Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
8th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 13
Carigara, Leyte

HEIRS OF THE LATE FLORENCIO Civil Case No. RTC-CAR-

NIMO 2020-
AND LEONCIA ROSAILADA NIMO, 08-CV
NAMELY: VIOLETA, CORAZON,
LEONORA, JULIET, FLORENCIO JR,
RAQUEL, REUNALDO AND MYLENE all For: DETERMINATION OF
surnamed NIMO AND ALVIN N. TUPAZ, OWNERSHIP, TO PRIVATE
AS REPRESENTED BY ROMEO TUPA LOT 1800 LOCATED AT
Plaintiffs, BRGY. TALISAY
CAPOOCAN, LEYTE WITH
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
AND WITH CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES

--versus-

HON. STEPHEN M. LEONIDAS, THE

DIRECTOR, DAR REGIONAL OFFICE 8,
RENATO G. BADILLA THE
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN OFFICER
DAR-LEYTE, RANDY
LAMPAYAN, THE MARPO, CAPOOCAN,
LEYTE, ADELAIDA C. PERUDA,
WILFREDO R. PERUDA, ALLAN C.
CATIENZA, HERLEN P. CATIENZA,
FELINO “Noy” Q. Abrillo RAM Associate
Manager, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, / AAMG-AMOD Management Sept.
Engr. FIEL M. PEDROSA, DEPARTMENT
MANAGER AGRARIAN OPERATION
CENTER, LAND BANK SAGKAHAN,
TACLOBAN CITY
Defendants.

X--------------------------------------------X
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, by the undersigned counsel before this Honorable

Court most respectfully alleges that;

1. That defendants admit paragraph 1 of this complaint in so far as their

personal circumstances are concerned;
2. That defendant Regional Director Stephen Leonidas admits paragraph
2 of this complaint in so far as his personal circumstances are
concerned;

3. That defendant PARO Renato Badilla admits paragraph 3 of this

complaint in so far as his personal circumstances are concerned;

4. That defendant MARO Randy Lampayan admits paragraph 4 of this

complaint in so far as his personal circumstances are concerned;

5. That defendants Adelaida Conde Peruda, and Wilfredo Peruda admit

paragraph 5 of this complaint in so far as their personal circumstances
are concerned;

6. That defendants Allan C. Catienza, and Herlene P. Catienza admit

paragraph 6 of this complaint in so far as their personal circumstances
are concerned;

7. That defendants deny paragraph 7 of this complaint, Jessie L. Basco is

now the manager of Landbank Agrarian Operations Center(AOC)
VIII;

8. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity

of the allegations in paragraph 8 thus they cannot admit or deny said
allegations;

9. That defendants admit paragraph 9 of this complaint;

10. That defendants deny paragraph 10 of this complaint, the whole area
of 5.6343 hectares is agricultural when it was acquired by the Spouses
Nimo;

11. That defendants admit paragraph 11 of this complaint;

12. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity

of the allegations in paragraph 12 thus they cannot admit or deny said
allegations;

13. That defendants deny paragraph 13 of this complaint. The said

landholding was sold by Florencio Nimo to Spouses Jesus Narido and
Conchita Cañamales on April 8, 1975(Copy of Deed of Sale is hereto
attached and marked as Annex “A”);

14. That defendants deny in part paragraph 14 of this complaint in so far

as the knowledge of the foreclosure of the said property. The title was
already transferred in the name of Jesus Narido on April 11, 1975,
thus plaintiffs cannot deny knowledge of the transfer of ownership
 since the act of registration serves as a notice to the whole world.
However, they cannot admit or deny that the tax declaration still
remained in the name of Florencio Nimo when it was foreclosed.
However, at present, the tax declaration of the same is already with
the PNB(Copy of Tax Declaration is hereto attached and marked as
Annex “B”);

15. That defendants deny paragraph 15 of this complaint. It would not be

an excuse that the plaintiffs would not know of such foreclosure and
transfer since the act of registration of title serves as a notice to the
whole world;

“It is an entrenched doctrine in our jurisdiction that registration in a

public registry creates constructive notice to the whole world.”
G.R. No. 110335, June 18, 2001 Ignacio Gonzales Et.Al. versus
Honorable Court of Appeals Et.Al.

16. That defendants Renato Badilla and Randy Lampayan deny paragraph
16 of this complaint. When the said property was already covered by
the CARP, the same is already titled to the PNB, hence, Notice of
Coverage was sent to PNB. Further, defendants Spouses Peruda and
Catienza deny paragraph 16 of this complaint since the said DARAB
cases did not rule on whether or not they are bonafide tenants of the
landholding, but rather ruled on the impropriety of the interpleader
case and the lack of personality of plaintiffs to file the ejectment case
being no longer the owners of the property(Copy of the decision is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “C”);

17. That defendants deny paragraph 17 of this complaint, the Judgement

that was rendered by the Court was based on a Compromise
Agreement made by the PNB and Romeo Tupaz;

18. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity

of the allegations in paragraph 18 thus they cannot admit or deny said
allegations;

19. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity

of the allegations in paragraph 19 thus they cannot admit or deny said
allegations;

20. That defendants deny paragraph 20 of this complaint, the area was
granted DAR Clearance for reason that the area was not a CARPable
area. The subject landholding was covered under CARP under RA
6657 as amended by RA 9700 and not by Operation Land Transfer
under PD 27. Further, the plaintiffs have no right of retention of 5
hectares of the subject landholding, much more the right to nominate
preferred beneficiaries since such right can only be exercised by
landowners. The owner of the subject landholding is PNB and not
herein plaintiff;
 21. That defendants DAR officials deny paragraph 21 of the complaint.
The PNB is the owner of the landholding and coverage of the CARP
must proceed with the latter.

DAR A.O7 Series of 2011 provides:

“Chapter 4. Notice of Coverage

Section 15. Issuance of Notice of Coverage. The NOC shall be issued

to the registered landowner (RLO) of the landholding, as stated in the
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) or Original Certificate of Title
(OCT), or, in case of untitled private agricultural lands, the Tax
Declaration, preferably not later than one hundred and eighty (180)
days prior to the first day of the scheduled date acquisition and
distribution as provided for in Section 5 of this rule.

In case the RLO stated in TCT or OCT is different from the stated in
the Tax Declaration, the NOC shall be served to the RLO stated in the
TCT or OCT.”

Further:

SECTION 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. – No

court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its
duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or
controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the
application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act
and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform.

22. That defendants DAR officials deny paragraph 22 of this

complaint. The DAR officials were just doing their duty
to distribute land to the landless farmers. Further, they enjoy
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official
duties.

23. That defendants DAR officials deny paragraph 23 of this complaint.

The subject landholding was covered under the CARP having an area
of more than 5 hectares and the right to retain is a right to be exercised
by the landowner, in this case the PNB, who, apparently failed to
exercise such right.

DAR A0 7 Series of 2011 provides:

CHAPTER 6: RETENTION, PROTEST OF COVERAGE, NOMINATION,

OF PREFERED BENEFICIARY/IES, APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION OR EXCLUSION
 Section 27. Period to Protest Coverage, Nominate Proffered Beneficiary/ies,
a Manifestation for Exemption / Exclusion and file a Manifestation to Exercise
Retention Right. Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from
his/her/its/their receipt of the NOC, the LO may do the following:

1. Protest against coverage, which must be filed before the PARO and
should contain the substantial bases thereof;
2. Nominate Child/ren who may qualify as preferred beneficiary/ies;
3. File a Manifestation for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP
Coverage before the PARO; and
4. File a Manifestation to Exercise the Right of Retention before the
PARO.

“SECTION 6. Retention Limits. – Except as otherwise provided in

this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a
viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and
soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5)
hectares. “

24. That defendants deny paragraph 24 and 25 of the complaint. Such

processes forms part of the acquisition and distribution process of the
CARP.;

25. That defendants deny paragraph 26 of the complaint. The Spouses

Peruda and Catienza were found to be qualified agrarian reform
beneficiaries by the MARPO of Capoocan, Leyte;

26. That defendants deny paragraph 27 of the complaint. The PNB being
the registered and lawful landowner has already been paid by the
Landbank of the Philippines(Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition
and Landowners Reply to Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes “D” and “E” respectively;

27. That defendants deny paragraph 28 of the complaint. The issue of

ownership is not an issue in this case. It is crystal clear on the face of the
title that the landowner of the subject landholding is the PNB, hence, the
CARP coverage was made with the latter(Copy of title is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “F”);

28. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity

of the allegations in paragraph 29-31 thus they cannot admit or deny said
allegations;

Agrarian Dispute.
 29.That a careful perusal of the present complaint would reveal that there
exists an agrarian dispute between the herein plaintiffs and herein
defendants as the plaintiffs are questioning the validity and propriety and
coverage of the subject landholding, also as to the qualifications of the
identified agrarian reform beneficiaries, and jurisdiction of the same is
with the Department of Agrarian Reform.

“DAR A.O. 3 Series of 2017 provides:

RULE I
Preliminary Provisions
Section 1. Title. These Rules shall be known as the “2017 Rules of Procedure for
ALI Cases”

Section 2. ALI CASES. These rules shall govern all cases arising from or
involving:

2.1 Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the

agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), including protest
or oppositions thereto and petition for lifting of such coverage;(emphasis
supplied)

2.2 Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification or

disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;”

XXX
Exclusive Jurisdiction of DAR on Agrarian Dispute

30. Moreover, relative to DAR’s exclusive jurisdiction on agrarian dispute,

this Honorable Court, with all due respect, shall not proceed to take cognizance
of the instant case and instead refer to the DAR as clearly mandated by Section
19 of Republic Act 9700 which just took effect on July 1, 2009, otherwise
known as “AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMPREHENSIVE
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM(CARP), EXTENDING THE
ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS,
INSTITUTING NECESSARY REFORM, AMENDING FRO THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS
AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE,”, which provide
as follows:

Section 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended is hereby

further amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:
“Section 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute – No Court or
prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the
implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of
Republic Act 6657, as amended.

If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in
nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case
shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR
which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral
whether an agrarian dispute exists.

This is in consonance with Department of Agrarian Reform v.

Cuenca, where the Court stated that all controversies on the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in
nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law
has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian
matters." (Emphasis supplied) In Salazar v. de Leon, the Court dismissed
the Complaint for recovery of possession of real property and declared that
the dispute between the parties as landowner and tenant is agrarian in
nature falling within the domain of the DARAB. The Court also noted that
such ruling is "in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which
precludes the regular courts from resolving a controversy over which
jurisdiction has been lodged with an administrative body of special
competence."

31. In its implementing rule under DAR Administrative No. 04, Series
of 2009, otherwise known as the RULES AND REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 19 OF R.A.9700 (JURISDICTION ON
AND REFERRAL OF AGRARIAN DISPUTE), it provides that all cases
which allege tenancy and agrarian dispute or any action related thereto in
the pleadings whether it was filed with MCTC which include this
Honorable Court by landowners shall be referred to the DAR as provided
as follows:
Section 2. Cases Covered – This guideline shall apply to cases filed before
the Prosecutor’s Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court(MCTC, MTC, MTC and RTC),
whether it be criminal or civil in nature by landowners/lessors or their
representatives against a tenant/lessee/farmer-
beneficiary/farmer/farmworker and/ or cases that may arise out of or in
connection with an agrarian dispute except those cases provided for under
Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657.”
 32. Specifically in said guidelines, the instant case shall
AUTOMATICALLY BE REFERRED by the Honorable Court, with all
due respect, to the DAR for the determination whether an agrarian dispute
exists considering of defendants’ allegation in their answer that the case is
an agrarian dispute and defendants tenant-lessees over the lot in issue as
evidently mandated below:
Section 3. When Automatic Referral Shall Be Made – Referral to
DAR shall be made when:
a. There are “ALLEGATIONS” in the pleadings from any of the
parties that the case is agrarian in nature or involves an agrarian
dispute and one of the parties is a tenant, lessee, farmer-
beneficiary, farmer or farmworker; or

b. That the case arises out of or is in connection with an agrarian

dispute.

Section 4. Who Shall Make the Referral – When the complaint or

information is filed before the Office of the Prosecutor or before
the court, the case shall be referred to the DAR by:

1. The concerned judge or fiscal motu proprio; or

2. Upon motion by the party concerned

33. Defendants received their respective copy of the Summons issued by

this Honorable Court with the complaint attached thereto on July 23,
2020. Computing the 10-day reglementary period from receipt thereof,
defendants have until August 7, 2020 within which to file this Answer
with Affirmative Defense before this Honorable Court.

PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court issue and order:
(1.) The complaint dismissed in favor of the defendants for lack of
jurisdiction;
(2.) The award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees,
appearance fees and litigation expenses in favor of the plaintiffs denied;

(3.) The plaintiff to refrain from doing acts violative of the right of the
defendants as agrarian reform beneficiaries and to allow the defendants to
continue in peaceful possession of their land;

Other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
 July 28, 2020

BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE (BALA)

Counsel for the Defendants
DAR Regional Office VIII
Sto. Niño Ext., Tacloban City

By:

ATTY. CHRISTOPHER RYAN P. ROSAL

Attorney IV/OIC Regional Chief Legal
Roll No. 67012
PTR No. 7957814 (January 2, 2020) Tacloban City
IBP No. 108864 (January 9, 2020), Leyte Chapter
MCLE No. VI-0011171

ATTY. DANIEL E. PEN

Attorney V/Leyte Provincial Chief Legal
Roll No. 48870
PTR No. 3921370 (January 26, 2020)
IBP No. 108855 (January 10, 2020), Leyte Chapter
MCLE No. VI-0014905

ATTY. PATRECIA A. RAMOS

Acting Attorney III

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. CESAR M. MERIN
Burayan, San Jose, Tacloban City
___________________________________