landlord shares to the Petitioners through their
representative authorized by them to receive the share of the
landowner as provided under the Agricultural Leasehold Contract.
That since then, respondent cultivated, maintained and
made the farm productive and regularly segregated landowner’s
(Petitioners) shares for every harvest period which were delivered
personally by the respondent to petitioner’s authorized
representative.
Noteworthy is the fact that the authorized representative
executed an Affidavit of Witness in favor of the respondent. Such
affidavit is in support of the respondent’s claim and the same was
attached and marked in respondent’s answer as Annex “1” and
became integral part of this Position Paper.
2|Page
In fact, respondent was not only cultivating and tilling the
subject property as he spent his entire life spending for the
upkeep and maintenance of the farm to see to it that the
property is well manage. Respondent erected and established his
house in the same property subject to this herein case and is
presently maintaining his original residential house located at the
aforecited land of the Petitioner. Respondent’s claim is
corroborated by an affidavit of witness executed by _________
which was attached and marked in his Answer as Annex “2” and
shall form integral part of this position paper.
Significantly observed, the products of the subject area to
this case was the basis of the scharing scheme between the
Petitioner and Respondent wherein fifteen (15) sacks of rice shall
be given to the petitioner every harvest period.
Respondent being a tenant for twenty-one (21) years in the
subject landholdings has religiously and faithfully complied with
his obligation to deliver the agreed landlord share to the
Petitioner ever since without failure. Respondent did not violate
the agreement as he never lease nor mortgage his right over the
landholdings.
The allegations of the petitioners stemmed from the fact
that they intend to sell the property without giving respondent his
right under the law as a tenant. Hence, petitioners brought out
the kasabutan/kasulatan executed by the respondent to a
certain _____________. Petitioners claimed that respondent
violated the leaseholed contract when he mortaged his right over
the landholdings to a third party not privy to the agreement,
being so they used this as a ground to stripped off the right of
3|Page
the respondent as a tenant for 21 years in order for them to
escape their obligation to provide the respondent his rights over
the land.
It is noteworthy to stress the fact that the
Kasulatan/kasabutan was executed on 2011, Petitioners
authorized representative who received the landlord share in
behalf of them knew the existence of the kasulatan/kasabutan. In
fact, he is one of the signatory as witness to the agreement. If
indeed the kasulatan/kasabutan is in violation of the agreement
the authorized representative had informed the Petitioners in the
time much earlier than the filing of this herein case. Respondent
is in quandary on how the Petitioner cried foul on the contract
executed on the year 2011, that is almost 9 years from the time
Petitioner filed this herein case eventhough the terms and
condition of the kasabutan/kasulatan has already transpired and
the subject loan was already settled.
Respondent never mortgaged his right over the landholdings
as what was subject to the kasabutan/kasulatan is the loan he
acquired from __________ in exchange to the share of
respondent over the harvested crops and rice which respondent
planted and tilled. Contrary to the allegations of the Petitioner,
Respondent was the one who personally cultivated the land and
during the time when respondent share was served as payment
to the loan, Petitioner received what was due to them and that is
to receive 15 sacks of rice as provided under the Agricultural
Leasehold Contract. To support such claim, affidavit of witness
executed by ___________ were attached and marked as Annex
“3” and “4” and the same was submitted before this Honorable
Court in respondent’s answer. The same shall form integral part
4|Page
of this position paper.
Further, the three (3) hectares indicated in the
kasabutan/kasulatan is not exclusively owned by the Petitioners
as the subject property is only 1.4795 hectares and the other half
is owned by another landlord that Respondent is also a tenant.
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. Respondent being a tenant
is forthwith entitled to security of tenure and cannot, in any
manner be ejected from landholding without just, valid and
justifiable cause.
Petitioners cannot circumvent the rights of the respondent
on the basis of the kasabutan/kasulatan and oust respondent.
Petitioner cannot just disregard the fact that respondent worked
his fingers to the bone for the land for 21 years and has gone
extra mile to improve the land by cultivating and tilling it and
provide petitioners share. Undermining his rights over the land is
in violation of the law.
It is the settled position of the repsondent is that he has the
right over the property being a tenant. He cannot be ejected
without providing him the needed compensation he deserved fro
cultivating the land for twenty one (21) years. Instructive to such
rights are enumerated under Republic Act No. 1199 also known
as “An Act To Govern the Relations Between Landholders And
Tenants Of Agricultural lands (LEASEHOLD AND SHARE
TENANCY), to wit:
5|Page
Sec. 22. Rights of the Tenant.
(1)xxx
(2) The tenant shall, aside from his labor, have the right
to provide any of the contributions for production
whenever he can do so adequately and on time.
(3) The tenant's dwelling shall not, without his consent,
be removed from the lot assigned to him by the
landholder, unless there is a severance of the tenancy
relationship between them as provided under Section nine,
or unless the tenant is ejected for cause, and only after
the expiration of forty-five days following such severance
of relationship or dismissal for cause.
If the tenant is dismissed without just cause and he is
constrained to work elsewhere, he may choose either to
remove his dwelling at the landholder's cost or demand
the value of the same from the landholder at the time of
the unjust dismissal.
(4) The tenant shall have the right to be indemnified for
his labor and expenses in the cultivation, planting, or
harvesting and other incidental expenses for the
improvement of the crop raised in case he is dispossessed
of his holdings, whether such dismissal is for a just
cause and not, provided the crop still exists at the
time of the dispossession. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent cultivated and took care of the subject property,
introduced improvements and manage the farm as a good father
of the family by doing all the work necessary to develop the
property. By doing so, aside from his labor, he contributed to the
productions of growing the crops and rice. These works were
clearly established and concurred by respondent’s witnesseses.
Petitioners act in filing this case against the repondent is
tainted with bad faith. Petitioners cannot simply disregard the
rights of the respondent as a tenant as provided under the law.
Respondent deserved to be indemnified for working extremely
hard in the subject property.
6|Page
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
of the Honorable Office that the case be resolved in favor of the
Respondent and be ordered to stay as tenants of the subject
property, or he be indemnified for his work and service as a
tenant for 21 years in the subject property and grant
respondent’s counterclaim by ordering the Petitioner to pay:
1. Php 10,000.00 for attorney’s fees in accordance with R.A
9406;
Other equitable forms of relief under the circumstances
are also prayed for.
Respectfully submitted, _____________, Philippines, 05
October 2020.
By:
Counsel
Republic of the Philippines )
CITY OF TAGUM ) s.s..
x-----------------------------x
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, ____________________, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say, THAT:
I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;
I have voluntarily caused the preparation and filing of the
foregoing Position paper before this Honorable Court;
7|Page
I have read and fully understood the contents thereof;
The contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my
own personal knowledge.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand this
05 October 2020 at _____, Philippines.
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 05 October
2020 at ____________, Philippines.
8|Page
