Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATORY BOARD
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

HEIRS OF NONATO S. IFURUNG,

REP. BY: BONIFACIO B. IFURUNG
Petitioners,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO. 0200-

0679-068-2019
For: Ejectment, Recovery of
Possession and Damages
FLORANTE MALAZZAB ET AL.,
Respondents,

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITIONERS’ POSITION PAPER

Petitioner HEIRS OF NONATO S. IFURUNG as represented

Petitioners’ Respondent’s Position Paper, unto this Honorable Office,
respectfully states:

MATERIAL DATES

During the Clarificatory Hearing held on June 30, 2019, the

Honorable Regional Adjudicator directed the parties to file
simultaneously their respective position papers within fifteen (15)
days from the termination of the hearing or not later than August
14,2019. Thus, this position paper is timely filed on August 14, 2019.

PREFATORY

Although the agrarian laws afford the opportunity for the

landless to break away from the vicious cycle of having to perpetually
rely on the kindness of others, a becoming modesty demands that
this kindness should at least be reciprocated, in whatever small way,
by those benefited by them." In Perez-Rosario vs. Court of

1
Appeals1, this Court laid down the following precepts regarding the
resolution of agrarian disputes:

It is an established social and economic fact that the escalation

of poverty is the driving force behind the political disturbances that
have in the past compromised the peace and security of the people
as well as the continuity of the national order. To subdue these acute
disturbances, the legislature over the course of the history of the
nation passed a series of laws calculated to accelerate agrarian
reform, ultimately to raise the material standards of living and
eliminate discontent. Agrarian reform is a perceived solution to social
instability. The edicts of social justice found in the Constitution and
the public policies that underwrite them, the extraordinary national
experience, and the prevailing national consciousness, all command
the great departments of government to tilt the balance in favor of the
poor and underprivileged whenever reasonable doubt arises in the
interpretation of the law. But annexed to the great and sacred charge
of protecting the weak is the diametric function to put every effort to
arrive at an equitable solution for all parties concerned: the jural
postulates of social justice cannot shield illegal acts, nor do they
sanction false sympathy towards a certain class, nor yet should they
deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice happen to
be on her side.

While R.A. No. 3844 favors – to a very large extent, indeed –

agricultural lessees and farmworkers, they should appreciate and
accept their position with gratitude and humility at the very least.
Having benefited greatly from years of tilling the land, respondents
owe much to petitioners, and the least they could do is to promptly
pay their least rentals as they fall due. On the contrary, the
respondents willfully and deliberately failed to deliver their lease
rentals to the petitioners despite repeated demands from the latter.
Respondents’ actions manifest abuse of tenancy rights by hiding
under the protective cloak of the agrarian reform law.

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioners Heirs of Nonato ifurung, as represented by

Bonifacio b. Ifurung2, residents of Banaue St., San gabriel,
Tuguegarao City, are the lawful owners of a parcel of land, identified
as Lot 1906, Cad 250 of Aparri cadastre, covered by original
Certificate of Title No. 14548.

2. Respondents Florante Malazzab, Feliciano Ortiz, Eugenio

Macutay, Dominador Clara, Wilma Agoto, Charlie Clara, Paquito
1G.R. No. 140796/June 30, 2006
2Copy of the Special Power of Attorney in Favor of Bonifacio Ifurung is hereto
attached as Exhibit “A”
2
Malazzap and Manuel Alariao, all residents of Dodan, Aparri
Cagayan, are the tenants of the petitioners in the above-mentioned
property

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

At the core of the dispute in this case is a Forty Three

Thousand One Hundred Forty Four (43,144) square meter parcel of
agricultural land (subject property) situated in Dodan, Aparri
Cagayan, owned covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 14548.
The respondents are the tenants of the subject property.3

On April 01, 2019, petitioners filed with the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board a petition4 for ejectment and
collection of back lease rentals against the respondents. In their
petition, petitioners alleged that the respondents deliberately and
willfully failed to pay their lease rentals as they fell due. Despite their
repeated demands, the respondents refused to pay, prompting
petitioners to orally request the respondents to vacate the subject
property. Petitioners filed the petition when the respondents refused
their demand to vacate. The case was set for mediation but parties
failed to come up with reasonable Compromised Agreement, hence,
they were directed to file their respective Position Paper.

STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT FACTS

Petitioners derived their right over the subject property from

their predecessor-in-interest Nonato Ifurung who died intestate on
__________________. The subject property is registered in the
name of Diomay Chua, Emiliana Paraiso and Monico Beltran, who
sold the property to Pascuala Ifurung in 1951. On October 12,1976,
Pascuala Ifurung subsequently sold the subject property to Nonato
Ifurung as evidenced by a notarized deed of Sale.5

In the meantime, sometime in the year 2000, the respondents

surreptitiously entered into the subject property and cultivate the
same without the petitioners’ knowledge and consent. That as a
consequence of the respondents’ unlawful entry, the petitioners were
forced to enter into an agreement with the respondents in order to
avoid tedious litigation. Thus, on May 04, 2004, the petitioners thru
their attorney-in-fact Bonifacio B. Ifurung executed together with the

3
Copy of OCT No. 14548 is hereto attached as Exhibit “B”
4 See complaint
5 Copy of the Deed of Sale in favor of Nonato Ifurung is hereto attached as

Exhibit “C”
3
respondents a private document denominated as “Katulagan”6. The
said agreement was executed in a local language and signed by the
respondents with full knowledge of its contents. It was agreed in the
“Katulagan” that the respondents shall pay ten (10) cavans of Rice
per hectare following each and every cropping.

At the start of their contractual relationship, respondents have

been religious in their payments of their lease rental obligations. In
2014, however, the respondents started to completely remiss paying
their rental obligations. Despite repeated verbal demands, oftentimes
personally conveyed by the petitioners to the respondents to pay their
rental obligations, the latter willfully and maliciously refused to honor
their obligations7. To date, respondents have miserably failed to
make rental payments to petitioners consisting of ten cavans of palay
per hectare in every cropping or its monetary equivalent for the past
eleven cropping spanning a total period of more or less five years.

Moved by sense of compassion and benevolence, petitioners

held in abeyance the filing of appropriate action against the
respondents on the hope that the latter will later on pay their lease
rentals to the petitioners. Days become weeks, weeks become
months and months become years, but still, the respondents never
delivered the rentals to the petitioners. Thus, in 2018, the petitioners
were compelled to file an action against the respondents before the
office of the Barangay Chairman, Dodan, Aparri Cagayan. However,
on two occasions of mediation, the parties were unable to reach for
any agreement because of the stubborn resistance of the
respondents to honor and fulfill their obligation to the petitioners.
Consequently, a certification to file action was issued by the Office of
the Barangay Chairman.8

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE EXISTS A VALID

GROUND THAT JUSTIFY THE EJECTMENT OF THE
RESPONDENT TENANTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY;

6 Copy of the Katulagan is hereto attached as Exhibit “D”

7 Copy of the affidavits of Manuel Clara and Graciano Delelis are hereto attached
as Exhibit “E” and “F”
8 Copy of the Certificate to File Action is hereto attached as Exhibit “G”

4
 ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

A valid ground exists to

eject the respondents in
the subject property

It is true that once a leasehold relationship is established, the

agricultural lessees are entitled to security of tenure on their
landholdings. However, it does not mean that the landowner is bereft
of any right to evict the agricultural lessees on his land. Indeed,
Republic Act No. 3844, or the Agricultural Land Reform Code
enumerates valid grounds for ejectment of agricultural lessees.

XXX
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:

(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate

family will personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the
landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital
or school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes:
Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his
landholding in addition to his rights under Sections twenty-five
and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the
agricultural lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case
instead of disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled
to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before
ejectment proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further,
That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for
three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion
within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be
presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have
the right to demand possession of the land and recover
damages for any loss incurred by him because of said
dispossessions.

(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with

any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the
provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous
event or force majeure;

5
 (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the
landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously
agreed upon;

(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices

as determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;

(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement

thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has
unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the
agricultural lessee;

(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 thereby extinguished; or (emphasis supplied)

(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in

violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.

To eject agricultural lessees for failure to pay the leasehold

rentals under item 6 of the above-cited provision, jurisprudence
instructs that two elements must concur; first, agricultural lessees
failed to remit the lease rentals as they fell due; and second, the
same must be willful and deliberate in order to warrant the agricultural
lessees’ dispossession of the land that they till.

In the instant case, both elements are attendant which warrants

the ejection of the respondents in the subject property. The
petitioners sufficiently proved thru the affidavits of Manuel Clara and
Graciano Delelis marked as Exhibits “E” and “F” of this Position
Paper, that starting 2014, the respondents already refused to pay
their obligations to the petitioners. Such refusal continued despite the
repeated demands from the petitioners.

Further, record shows that the petitioner confronted the

respondents before the Office of the Barangay chairman where the
property is located several months prior to the filing of this case. The
respondents however, up to this date, never heeded to the demand
for payment by the petitioners. This senseless refusal to pay on the
part of the respondents is a manifestation of deliberate and willful
abandonment of their obligations to the landowners. The non-
payment of lease rentals was absolute, marked by complete absence
of any payment from 2015 up to this date, thus warranting the
ejection of the respondents on the subject property.

6
 Further, the acts of the respondents in denying the existence of
the “Katulagan” which was freely entered by them with the petitioners,
show common design on the part of the respondents to deny the
petitioners of the lease rentals which were due to them. It is
noteworthy that the terms of the said agreement are favorable to the
respondents as the amount of rental agreed upon is even below the
maximum rentals allowed by law. Thus it is without an iota of doubt
that the said agreement is genuine and it could not have been a mere
concoction. On the contrary, a perusal of the Answer of the
respondents will reveal that the computation of rentals as provided by
them are mere speculations and pure fabrications. Respondents
failed to present a single document to prove the amount of rentals
alleged by them, except for the affidavits of witnesses who are
incompetent to testify on the matter as they are not party to any
agreement with the petitioners.

The pieces of paper purportedly a receipt of payment attached

in the Answer of the respondents, aside from being doubtful and self-
serving, have no evidentiary value because the dates of the said
“receipts” were purportedly issued prior to the default of payment.

From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that

respondents deliberately and willfully failed to pay lease rentals to the
petitioners. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have proven that there exists
a valid ground to dispossess the respondents on the subject property.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that a Decision be

rendered by this Honorable Office

1. declaring that there exists a valid ground to

dispossess the respondents;

2. Ordering the respondents to;

 vacate the aforementioned property
and its restitution in favor of plaintiffs;
 pay the back lease rental equivalent to
eleven croppings, with legal interests;
 pay attorney’s fee equivalent to
P100,000.00 and the cost of the suit;

7
 3. Other remedies just and equitable under the
premises is likewise prayed.

Tuguegarao City, ________________________________.

GUILLERMO AND SALES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
A.D Taccad Building, Enrile Boulevard
Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City
Tel No. 078-377-3580

ORLANDO B. BARENG JR.

Attorney’s Roll No. 73345
PTR No. 9353187/ 6-28-2019/CGYN
IBP Mem. O.R No. 088576/05-15-2019/CGYN
barengorlando@yahoo.com.ph
0905-692-8114
Admitted to BAR 2019; MCLE not yet required

Copy Furnished:
Department of Agrarian reform
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
Province of Cagayan
Counsel for the respondents

EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copy of this Judicial Affidavit is being served and filed thru

registered mail due to lack of manpower of the undersigned.

ATTY. ORLANDO B. BARENG JR

VERIFICATION
8
 I, Bonifacio B. Ifurung, representative of the Heirs of
Nonato ifurung, resident of Banaue St., San gabriel, Tuguegarao City,
residents of Banaue St., San gabriel, Tuguegarao City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
say:

1. That I am the representative of the petitioners in the above-

captioned petition;

2. That I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Petitioners’ Position Paper and that i have read and understood
all the allegations contained therein;

3. That all the allegations and contents thereof are true and correct
to my own personal knowledge and based on available
authentic documents;

INWITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

this ______________________, at Tuguegarao City, Philippines.

Bonifacio B. Ifurung
Affiant

SUNSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

____________________, in the City of Tuguegarao, Philippines,
affiant having been exhibited to me
his____________________________________.

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2019.