Form 70 B - Field Validation Report For Existing Collective Cloa Ccloa
Form 70 B - Field Validation Report For Existing Collective Cloa Ccloa
Form 70 B - Field Validation Report For Existing Collective Cloa Ccloa
70-B
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Province of Masbate
Region No. V
1. Name of Registered/Cooperative/Association/Organization:
C. DESCRIPTION OF LAND
3. Type of Farm
/ Commercial Farm (Plantations planted to high value crops like Cavendish banana, pineapple,
rubber, oil palm, citrus, papaya, sugarcane, etc.)
/ Regular Farms or other than Commercial
● Transportation
/ Bus / Boat/Banca / Others (specify)
/ Jeep / Tricycle
Motorcycle
Page 4 of 5
CARPER LAD Form No. 70-B
D. PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
1. Permanent Crops
2. Common-Service Facilities
Introdu
Estimated ced
Present By/Fun
TYPE Size/Capacity/Length Remaining
Condition ded By
Useful Life _______
(yrs) __
Source/s of Information
Introdu
Estimated ced
Present By/Fun
TYPE Size/Capacity/Length Remaining
Condition ded By
Useful Life _______
(yrs) __
1. Production Data
Page 5 of 5
CARPER LAD Form No. 70-B
AGP = TP1 + TP2 + . . . .TPn / no. of months in 1 complete cycle x 12 months
Where: TP1 = Total Actual Production for the 1st crop cycle
TP2 = Total Actual Production for the 2nd crop cycle
TP3 = Total Actual Production for the 3rd crop cycle
G. MEANS OF COMMUNICATION (Please check the appropriate box. If more than one (1) means of
communication, check all appropriate boxes.)
☐ Radio, specify station:
☐ Television (TV), specify channel:
☐ Newspaper, specify name:
☐ Social Media, specify platform:
Community Leaders as source of relevant information. (Please specify three (3) names, position/nature
of work, address, and contact number.)
Page 6 of 5
CARPER LAD Form No. 70-B
H. REMARKS/COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION
Upon field validation, only the following ARBs were present namely; Rolando Almoguera,
Antonio Francisco, Jessie Francisco, Lito Francisco, Sombing Francisco, Juanito Gomez, Camal
Marangi, Luciano Nepa, Renante Rico, Rolito Rocia, Joseph Francisco. The other ARBs were absent
despite due notice.
During the said validation, the FVT found out that some names in the CCLOA were
mispelled. CCLOA ARB Sombing Rivera Francisco real name was Zombing Rivera Francisco as
reflected in his Voter’s ID. A photocopy of his Voter’s ID is hereby attached.
The FVT concerned took notice that this landholding is subject for redocumentation and that
some of the ARB’s that were already reported was not touched by the said FVT. Moreover, ARBs
with a reported status came to the consultation meeting just to verify their status. Antonio Francisco,
Juanito Gomez, Rolito Rocia and Sombing Francisco were on a reported status. Rolando Almoguera,
Jessie Francisco, Lito Francisco, Camal Marangi, Luciano Nepa, Renante Rico and Joseph Francisco
are ARBs named in the CCLOA. This CCLOA is subject for individual titling
I. CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the true information and data contained in this report are based on ocular
inspection of the land covered by existing collective CLOA and that the same are true and correct to the
best of our knowledge.
OMEGA C. AGARAP
Municipal Agrarian Reform Program Officer/ Date
Designated Personnel
(Signature over Printed Name)
Copy Distribution:
Page 7 of 5
CARPER LAD Form No. 70-B
Original - DARPO
Duplicate - MARO/Designated Personnel
Triplicate - Field Validation Team
I, ORESTES L. MOTITA Jr., of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Barangay Poblacion District No. 2, Mobo,
Masbate, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law hereby depose and say, that:
2. On February 24, 2023, I have received an Order from this Honorable Court to submit may Counter- affidavit
and affidavits of my witnesses as well as any evidence in my behalf not later than ten (10) days from receipt
of the said order. Thus, I have until March 6, 2023 within which to file the same.
3. I vehemently deny all the allegations contained in the affidavit-complaint of Imelda L. Motita and her
witnesses, the truth of the matter are as follows.
4. On the early morning of December 17, 2022, I was suddenly awakened by the noise coming from a
neighboring house. It was then to my surprise that some of my furniture that I stored in complainant’s house
(chairs and tables) were intentionally destroyed by the complainant. The reason that I kept my furniture in the
latter’s house is that I intend to set a boundary between the two of us because the land where the complainant
build her house is still subject to partition as it was the land that our late mother and father left for us.
5. I intend to pacify the situation but my efforts proved futile. While continuing the destruction of the furniture I
stored, the complainant continued shouting and uttering defamatory words that prompted me to grab a piece
of wood and start smashing their wooden walls
6. Contrary to the allegations of the complainant and her witness, it was not my deliberate intent to cause
damage upon the complainant’s door or any wooden walls or remove the steel mathing cover of the
complainant’s store. The complainant’s uttered words and expressions that completely degraded my
reputation and the fact that I saw her intentionally destroying my furniture prompted me to do so.
7. The lot where the complainant built her house was still subject to partition as it was inherited by us, 11
siblings from our late parents. The respondent and the complainant in this case are brother and sister.
8. As alleged by the complainant in her complaint-affidavit, that the respondent committed an act that will
justify as a malicious michief penalized under the Revised Penal Code does not hold water. The crime of
malicious mischief under the Revised Penal Code has the following elements;
The essential element of “deliberately causing damage to the property of another” to justify the crime of
malicious mischief which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code is lacking. The respondent did not intent to
deliberate cause to damage to the property of the complainant, it was on his sudden impulse that he did so
because the respondent saw the complainant destroying his chairs and tables first. The respondent does not have
the specific desire to cause damage to the property.
9. Even assuming but without conceding, that the respondent is probably guilty of the offense of malicious
mischief under the Revised Penal Code, still the complaint is dismissible on its face because of its
insufficiency. The complaint to be sufficient among others must state the designation of the offense given by
the statute and the act or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. The complaint stated Article
Page 8 of 5
CARPER LAD Form No. 70-B
328 of Revised Penal Code called Special cases of malicious mischief, such was not the allegation embodied
in complaint that will constitute the offense.
10. The complaint-affidavit does not also show the basis for them to declare the amount of the wooden wall, a
single wooden door, and the steel mathing cover of the store to be worth
P 30, 000. The respondent doubt that it is not worth that amount considering that it was only a piece of thin
ply wood that consist the wall and the single door and as to the steel mathing cover of the store, it was a used
metal wielded for such purpose. The amount of damages alleged are exorbitant considering the materials
involved.
11.
Page 9 of 5