You are on page 1of 19

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Agrarian Reform


OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR
Dinalupihan, Bataan

AIDA DAVID, ET. AL


Petitioners, R-0301-0165 to 0245-13
For: Damages and
Injunction
- versus -

ROSARIO P. AGUILUS, ET.AL,


Respondents.

X ---------------------------------------------- X

POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFF, REPONDENT


AND INTERVENOR

COMES NOW, the plaintiff through the undersigned


counsel in the above entitled case most respectfully submits
this position paper.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an ejectment and damages suit filed under the


office of the provincial adjudication board of Dinalupan,
Bataan, but was then subsequently dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. In the meantime, the parties are directed to
maintain status quo pending the filing of appropriate cases
before the proper forum.
It is the policy of the State to pursue a Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for the welfare of the
landless farmers and farmworkers. It is for them to receive
the highest consideration to promote social justice and to
move the nation toward sound rural development and
industrialization, and the establishment of owner
cultivatorship of economic-size farms as basis of the
Philippine agriculture.

Filed before this Office are consolidated cases for


Damages and Injunction filed by the petitioners who are the
owner of the land subjected to the CARP Law.

STATEMENT OF CASE

In 2006, it was alleged that respondents and all other


persons acting under their authority, acting in concert and in
conspiracy with each other, with the evident intention of
becoming beneficiaries of the subject property, surreptitiously
or by stealth entered into the said parcels of land without any
agreement with, and without consent from the owners, and
prevented the petitioners from entering the subject parcels of
land. Petitioners have been in lawful possession of the subject
property prior to the acts of the respondent. Respondents are
not agricultural lessees or tenants over the subject property.
It ought to be stated that respondents even applied as
beneficiaries pursuant RA No.6657. This fact concludes that
respondents, and all persons under their authority are guilty
of premature entry on the subject property and therefore,
perpetually disqualified to become beneficiaries, assuming
without admitting that the lands are coverable by
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioners
are entitled to peaceful occupation and possession of the
subject properties. As owners of the land, petitioners are
entitled to undisturbed possession and occupation thereof and
are entitled to be protected against the acts of the
respondents and all persons claiming rights under them of
surreptitious entry and continued illegal possession thereof
which constitute premature entry, and are entitled to a
prohibitory injunction restraining and enjoining respondents
and all persons under their authority. The petitioners are
likewise entitled to a mandatory injunction ordering and
directing the respondents and persons under their authority
to remove whatever improvements they introduced on the
said lands to vacate the same. Due to the premature entry of
the respondents, petitioners have not been able to plant sugar
cane plants, and thereby, suffered unearned and lost income
of their yearly earnings of Php. 1,000,000,000.00 due to the
premature entry of the respondents.

On January,8,2014, the DARAB Provincial Sheriff


tendered a report stating therein that copies of summons and
notice and hearing, together with the Order dated November,
27, 2013 granting the issuance of a temporary restraining
order (TRO), were duly served upon the respondents. It was
further stated that respondents were duly informed and
enjoined from preventing the petitioners representative from
entering the subject property, hence, the same was duly
implemented.

Subsequently, on January, 14, 2014, an Urgent Motion


for Intervention to Lift Temporary Restraining Orderwas filed
by Gintong Adhikain sa Ating Kaunlaran (GASAK) Farmers
Association, Inc., through its counsel. GASAK averred that the
motion is being made pursuant to Rule XII of the 2009 DARAB
Rules of Procedure. The officers and members of the GASAK
are the actual occupants, tillers and in possession of the
subject agricultural land. This fact is known in Hermosa,
Bataan, as well as to the counsel of petitioners as he was hired
by GASAK as counsel in the case of arson filed by the
petitioners before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Bataan.
On January 6, 2014, some of the officers of GASAK were given
copies of the summons and petition when the sheriff repaired
to the subject properties. When the officers read the same,
they found out that nobody from their association was
impleaded as respondents, but they knew some of the
respondents as they are residential owners of Brgy. Culis,
Hermosa, Bataan, On January 7, 2014, petitioners went to the
subject properties with ready made three (3) nipa houses and
tried to enter the property by showing a temporary restraining
order (TRO) issued by the Honorable Board. GASAK precluded
them, however, as they are not party in the case. On January
8, 2014 hearing, GASAK and its counsel appeared and
manifested, by way of special appearance, their material
interest to the subject properties. Being the actual occupants,
tillers, and in possession of the subject properties, officers and
members of the GASAK have legal right to intervene in these
cases.

Likewise, in the same urgent motion, GASAK moved for


the lifting of the TRO since there is no urgency for its issuance
and the party-in-interest was not properly impleaded. As
directed in the Order, petitioners were given five (5) dates
upon receipt to file their comment/opposition on the said
motion. On January 23, 2014, petitioners filed, through
counsel, their Joint Affidavit and Position Paper in support of
their prayer for issuance of preliminary injunction and
preliminary mandatory injunction. Respondents filed their
initial answer. By way of a Manifestation, petitioners
contested the answer filed by the respondents for being
unverified as well as the motion-to-intervene for failure to
attach a verified answer-in-intervention.

In resolving all the pending incident in these cases, an


Order was issued directing the respondents to submit their
verified sworn to the petition; directing the movant-
intervenors to file their pleading-in-intervention, together
with the affidavits of their witness, if any, and copy furnished
the petitioners and the respondents to file their comment
and/or answer-in-intervention, thereafter, the said incident
shall be considered submitted for resolution.

Meanwhile, other persons, not originally included as


respondents, but who have likewise caused the filing of the
verified answer and have joined the respondents as persons
under their authority. They averred in their verified answer
that they have no personal knowledge of the allegations of
the petitioners, and by way of counterclaim, they interposed
that petitioners have maliciously and falsely filed the instant
case against them knowing that they have not occupied or
even prematurely entered the subject properties. Petitioners
did not exercise due care and diligence in filing the instant
cases. That in filing the cases, petitioners should have verified
with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Brgy. Culi,
Hermosa, Bataan whether or not said respondents indeed
entered or occupied the said properties. The alleged legal
actions taken against the respondents are merely designed to
disqualify them from being considered as presumptive
beneficiaries of the subject properties which have been
previously declared as CARPABLE by the DAR.

By way of damages, as a consequence of the premature


filing of the instance case, each respondent suffered moral
damages in the amount of Php. 60,000.00 as well as
compensatory and exemplary damages for reckless and
premature filing of the instant cases causing them to suffer
mental anguish and sleepless nights in the total amount of
Php. 60,000.00 as attorneys fees and appearance in the
amount of Php. 5,000.00.

During the hearing, counsel for the respondents opposed


the Motion for Postponement of petitioners counsel and
moved that he be directed to present medical certificate, while
as to the said counsel be directed to submit a written
explanation for his absence and why he should not be fined.
Furthermore, as moved by same counsel, there being no
compliance with the filing of the answer-in-intervention and
position paper, the same be deemed waived, the pending
incident be submitted for resolution. Then a resolution was
issued granting the petitioners application for preliminary
injunction and issued a writ of preliminary prohibitory
injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction against
respondents and intervenors. Further, the petitioners were
ordered to post a bond in the amount of seven hundred
thousand pesos (Php. 700,000.00). In the same order, the
DARAB Provincial Sheriff was directed to implement the same.
In the ensuing hearing on July 2, parties were order to file
their respective position paper. In complying with the said
order, respondents as well as the petitioners filed their
position paper. GASAK did not file its position paper. Thus,
after compliance by both parties has been made, this
Adjudicator ordered the submission of these cases for
decision.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to


permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory
injunction?
2. What are the other remedies that the petitioner
has a cause of action?
3. Whether or not the defendant has right over the
parcels of land.
4. Whether or not the movant GASAK may be
considered as Intervenors of this case.
5. What are the rights, if any, the movant GASAK is
entitled to under this case?

DISCUSSION

I
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to
permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory
injunction?
A writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary event
and is the strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy. It
is granted only to protect actual and existing substantial
rights.

Without actual and existing rights on the part of the


applicant, and in the absence of facts bringing the matter
within the conditions for its issuance, the ancillary writ must
be struck down for being issued in grave abuse of
discretion. Thus, injunction will not issue to protect a right
not in esse, which is merely contingent, and which may never
arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause
of action.

In the instant case, petitioners did not allege the


existence of tenancy relationship between the parties. Rather,
the twin issues raised in the petition are the that the
respondents are merely intruding the subject properties and
be eventually declared, as farmer beneficiaries of the subject
properties. This is on the assumption that the said properties
are to be covered under the CARP. Moreover, the case is not
under the jurisdiction of PARAD. In case of Agrarian Reform,
no court shall issue any restraining order or preliminary
injunction against the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council or
any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case
arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the
application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform. (Sec. 55, Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law).
It appears that the petition suffers jurisdictional defect.
The factual circumstances that are contained therein do not
clearly establish the characteristics that would convincingly
attach jurisdiction over the subject matter and fall within the
context of agrarian dispute as there is no allegation of existing
tenancy relationship between the parties.

In the present case, the Petitioners did not alleged the


existence of tenancy relationship between the parties. Rather
the twin issues raised in the petition are that the respondents
are merely intruding the subject properties thereby causing
disturbance and aiming to be determined, be considered and
be eventually declared, as farmer beneficiaries of the subject
properties. This is on the assumption that the said properties
are to be covered under the CARP.

Having ruled that this office exercise no jurisdiction over


the subject matter of the case, evidently all incidents
appurtenant thereto are likewise out rightly beyond of
authority to be ruled upon. Hence, the petitioners through this
court is NOT entitled to permanent prohibitory injunction and
mandatory injunction

II
What are the other remedies that the petitioner has a
cause of action?

The law provides for three actions that you may file for
the purpose of recovering the possession of your property
depending on the circumstances of your case, to wit:
a) Forcible entry which is an action for the
recovery of possession de facto which must be
brought before the inferior court within one
year from unlawful possession under Rule 70
of the Revised Rules of Court.

b) Accion publiciana which is the plenary


action to recover the better right of
possession which could only be brought after
one year from unlawful possession of the
possessor.

c) Accion reivindicatoria which is a


reivindicatory action to recover possession
based on allegations of ownership of property
by the plaintiff.

The remedy of the petitioner is to file an action for


preliminary injunction, preliminary prohibitory injunction or
mandatory injunction at Regional Trial Court.

Another remedy is that the petitioners can file an


appeal to the board. Under Rule XIV of the 2009 DARAB
Rules of Procedure, Section 1 states that:

SECTION 1. Appeal to the Board.


An appeal may be taken to the Board from a
resolution, decision or final order of the
Adjudicator that completely disposes of the case
by either or both of the parties within a period of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
resolution/decision/final order appealed from or
of the denial of the movant's motion for
reconsideration by:

a. filing a Notice of Appeal together with the


Appellant's Memorandum with the Adjudicator
who rendered the decision or final order
appealed from;

b. furnishing copies of said Notice of Appeal


together with the Appellant's Memorandum to
opposing party/s and counsel/s; and

c. paying an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos


(PhP1,000.00) to the DAR Cashier where the
Office of the Adjudicator is situated or through
postal money order, payable to the DAR Cashier
where the Office of the Adjudicator is situated,
at the option of the appellant.

It must be given emphasis, however, that although this


office lacks the jurisdiction over the case, the Petitioner can
file the cases for Damages and Injunction to the proper court.
The rights of the land owners as having the valid claim should
not be prejudiced by the improper filing of the case to this
office when they have the right to do so in other courts.

III

Whether or not the defendant has right


over the parcels of land?
Republic Act No. 947 which makes it unlawful for any
person, corporation or association to forcibly enter or occupy
public agricultural lands. That law provides:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person


corporation or association to enter or occupy,
through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth, any public agriculture land including
such public lands as are granted to private
individuals under the provision of the Public
Land Act or any other laws providing for the of
public agriculture lands in the Philippines and
are duly covered by the corresponding
applications for the notwithstanding standing
the fact that title thereto still remains in the
Government or for any person, natural or
judicial to investigate induce or force another
to commit such acts.Petitioners alleged
themselves as the occupants of the subject
land, they did not allege that they have a
tenurial arrangement or tenancy relationship
either with the registered landowners, and not
even with anyone purporting to be the
landowner. Respondents and all other persons
acting under their authority, acting in concert
and in conspiracy with each other, with the
evident intention of becoming beneficiaries of
the subject property, surreptitiously or by
stealth entered into the said parcels of land
without any agreement with, and without
consent from the owners, and prevented the
petitioners from entering the subject parcels
of land.

In the instant case the Department of Agrarian Reform


had already made a decision that there is no existing
relationship as of landowner and tenants therefore it simply
means that the respondents have no rights over the subject
land and they can now be ejected from the said land.

IV
Whether or not the movant GASAK may be considered
as Intervenors of this case?

Intervention is not a matter of absolute right but may be


permitted by the court when the applicant shows facts which
satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing
intervention. Under our Rules of Court, what qualifies a
person to intervene is his possession of a legal interest in the
matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties,
or an interest against both; or when he is so situated as to be
adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof. As
regards the legal interest as qualifying factor, this Court has
ruled that such interest must be of a direct and immediate
character so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
direct legal operation of the judgment. The interest must be
actual and material, a concern which is more than mere
curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it must not be
indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, conjectural,
consequential or collateral. However, notwithstanding the
presence of a legal interest, permission to intervene is subject
to the sound discretion of the court, the exercise of which is
limited by considering "whether or not the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties and whether or not the intervenor's rights may
be fully protected in a separate proceeding." (Emphasis
supplied)

In the instant case , with the Decision already


promulgated by the Board, GASAK failed to comply with the
Order dated March 25, 2014 to file the required pleading-in-
intervention. The entry of appearance thru the filing of a mere
motion cannot be ripened to their right as de jure party to this
case. That in the present case, movant GASAK, despite due
notice and sufficient time to comply with the order, failed to
submit the required pleading-in-intervention to property
establish its right as intervenor to the case. And that further,
their continuous non-appearance in the subsequent hearing
without justifiable reason clearly showed their lack of interest
to participate in the litigation of the case and pursue their
action. In view of this, their motion for invention cannot be
given due course.

However, on the assumption that this has not yet been


decided, and for academic discussion of the case, given this
position paper, movant GASAK may be considered as an
Intervenor. Under Rule XII, Sec. 1 of the 2009 DARAB Rules
of Procedure states that:

Section 1. Who May Intervene. A person


who has a legal interest on the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the parties
or an interest against both, or has a substantial
right or interest in the subject matter of the case
before the Adjudicator or Board, may be allowed
to intervene in the action by filing a pleading-in-
intervention.

In this case, GASAK can be considered a person who has


a legal interest on the matter in litigation as the actual
beneficiary of the land. Under Section 22. Chapter VII RA
6657 (CARP law) states that:

SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. -


The lands covered by the CARP shall be
distributed as much as possible to landless
residents of the same barangay, or in the
absence thereof, landless residents of the same
municipality in the following order of priority: (a)
agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b)
regular farmworkers; (c) seasonal
farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e) actual
tillers or occupants of public lands; (f) collectives
or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries;
and (g) others directly working on the land xxx

The Officers and members of the GASAK are the actual


occupants, tillers and in possession of the subject agricultural
land. This fact is known in Hermosa, Bataan where the subject
property under the case is also located, hence residents of the
same barangay.

Also under the same provision which states that:


SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries.- xxx A
basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his
willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and
make the land as productive as possible. xxx
Farmers already in place and those not
accommodated in the distribution of privately-
owned lands will be given preferential rights in
the distribution of lands from the public domain.

Emphasize on the matters as underlined on the above


provisions proves that GASAK qualifies as a person who can
intervene Under Rule XII, Sec. 1 of the 2009 DARAB Rules of
Procedure.

What are the rights, if any, the movant GASAK is


entitled to under this case?

The remedy of the interveners is to appeal the case to


DARAB. Indicating their acceptable reasons for their failure to
submit their position paper. Merits of the case should be
decided on the merits rather than on mere technicalities or
procedural imperfections. In the case of Lapinid vs. Mesias
G.R. No. 156345 (March 4, 2004) thus:

"Cases should be determined on the


merits after all parties have been given full
opportunity to ventilate their causes and
defenses rather than on technicalities or
procedural imperfections. Rules of Procedure
are mere tools designed to expedite the
decision or resolution of cases and other
matters pending in court. A strict and rigid
application of rules, resulting in technicalities
that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must be avoided. In fact,
Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court state
that the Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of ensuring
the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding."

Agrarian reform program is founded on the right of


farmers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to own
directly or collectively the lands they till, or in case of other
farm workers, to receive a just share on the fruits thereof.
Furthermore, as stated in the 2009 Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure
Section 4 Rule I:

SECTION 22. Doubts to Be Resolved in Favor


of the Beneficiary. Any reasonable doubt in the
interpretation of these rules, as well as in the
interpretation of contracts and stipulations
between the contending parties, shall be resolved
in favor of the beneficiary, potential beneficiary,
tenant farmer, farm-worker, agricultural lessee,
farmers' cooperative, association or organization.
Following the assumption that the case has not yet been
decided on, as an Intervenor in the case, GASAK has the
following rights as stated in the 2009 Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure
Section 2 Rule XII

SECTION 22. Time to Intervene. A


person desiring to intervene may, before
judgment by the Adjudicator or the Board, file a
motion for leave to intervene attaching the
pleading-in-intervention with notice upon all the
parties to the action.

Upon due process, hearing and promulgation of


judgment, on when GASAK will be deemed decided to be an
actual beneficiaries, GASAK under the CARP Law Section 24,
Chapter VII award to beneficiaries states that -

SECTION 24. Award to Beneficiaries. The


rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall
commence from the time the DAR makes an
award of the land to him, which award shall be
completed within one hundred eighty (180) days
from the time the DAR takes actual possession of
the land. Ownership of the beneficiary shall be
evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership
Award, which shall contain the restrictions and
conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and
annotated on the Certificate of Title
6th day of October 2016, Las Pinas City

MARY ALELIE D. BATINO


Counsel for the Plaintiff
1234 St. Peter St. Building
4, Moonwalk, Las PInas
City.
IBP Lifetime No. 22/1-2-11
Roll No. 1254