Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Provincial Agrarian Reform Of@ice
2 Floor, Pinaccles Building, Matatalaib, Tarlc City
nd

RE: PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATIONS

AS AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES/
AWARDEES OF HEREUNDER NAMED
RESPONDENTS OVER PARCEL OF LAND
COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE NO 19633, CERTIFICATE OF
LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD NO.
00809074, SITUATED AT BURGOS, SAN
JOSE, TARLAC, CONTAINING AN AREA OF
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED FIFTY TWO (120,552) SQUARE
METERS AND THEREAFTER RE-ALLOCATION
OF SAME PROPERTY

NIDA E. ROLLO
DELIA EUGENIO ABELLA
EVA EUGENIO ROSETE
MERGIE EUGENIO,
Petitioners,

-versus-

ALMA A. CAPIENDO
JOJIE A. ANCHETA
PHILIP L. ANCHETA
HENRY E. ANCHETA
JHELIE M. ABELLA,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------x

ANSWER
(WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES)

Respondents, ALMA A. CAPIENDO, JOJIE A. ANCHETA, PHILIP L.

ANCHETA, HENRY E. ANCHETA and (JHERLIE) M. ABELLA, by counsel,
and unto this Honorable Of@ice, and by way of Answer (With Af@irmative
Defenses) to Petitioners NIDA E. ROLLO, DELIA EUGENIO ABELLA, EVA
EUGENIO ROSETE, and MERGIE EUGENIO’s “Petition For Disquali@ication
as Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries/Awardees of hereunder named
Respondents over Parcel of Land Covered by Transfer Certi@icate of Title
19633, Certi@icate of Land ownership Award No. 00809074 situated at
Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, Containing an area of One Hundred Twenty
Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Two (120,552) Square Meters and
Thereafter Re-allocation of same property”, most respectfully state:
 1. Respondent ALMA A. CAPIENDO is of legal age, Filipino,
married, and with domicile at Mababanaba, San Jose, Tarlac.

2. Respondent JOJIE A. ANCHETA is of legal age, Filipino,

married, and with domicile at Mababanaba, San Jose, Tarlac.

3. Respondent PHILIP L. ANCHETA is of legal age, Filipino,

married, and with domicile at Mababanaba, San Jose, Tarlac.

4. Respondent HENRY E. ANCHETA (already deceased)

represented by one of his heirs, VLADIMIR ANCHETA, with domicile at
Mababanaba, San Jose, Tarlac.

5. Respondent (JHERLIE) M. ABELLA is of legal age, Filipino,

married, and with residence at Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac.

6. Respondents may be served with notices, orders, processes,

and other papers in this case through their undersigned counsel at 587
Villa Angelina Subdivision, Sto. Domingo 2nd, Capas, Tarlac.

7. Respondent were the registered co-owners of a parcel of land

located at Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, containing an area of One Hundred
Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-Two (120,552) square meters,
covered under Transfer Certi@icate of Title No. 196331;

8. On 2012, Respondents caused the subdivision and issuance

of their respective separate titles, to wit:

a. ALMA CAPIENDO under Transfer Certi@icate Title No.

CARP20140000424.2

b. JOJIE ANCHETA under Transfer Certi@icate Title No.

CARP20140000421.3

c. PHILIP L. ANCHETA under Transfer Certi@icate Title No.

CARP20140000423.4

d. HENRY E. ANCHETA under Transfer Certi@icate Title No.

CARP20140000422.5

e. JHERLIE M. ABELLA under Transfer Certi@icate Title No.

CARP2019000865.6

1 A photocopy of TCT No. 19633 registered in the names of Alma A. Capiendo, Jojie A. Ancheta, Philip L.
Ancheta, Henry E. Ancheta, and Jherlie M. Abella is hereto attached as Exhibit “1.”
2 A certiEied true copy of TCT No. CARP20140000424 registered in the name of Alma A. Capiendo is

hereto attached as Exhibit “2.”

3 A certiEied true copy of TCT No. CARP20140000421 registered in the name of Jojie Ancheta is hereto

attached as Exhibit “3.”

4 A certiEied true copy of TCT No. CARP20140000423 registered in the name of Philip L. Ancheta is

hereto attached as Exhibit “4.”

5 A certiEied true copy of TCT No. CARP20140000422 registered in the name of Henry E. Ancheta is

hereto attached as Exhibit “5.”

6 A certiEied true copy of TCT No. 2019000865 registered in the name of Jherlie M. Abella is hereto

attached as Exhibit “6.”

 9. Even prior to registration and issuance of TCT No. 19633 on
2006, Respondents and their then living father have been the actual
possessor and tiller of the above-cited subject parcels of lands. Up to
present, Respondents still continue the cultivation, tilling, improvement,
and development of the subject parcels of land.

10. However, on 15 June 2023, Petitioners NIDA E. ROLLO, DELIA

EUGENIO ABELLA, EVA EUGENIO ROSETE, MERGIE EUGENIO, @iled a
Petition for Disquali@ications as Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries/Awardees
against the Respondents with this Honorable Of@ice alleging that
Petitioners are jointly, possessing, occupying, and cultivating a parcel of
land covered under TCT No. 19633.

11. Petitioners further claims that the process of identi@ication of

quali@ied bene@iciaries to the land was not thoroughly investigated, if
indeed investigation has been made, and that they are purportedly very
much worthy and most deserving to be declared as Agrarian Reform
Bene@iciaries over the subject land.

12. On 18 July 2023, Respondents received a copy of said Petition

together with the Honorable Of@ice’s Notice to @ile a Comment/Answer to
the Petition within @ifteen (15) days from the Notice, or until 2 August
2023.

Hence, this Answer.

Admissions and Denials

Subject to the quali@ications and on the basis of the facts set forth in
the Allegations and Af@irmative Defenses of this Answer, Respondents
make the following admissions and denials:

13. Respondents admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the

Petition in so far as their personal circumstances.

14. Likewise, Respondents admit the portion in Paragraph 4 only

in so far as the Attached Annexes “A”, “A-1”, “A-2”, “A’3”, “A-4” and “A-5”,
namely the copies TCT No. 19633 registered under the names of the
Respondents, and the subsequent separate titles issued under their
respective names. Respondents also admit that Cecille Lagmay is their
representative and that she provided copies of the afore-mentioned titles
to the Petitioners. All the self-serving allegations of Petitioners contained
in this Paragraph are being denied for being misleading and bereft of
truth, and for the reasons stated in the Allegations and Af@irmative
Defenses in this Answer.

15. Also, Respondents admit Paragraphs 7 and 8 are admitted

only insofar as the provisions of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Administrative Order No. 03-1990 regarding the Statement of Policies
and Quali@ications of Bene@iciaries are directly quoted.
 16. Respondents speci@ically deny the allegations in Paragraphs
5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information
suf@icient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, for being misleading, for
being mere conclusions of fact and of law, and for the reasons stated in
the Allegations and Af@irmative Defenses in this Answer.

Allegations and Af0irmative Defenses

In support of their Defenses, Respondents replead and incorporate

the foregoing allegations in so far as they are material hereto.
Respondents further state that:

17. Respondents Alma, Jojie, Philip and Henry are all domiciled
at Mababanaba, San Jose, Tarlac from the time their parents established
their home therein. Since childhood, their then living father as well as
their then living grandfather are in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the subject property which they developed,
cultivated, tilled, and improved. Alma, Jojie, Philip, Henry, and their
relative Jherlie who is domiciled at Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, spent their
childhood cultivating and tilling the subject land for agricultural
purposes. They even cultivated and tilled the land before and after going
to school, and even later on while they are seeking for employment. From
then on, Respondents have been continuously cultivating, tilling,
developing, and improving the parcels of land. They have been using the
land in planting vegetables and other agricultural crops and for grazing
of their farm animals. Moreso, they have been exercising full dominion
over the parcels of land as no one questions their acts of cultivating,
tilling, developing, and improving the subject parcels of land.

18. Since their father is of old age, and that herein Respondents
are landless, and are willing, able, and have the aptitude to cultivate the
land as evidenced by their cultivation, tilling, development, and
improvement of the subject parcels of land since their childhood, their
father encouraged herein Respondents to apply as Agrarian Reform
Bene@iciaries.

19. At the time of their application, Respondents possess all the

quali@ications of a bene@iciary as listed in DAR Administrative Order No. 3
series of 1990, for: a) the Respondents are landless; b) all of them are
Filipino Citizen; and c) all of them are actual occupants and tillers of the
subject land since their childhood days, are at least 15 years of age at the
time of @iling the application, and have the willingness, ability, and
aptitude to cultivate the land productively.

20. Possessing all the quali@ications of a bene@iciary as provided

under DAR Administrative Order No. 03-90, Respondents were included
in the list of allocatees/awardees, and were eventually awarded with the
subject land after the full payment with the Land Bank of the Philippines.
This was registered before the Register of Deeds of Tarlac in October
2006. The subject properties are also declared by the Respondents as
their own and paid the real property taxes.

Copies of the respective Tax Declarations are hereto attached as

“Exhibits 7 and series.”

21. Respondents continue to cultivate and till the subject

property, not only to develop and improve it, but also due to the
sentimental value left by their father and their grandfather. Respondents
also continuously provide the means to purchase the necessary seeds,
fertilizers and equipment to ensure the continuous development of the
subject property.

22. Hence, from their childhood, to the time the CLOA and the
corresponding TCTs were issued, as well as when the subject parcel of
land was subdivided and separate TCTs were issued to the respective
owners, nobody questioned their occupancy and possession of said
parcels of land. No one objected, disturbed or even interrupted
Respondents’ occupancy and possession over the subject parcels of land.
Neither the government nor the possessors of the adjacent lands
questioned their occupancy and possession of the said parcels of land.

23. However, after decades of having in open, actual, continuous,

exclusive and notorious possession on the subject parcels of land and
having exercised acts of dominion over it from the time the CLOA and the
TCT/s were issued in their names and declaring said properties for
taxation purposes, Respondents were shocked and alarmed when
Petitioners, without the authority of the Respondents, entered into the
subject properties sometime in 2022 and started using said property for
their own bene@it, claiming that they are entitled to occupy the subject
property. Hence, Respondents are deprived of their rightful possession of
the property and of their right to continuously cultivate and till said land.

24. Being the property owners and relatives by blood of the

Petitioners, herein Respondents reiterated their ownership over the
subject property in a peaceful manner. Respondents, through their
representative, Cecille Lagmay, even furnished the Petitioners copies of
Respondents’ titles, as admitted in the Petition, in order to have the
Petitioners peacefully vacate the property. Having high regards to their
blood relationship and the sanctity of family relations, Respondents tried
their best to avoid elevating the matter outside the barangay level and
avoided physical con@lict.

25. Respondents were shocked and alarmed when Petitioners

@iled a case against them, asking for the former to be disquali@ied as
agrarian reform bene@iciaries/awardees, and for the subject property to
be re-allocated unto the Petitioners.

26. In the said Petition, Petitioners claim that they are “jointly
possessing, occupying, and cultivating a parcel of land embraced in TCT
no. 19633”, that they are very much willing and able to cultivate and make
productive the subject land, and that they are very much worthy and most
deserving to be declared as Agrarian Reform bene>iciaries over the subject
land. Respondents were in great disbelief. Why the herein Petitioners,
who are their blood relatives and personally known to them, are claiming
possession and even ownership over the land registered in Respondents’
names? Why are they praying for the Respondents’ disquali@ication as
agrarian reform bene@iciaries/awardees? For more than a decade,
Respondents have been managing and overseeing the cultivation, tilling,
development, and improvement the subject parcels of land and using
them as grazing area for their farm animals. How come the Petitioners
suddenly have interest over the subject property?

27. It bears to stress that Respondents have neither seen nor

heard of the Petitioners’ protest when the former were listed as agrarian
bene@iciaries/awardees; nor was there any protest when Respondents
were already awarded with the CLOA and after the registration of the title
before the Registry of Deeds. If herein Petitioners are claiming to have
purported rights over the subject parcels of land, it bears stressing that
herein Respondents clearly have better rights, for (a) not only they are
the actual occupants/tillers of the subject property since childhood, but
they also possess all the quali@ications of a bene@iciary; and (b) they are
the registered owners of the subject parcels of land.

28. Respondents were saddened by the foregoing circumstances.

They were the ones who developed and improved the subject property.
They were also the ones who paid the amortization as set forth under the
law and the under the applicable DAR issuances. The CLOA was issued to
them, and the TCTs were registered in their names, but now, Petitioners,
who are their own blood relatives, apparently want to divest them not
only of their status as agrarian bene@iciaries, but also of their possession
and title over the subject property, which they preserved, cultivated,
improved, and managed.

The Registered Titles of the Respondents

Are Indefeasible and Imprescriptible

29. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Petition, the

Petitioners’ prayers are in disguise of their ultimate intent to dispossess
the Respondents’ of the land already titled under their names
eventually seek cancellation of their respective titles, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, Premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Of>ice that after due notice, hearing
and investigation, Judgment be issued.

1. DISQUALIFYING the respondents as Agrarian Reform

Bene>iciaries of the subject land.

2. RE-ALLOCATION of the subject land in favor of the

Petitioners.
 3. DIRECTING the DAR provincial Of0ice to process the
identi0ication of Petitioners as new Agrarian Reform
Bene0iciaries and the generation and issuance of titles
on their favor.

Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.”

30. From the time the mother title was registered under the
names of the Respondents and issued in the year 2006, up to the time said
mother title was subdivided and separate titles were issued to the
respective co-owners in 2012, no ALI cases or any case whatsoever was
@iled by the Petitioners. The land in question was awarded to the
Respondents as early as October 2006. After one (1) year from its
registration with the Of@ice of the Registry of Deeds, the Certi@icate of
Land Ownership Award, issued under the Agrarian Reform Program shall
be indefeasible and imprescriptible.

31. The registered CLOAs are indefeasible and imprescriptible,

as all other titles placed under the Torrens System of Registration. This is
the basic import of the policy embracing the pertinent rules and
regulations for cancellation of DAR issued titles when it is provided that:

“The titles generated and distributed pursuant to the agrarian

reform program form an integral part of the property
registration system, and enjoy the same degree of importance
and weight accorded to titles issued and registered under the
Torrens System.

“Mindful that the EPs, CLOAs, and other titles issued under any
agrarian reform program possess the same degree of
indefeasibility as the land titles under the property
registration decree once brought under the operation of the
Torrens System, any action intending to question the
ef0icacy or diminish the import of said land titles must be
allowed only through direct proceedings, while strictly
observing the manner hereunder prescribed and subject
only to grounds herein speci0ied. This is bolstered by Section
24 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, which states, ". . . the
emancipation patents, the certi0icates of land ownership
award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one
(1) year from its registration with the Of0ice of the Registry
of Deeds subject to the conditions, limitations and quali>ications
of this act, the property registration decree, and other pertinent
laws." (Prefatory Statement – DAR Administrative Order No. 6,
Series of 2011)

32. On the provisions of the Statement of policies under

Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2011, it provides that “The
cancellation of Eps, CLOAs, and other titles issued by the DAR pursuant to
agrarian reform laws shall be governed by the following policies: (a) The
State recognizes the indefeasibility of Eps, CLOAs, and other titles
issued under any agrarian reform program; and (b) Cancellation of
registered Eps, CLOAs, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program shall be strictly regulated and may be allowed only in the manner
and conditions prescribed hereunder.”

33. This is in consonance with the provision under Presidential

Decree No. 1528 otherwise known as the “Property Registration Decree”.
that “upon the expiration of the said period of one year, the decree of
registration and the certi0icate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible.”

34. Hence, since the CLOA was registered and issued to the
respondents on 2006, the one (1) year prescriptive period to assail its
issuance has already lapsed a long time ago.

The Registered Titles of the Respondents

Cannot be Subject to Collateral Attack

35. As gleaned from the previous argument, the petition @iled is

for Disquali@ication as Agrarian Bene@iciaries/Awardees, but the prayer
collaterally attacks the Certi@icate of Title issued to the Respondents.

36. Presidential Decree No. 1528 expressly provides that “A

certi0icate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modi0ied, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law.”

37. This was upheld by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of

2011 by emphasizing that “any action intending to question the
ef0icacy or diminish the import of said land titles must be allowed only
through direct proceedings.”

38. This collateral attack being done by herein Petitioners is not

permitted by the law and even by the DAR Administrative Orders.

Petitioners Failed to Prove that they

Have Cause of Action for the
Disquali0ication of Respondents
as Agrarian Reform Bene0iciaries/
Awardees

39. Petitioners’ alleged occupation, cultivation and tillage

purportedly entitled them to be instituted as Agrarian Reform
Bene@iciaries over the subject property were mere allegations and bereft
of basis. The only proof they have that may substantiate their claim was
the Joint Certi@icate issued by the Punong Barangay and by the BARC
Chairperson7 which was attached to their Petition.

7A photocopy of the Joint CertiEication issued by the Punong Barangay and by the BARC Chairperson
dated November 2022 is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “8.”
 40. However, to the contrary of their position, the said Joint
Certi@icate does not even establish their purported occupation,
cultivation and tillage of the subject property, but rather strongly
negates their position. The Joint Certi@icate states as follows:

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that NIDA EUGENIO ROLLO, married, DELIA

EUGENIO ABELLA, MARRIED, EVA EUGENIO ROSETE, widow and
MERGIE EUGENIO single, and all resident of Barangay Burgos, San
Jose, Tarlac, are jointly possessing and tilling parcel of land, Identi>ied
at lot 4 PSD, 03-017164 covered by Transfer Certi>icate of Title under
the name of ROSARIO BACLIG and MERCEDES MANDI.”

41. Indeed, Petitioners are in possession and tilling a certain

parcel of land, but should deainitely not be the subject property
owned by the Respondents for the above Joint Certi@ication clearly
indicates that the land that should be in possession of and being tilled by
the Petitioners is owned by a certain Rosario Baclig and Mercedes Mandi.

42. Therefore, the Joint Certi@ication indicate that the what the
Petitioners should jointly possess and till is a parcel of land
registered under the names of Rosario Baclig and Mercedes Mandi
and not the properties of the Respondents, contrary to their
allegations. It can also be gleaned that since Petitioners are neither
authorized by law nor by the registered owners of the subject property to
be in possession of the subject property, Petitioners do not have any
legal standing or whatsoever to aile this instant Petition against the
Respondents. Petitioners’ occupation of the properties owned by the
Respondents is nevertheless unauthorized and must even be
sanctioned by the law.

43. More so, the allegations in the Petition that the Respondents
made material misrepresentations, and that titles were obtained through
fraud and misrepresentations are mere baseless accusations and were
not substantiated by the Petitioners.

44. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the in an administrative

proceeding, the burden to establish the charges rests upon the
complainant. Failure to do so shall result to the dismissal of a case for lack
of merit:

“The quantum of proof in administrative proceedings necessary for

>inding a guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The
burden to establish a charge rests upon the complainant. The
case should be dismissed for lack of merit if the complainant fails
to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which his
 accusations are based. The respondent is not even obliged to
prove his exception of defense. xxx”8

45. Hence, Petitioners baseless accusations without being

substantiated by evidence is fatal on their part, and warrants the
dismissal of this case.

46. Furthermore, assuming without admitting, and for the sake

of argument, if indeed Petitioners are indeed quali@ied to be Agrarian
Reform Bene@iciaries, they should have exerted their rights long time ago
during the time the list of allocatees/awardees were being @inalized and
posted. DAR AO No. 03-90 expressly provides for the 15-day period for
posting of the list of allocatees/awardees, to wit:

“VII. Operating Procedures

A. The MARO or the duly designated of>icial covering the area shall. –

xxx

1.2. Review and evaluate the list of allocatees/awardees and

conduct lot veri>ication to determine whether said
awardees/allocatees are still occupying and tilling the lots covered
by the Orders of Award/CLTs, and thereafter prepare a masterlist of
occupants/claimants with corresponding lot numbers, to be
posted simultaneously for a period of 0ifteen (15) days at the
Barangay Hall, MARO Of0ice and at the Municipal Building.”

47. As to the inclusion/exclusion/disquali@ication of ARBs, DAR

provides for the timeliness of @iling Petitions, to wit:

“A. PETITION FOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION FROM THE MASTERLIST

• Within >ifteen (15) days from the denial of the petition for
inclusion/exclusion from the masterlist by the DARPO, a petition
for inclusion/exclusion may be >iled with the Regional Director
by the concerned party.

B. PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF FARMER-BENEFICIARIES

WHO HAVE PASSED THE SCREENING PROCEDURE
• As soon as the grounds for disquali>ication have been made
known to the petitioner, the petition for disquali>ication should
be >iled.”

48. As gleaned from the above-quoted provisions, the Petitioners

have indeed ample of time and options provided by the law and by the
rules, regulations and issuances issued by DAR to redress their issue.
Petitioners and Respondents are living in the same municipality, and
subject property is located in the residence of the Petitioners. Hence, it is
unfathomable that during the time the list of Agrarian Reform
8 Nationa Bureau of Investigation v. Conrado M. Najera, G.R. No. 237522, June 30, 2020
Bene@iciaries are made, the Petitioners are not aware of such matter. If
indeed Petitioners are then in possession of and tilling the subject
property during that time, their names must have been listed as
awardees/allocatees. Should their names be omitted, they should have
been aware of such omission and should have made the necessary action
to vindicate their right.

49. It is unfathomable and impossible how the Petitioners claim

their possession and tillage of the subject property without being aware
of what is happening over the property they are supposed to be
occupying. Their inaction all these years is contrary to their belated claim.
It is of human nature and knowledge that a person truly and genuinely
occupying and tilling a certain land will not sleep on his or her rights for
over a decade and allow said land to be awarded to someone else.

There is Presumption of Regularity of Of0ice

50. Petitioners argue that the process of identi@ication of

quali@ied bene@iciaries “was not thoroughly investigated” for allegedly, if
investigation has been done in the year of screening, it would have
purportedly been discovered that the bene@iciaries where not there as
occupants and cultivators and might have been in another place and
failed to meet the basic quali@ications to be Agrarian Reform
Bene@iciaries.

51. Assuming without admitting and for the sake of argument,

the alleged defect in the process of identi@ication of quali@ied bene@iciaries
should be @irst established, otherwise, the same would be presumed
proper and regular.

52. The mere mention by the Petitioners that Respondents

allegedly committed material misrepresentations does not suf@ice for
such are mere baseless accusations and imputations unto the
Respondents. These baseless accusations would not create a
presumption of irregularity in the performance of duty.

53. The identi@ication of Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries was

facilitated by DAR and therefore enjoys the presumption of regularity not
only in the declaration of Respondents as Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries,
but also in the generation, registration, and issuance of the titles being
assailed. It must be stressed that before a person is instituted as an
Agrarian Reform Bene@iciary, procedures such as surveys, inspections,
investigations, evaluations, and endorsements are conducted. Only after
this rigorous and exhaustive procedure will DAR issue CLOAs to the
identi@ied Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries. Strong evidence is necessary in
order to claim that these procedures have not be complied with.

54. The Supreme Court held that government of@icials are

presumed to perform 9their functions with regularity and strong
evidence is necessary to rebut this presumption. Unless and until strong
9 Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222, April 6, 1995
evidence to rebut such presumption are presented in a proceeding before
the appropriate Of@ice or Court is made, the institution of the
Respondents ALMA A. CAPIENDO, JOJIE ANCHETA, PHILIP L. ANCHETA,
HENRY E. ANCHETA and (JHERLIE) M. ANCHETA as Agrarian Reform
Bene@iciaries and the titles issued by DAR and the Registry of Deeds are
presumed to be done validly and regularly.

There is Lack of Jurisdiction over the Petition

55. Under Rule I, Section 2.2.2 in relation to Rule II, Section 6 of

DAR AO No. 03 series of 2017 otherwise known as the “2017 Rules for
Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases”, the Regional Director shall
exercise primary jurisdiction over cases involving classi@ication,
identi@ication, inclusion, exclusion, quali@ication and disqualiaication of
potential/actual farmer beneaiciaries.

56. In brief, without resolving the ALI components involve in the

Petition, no cause of action for disquali@ication of actual farmer
bene@iciaries may arise in favor of the Petitioners, nor will such ALI case
be proper before this Honorable Of@ice for the latter is clearly bereft of
any authority and jurisdiction to take cognizance of such causes of action.
Petitioners are highly mistaken in their assumption that the grounds
raised in the Petition are suf@icient to warrant not only the cognizance by
this Honorable Of@ice over the case but likewise of the propriety of
granting the reliefs sought therein. Ultimately, the facts as alleged and the
lack of evidence to support the same, even substantially, will not suf@ice
to confer jurisdiction to this Honorable Of@ice over the issues raised
therein, most especially with respect to the need to substantiate the
allegations in the Petition seeking to disqualify the Respondents are
Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries, and praying for the re-allocation of the
subject land in favor of the Petitioners, identifying them as the new
Agrarian Reform Bene@iciaries, and the generation and issuance of titles
in their favor.

57. Guided by the foregoing discussions, it is beyond cavil that

the Petition @iled by the Petitioners, after examination thereof, does not
only fail to state a cause of action but likewise failed to establish a cause
of action in their favor due to the fatal lack of evidence to support their
allegations.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondents most

respectfully pray that this Honorable Of@ice renders its Decision:

DISMISSING the instant Petition for lack of jurisdiction, failure to

state and establish cause of action, indefeasibility and
imprescriptibly of title, and for utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs, just or equitable under the premises are likewise

prayed for.
Tarlac City. August 2, 2023.

ATTY. AILEEN S. BALILO

587 Villa Angelina Subdivision, Sto. Domingo 2nd, Capas, Tarlac
Email Address: [email protected]
Roll No. 84693
PTR No. 4576277; 05-04-23; Tarlac
IBP No. 334067; Tarlac
MCLE Compliance No.: Admitted to Bar this 2023

Copy Furnished:

NILA E. ROLLO
Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac

DELIA EUGENIO ABELLA

Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac

EVA EUGENIO ROSETE

Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac

MERGIE EUGENIO
Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac

Registry of Deeds of the Province of Tarlac

Registry of Deeds Building, Tarlac City

NOTICE

TO THE CHIEF OF LEGAL DIVISION

Provincial Agrarian Reform Of@ice
Department of Agrarian Reform

Greetings! Kindly submit the foregoing ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES immediately upon receipt hereof for the Honorable Of@ice’s
consideration and resolution.

AILEEN S. BALILO
 EXPLANATION

The foregoing ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES is served

by registered mail to the adverse parties, on account of manpower,
distance, and time constraints.

AILEEN S. BALILO