Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Branch 31
Tagum City, Davao
MARCELO ITEM CIVIL CASE NO. 3906
Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
ORLANDO LACERONA, ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENT
SHERIFF IVES JAIME MORTA AND DAMAGES
AND ELISEO MARCON, JR.
Defendants.
X--------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff thru the undersigned counsel and to this
Honorable Court respectfully submits the following memorandum:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an action for the Annulment of Judgment rendered by the 3 rd
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kapalong-Talaingod, Davao del Norte in Civil
Case No. 340-06 for Unlawful Detainer, Damages, etc. entitled Orlando
Lacerona versus Marcelo Item. The dispositive portion of which is hereby
quoted as follows:
“Pursuant therefore to Section 6 and 7 of the Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
the plaintiff, ordering defendant to:
1. To vacate the portion of the land he unlawfully occupied
and to remove all the improvements introduced therein;
2. To pay the reasonable rentals in the amount of Seven
Hundred Fifty (P750.00) Pesos from March 1, 2006 up to the
time he vacate the land;
3. To pay the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos,
for the acceptance fee and Three Thousand Five Hundred
(P3,500.00) Pesos, per court appearance and other litigation
expenses; and
4. To pay the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) pesos
as attorney’s Fees.”
The aforementioned decision did not take into consideration the
allegation in the answer of the defendant therein, Marcelo Item which cited
1
the pendency of DARAB Case No. XI-0726-DN-06, the pertinent allegation in
said answer is hereby quoted as follows:
“8. That defendant did not make any conduct of
unreasonable and adamant refusal to vacate the subject area as
they are legitimate tenants of the herein plaintiff and by law they
can only be ordered to vacate by the latter after complying the
mandates of the law pertinent to tenancy. In fact, herein
defendant instituted a case for peaceful possession, fixing of
rental, damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction against Orlando Lacerona and Felix
Lacerona before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board as DARAB Case No. XI-0726-DN-06.”
“9. That with all the facts and evidences mentioned hereof,
it is crystal clear that tenancy relationship exist as the law
defined that “Agricultural Tenancy is the physical possession by a
person of land devoted to agricultural, belonging to or legally
possessed by another for the purpose of production through the
labor of the farmer 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, whether in product or in money, or both” (sec. 3,
R.A. No. 1199; 50 O.G. 4655-56; Miguel Carag vs. Ca, et., 151
SCRA 44). (Zamora vs. Su, Jr., 184 SCRA 284, April 6, 1990).”
In the said case of unlawful detainer, plaintiff therein was granted Writ
of Execution and later Special Order for Demolition for which the defendant
therein, Marcelo Item the herein plaintiff had been ejected from the land
subject of the said unlawful detainer case including the demolition of his
house.
The ground for the annulment of the judgment is alleged in paragraph
4 of the complaint in the above-entitled case:
“4. That the said judgment in Civil Case No. 340-06 is null and void
as the court rendering the same has no jurisdiction over the land
subject in the said case it being under an actual verbal tenancy
agreement between the herein plaintiff as tenant and defendant
as landowner and is the subject of a tenancy case before the
office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board,
Tagum City and is pending appeal to the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board, Quezon City; an original copy of
Notice of Appeal is hereto attached as Annex “B”, Additional
copies of the same are photocopies thereof;
The issue of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings even after the decision is rendered.”
2
Defendant has not filed an Answer to the plaintiff’s complaint in the
above-entitled case. Thus, the allegation of the pendency of a tenancy case
before the DARAB cited above is not controverted and therefore, admitted.
ISSUE
Whether or not the decision of the 3 rd Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Kapalong-Talaingod, Davao del Norte in Civil Case No.
340-06 for Unlawful Detainer, Damages, etc. entitled Orlando
Lacerona versus Marcelino Item is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT
Whether or not the decision of the 3 rd Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Kapalong-Talaingod, Davao del Norte in Civil Case No.
340-06 for Unlawful Detainer, Damages, etc. entitled Orlando
Lacerona versus Marcelino Item is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction.
The answer to the above mentioned issue is in the affirmative.
The lower court in rendering the said decision did not take into
consideration the allegation in the answer that there is a pending tenancy
case before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Tagum City
and is pending appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board, Quezon City.
The said decision is fatally defective on two (2) grounds: First, it has no
jurisdiction over tenancy cases; Second, it should have allowed the parties to
present evidence to prove tenancy on the part of the defendant or to disprove
it on the part of the plaintiff in said case. Hence, the right of Marcelo Item to
due process has also been violated. In the following cases, the Supreme
Court Ruled as follows:
“A judgment can be annulled only on two grounds: (a) that
the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due
process of law; or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud. “Salonga
vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534.”
“While it is beyond question that under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6657, it is the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Board
(DARAB) that has authority to hear and decide cases when the
issue of tenancy is legitimately involved, the MTC does not lose
3
jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple expedient of a
party raising as a defense therein. However, it is the duty of the
MTC to receive evidence to determine the then allegation of
tenancy; and, if after hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to
be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.” (Fuentes versus Caguimbal, G.R. No. 150305,
November 22, 2007)
Further, in Hilado versus Chavez, G.R. No. 134742. September 22,
2004, the Supreme Court also ruled as follows:
“The DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform programs. The rule is that the DARAB has
jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute or any
incident involving the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. In tinora v. Alejo, we held that the
MTCC has no jurisdiction over an ejectment case where the issue
of possession is inextricably interwoven with agrarian dispute.”
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court to render judgment annulling the lower court’s decision
Annex “A” to the complaint. Further, to grant plaintiff such other relief just
and equitable in the premises.
Respectfully submitted.
Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Philippines. May 17, 2010.
ATTY. BALTAZAR A. SATOR
Counsel for the plaintiff
Sator Dayaday Carnicer Baura Law Offices
2nd Floor, Pereyras Bldg., Pioneer Ave., Tagum City, Davao del Norte
ROLL NO.: 17207
IBP No. 778823/01-21-10/T.C.
PTR No. 0895436/01-20-10/TC
CTC No. 02072243/01-20-10/TC
TIN No. 105-549-223
Copy furnished:
ATTY. LEOPOLDO L. CAGATIN
Suite 209, Carriedo Bldg., Magallanes St.,
Davao City
4
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that the motion of the plaintiff for the Issuance of Writ
of Demolition be held in abeyance until after the resolution/disposition of the
Criminal Complaint for Falsification of Public Document filed by the
defendant against plaintiff can be had.
Respectfully submitted.
Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Philippines, May 10, 2010.
ATTY. BALTAZAR A. SATOR
Counsel for the Defendant
Sator Dayaday Carnicer Baura Law Offices
2nd Floor, Pereyras Bldg., Pioneer Ave., Tagum City, Davao del Norte
ROLL NO.: 17207
IBP No. 778823/01-21-10/T.C.
PTR No. 0895436/01-20-10/TC
CTC No. 02072243/01-20-10/TC
TIN: 105-129-223
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. WEALTHYNEIL C. YAP
Corner Rizal and J. Abad Santos Streets,
5
Tagum City, Davao del Norte
