Comment MR

Republic of the Philippines
Eight (8th) Judicial Region

8TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Daram-Zumarraga, Samar
Daram
HEIRS OF SPS. PEDRO

ARENAL and ANTONIA L.
ARSENAL, namely: AVELINA
A. ARRAZ, ANGELINA L.
ARSENAL, SEVERO L.
ARSENAL, CATHERINE L.
ARSENAL and MARY GENE A.
ORIGINAL,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO. Y10-J-111

-versus- F O R:
FORCIBLE ENTRY
SPS. TERESA T. VEROLA

And CASTOR A. VEROLA,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------x
COMMENTS/OPPOSITION
(TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)
COME NOW plaintiffs by counsel and unto the Honorable Court

respectfully state: That-
1. Again, a simple reading of defendants’ motion is but an

1
evident rehash or reiteration of the grounds they previously relied

Page
upon in their earlier pleadings, i.e. motion to nullify proceedings

dated 21 May 2016, supplement to opposition to substitution of heirs
dated 05 July 2018, opposition to substitution of heirs and reply to
comment/opposition dated 28 June 2018, motion for reconsideration
dated 20 July 2018, and reply to comments/opposition dated 17
September 2018, which were separately and independently
contested by plaintiffs; and defendants repeated pleas were denied in
the Honorable Court’s Resolution of 24 July 2018, Order of 18
September 2018 and the Order of 17 October 2018, among others;
2. Notably, the said Honorable Court’s pronouncements are

already final and executory; thusly, the plaintiffs need not delve on
the grounds raised by defendants in their adverted motion for having
been already threshed-out judiciously by the Honorable Court;
3. It is a settled rule that once a decision becomes final and

executory, it is incumbent upon the trial judge to issue a writ of
execution, and he did; and a perusal of the grounds relied upon by
defendants in their present recourse do not fall under the well-settled
exceptions;
4. Since an execution is fittingly called the fruit and end of the

suit and aptly called the life of the law (Garcia v. Echiveri, 132 SCRA
631 [1984]}, it is high-time that the judgment be fully executed; and it
is with more reason considering the fact that defendants failed and
continuously fail to regularly post the supersedeas bond until date to
otherwise stay then the enforcement of the final judgment.
5. Seemingly malicious attempts by defendants to frustrate or

put off enforcement of an executory judgment on the bases of facts
or events occurring before and after the judgment became final
cannot meet with success; otherwise, it would render nugatory the
judgment of the Honorable Court and unreasonably render it an
empty victory on the part of plaintiffs.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the herein “Comment/Opposition” be noted.
2
Page
Other reliefs and remedies are also prayed for.

Catbalogan City, for Daram, Samar, 12 February 2019
MEDINO L. ACUBA
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
G/F 196 San Bartolome St., Catbalogan City
IBP Life Member Roll No. 011174
PTR No. 5268131 Catbalogan City 1.3.18
Roll of Attorneys No. 36781
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000391
Cp No. 09399111961
REQUEST
THE CLERK OF COURT

8th MCTC, Daram, Samar
GREETINGS:
Immediately upon receipt hereof, kindly submit the foregoing

“Comment/Opposition” to the Honorable Court for its appropriate
consideration.
ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA
Cc: (By Personal Service)
ATTY. ALMA R. UY
Curry Avenue
Catbalogan City
MLA. com.ars
3
Page
1. The heirs of deceased plaintiff-spouses had validly
substituted as plaintiffs in this case and such was recognized by the
Honorable Court. Ergo, all pleadings done and submitted to the
Honorable Court by their counsel subsequent to plaintiffs’ demise
are and were valid and binding, more so that they continued to
recognize and continuously recognize his authority to represent them
in this case. It behooves on the plaintiffs to assail the appearance of
their counsel, if they did not engage him to represent them in this
case, and not on defendants.
2. The original party- plaintiffs died while this case was

pending on appeal in the Regional Trial Court and eventually in the
Court of Appeals, and, consequently, involved only a review of the
evidence presented with their then participation. The trial on the
merits of the case was already finished when plaintiffs died. Since
4
the binding effect of a final and executory judgment in an ejectment

Page
case is passed upon the successors in interest of deceased

litigants, defendants cannot correctly claim that the herein substituted
plaintiffs cannot inherit their right to tenancy on a portion of the
contested property. Firstly, the rights of the present plaintiffs
emanated from their plaintiff-late parents which were validly
adjudicated by the Honorable Court; secondly, the judgment, as
earlier mentioned, had long attained finality, and the doctrine of
immutability of judgment perfectly applies; and lastly, the defendants
are not in a best position to question the validity of the agricultural
leasehold between now plaintiffs and the landowner on the subject
landholding.
3. To elucidate their contrary position vi-a-vis defendants’

assertion that the present plaintiffs cannot inherit the status of an
administrator, caretaker or tenant under the agricultural leasehold
over the subject land, plaintiffs has to emphasize, considering the
admitted fact that then decedent plaintiffs’ were tenants or agricultural
lessees, as the case, may be, that being members of the immediate
farm household or members of the family and other persons who are
dependent upon demised plaintiffs for support and who usually help
them in their farm activities, herein plaintiffs can lawfully succeed to
said agricultural leasehold, thus vesting in them the physical
possession and enjoyment as well as management of the property
until the present.
4. Specifically, defendants claim that the heirs and now

plaintiffs cannot inherit the status as such tenants since it is personal
to the deceased plaintiff. With due respect, such contention does not
hold water. DAR Administrative Order No. 05, otherwise known as
“Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the
Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands,” particularly
Section B, paragraph1, and Title V thereof, provides, among others,
that the agricultural leasehold relationship shall be valid until it is
extinguished when the lessee has no successors pursuant to
Section 9, R.A. 3844, as amended, or in the event he dies or
becomes permanently incapacitated. Moreover, Section 9 of RA
3844 (The Agricultural Land Reform Code) also provides that the
death or permanent incapacity of an agricultural tenant/lessee does
not cut off the tenancy relationship or agricultural leasehold. In their
case, the late plaintiffs had successors, now plaintiffs, to the
agricultural land in question. who are actually, openly and exclusively
tilling therein. Verily, to say that the status of being tenants is
personal and thus could not be inherited by now plaintiffs is
misplaced.
5. The plaintiffs need not delve on the rest of the grounds

raised by defendants in the adverted motion for having been already
5
Page
threshed-out intelligently by the Honorable Court in its order sought to

be reconsidered, and which, in the absence of worthy arguments,
should remain undisturbed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the herein “Comment/Opposition” be also noted.
Catbalogan City, for Daram, Samar, 29 August 2018.
MEDINO L. ACUBA
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
G/F 196 San Bartolome St., Catbalogan City
IBP Life Member Roll No. 011174
PTR No. 5268131 Catbalogan City 1.3.18
Roll of Attorneys No. 36781
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000391
Cp No. 09399111961
REQUEST
THE CLERK OF COURT

8th MCTC, Daram, Samar
GREETINGS:
Immediately upon receipt hereof, kindly submit the foregoing

pleading to the Honorable Court for its appropriate consideration.
ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA
Cc: (By Personal Service)
ATTY. ALMA R. UY
Curry Avenue
Catbalogan City
6
Page
MLA. com.ars
7
Page

Comment MR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment MR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment MR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Eight (8th) Judicial Region

HEIRS OF SPS. PEDRO

CIVIL CASE NO. Y10-J-111

SPS. TERESA T. VEROLA

COME NOW plaintiffs by counsel and unto the Honorable Court

1. Again, a simple reading of defendants’ motion is but an

evident rehash or reiteration of the grounds they previously relied

upon in their earlier pleadings, i.e. motion to nullify proceedings

2. Notably, the said Honorable Court’s pronouncements are

3. It is a settled rule that once a decision becomes final and

4. Since an execution is fittingly called the fruit and end of the

5. Seemingly malicious attempts by defendants to frustrate or

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

Other reliefs and remedies are also prayed for.

THE CLERK OF COURT

Immediately upon receipt hereof, kindly submit the foregoing

ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA

Cc: (By Personal Service)

2. The original party- plaintiffs died while this case was

the binding effect of a final and executory judgment in an ejectment

case is passed upon the successors in interest of deceased

3. To elucidate their contrary position vi-a-vis defendants’

4. Specifically, defendants claim that the heirs and now

5. The plaintiffs need not delve on the rest of the grounds

threshed-out intelligently by the Honorable Court in its order sought to

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

Catbalogan City, for Daram, Samar, 29 August 2018.

THE CLERK OF COURT

Immediately upon receipt hereof, kindly submit the foregoing

ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA

Cc: (By Personal Service)

You might also like