Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
Borongan, Eastern Samar

PILAR SABATE, DARAB CASE No. ES-08-

0285-2019
Plaintiff.
FOR: REINSTATEMENT
and VIOLATION
-versus- Of R.A. 3844 as amended
by R.A. 6389
With DAMAGES
HEIRS OF GENEROSO CARANZO, Et Al.,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Respondents, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully aver that:

SPECIFIC DENIALS and ADMISSIONS

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint are admitted;

2. Paragraph 3 is partially and specifically denied insofar as to the capacity of

the plaintiff;

3. Paragraph 4 is specifically denied as there was no tenant-landlord relation

in this case;

4. Paragraph 1 under title Subject Properties is specifically denied as the

subject lands are not faithful representation of the true relations among the
parties being these lands are not under the tenant-landlord relations;

5. Parcel No. III under Paragraph 1 under title Subject Properties is

specifically denied as the truth of the matter is that said land and its
produce are not given to the respondents;

6. Paragraph 2 under title Subject Properties is specifically denied as the

truth of the matter is that there is no tenant-landlord relations;

7. Paragraphs 1 to 3 under title Rights of the Complainant are neither admitted

or denied for being mere conclusions of law;

8. Paragraph 1 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as the said

lands are no longer owned by Generoso Caranzo but to his heirs by virtue
of intestate of succession which transferred the ownerships to compulsory
heirs ipso facto upon his death;
9. Paragraph 2 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as there is no
proof to support the same except for the self-serving statement of the
plaintiff;

10. Paragraph 3 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no proof to support the same except for the self-serving statement
of the plaintiff;

11. Paragraph 4 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no proof to support the same except for the self-serving statement
of the plaintiff;

12. Paragraph 5 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no tenant-landowner relations among the parties;

13. Paragraph 6 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as the

plaintiff was not permitted to till the land under a tenant-landlord relations;

14. Paragraph 7 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no tenant-landlord relations among the parties;

15. Paragraph 8 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no tenant-landlord relations among the parties;

16. Paragraph 9 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no tenant-landlord relations among the parties;

17. Paragraph 10 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there rules governing BARC proceedings were not complied with.

18. Paragraph 11 under title Cause of Action is specifically denied as

there is no proof showing that indeed the plaintiff is a pauper or indigent.

19. Paragraph 1 and 2 Under Applicable Laws are neither admitted nor
denied for being conclusions of law.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

20. The complaint fails to state a cause of action as the respondents are
entitled to RETENTION RIGHTS over the subject lands as the total area of
the subject lands based on the complaint as computed is only 2.1 hectares
way within the retention limits of 5 hectares under R.A. 6657 which likewise
amended RA 3844 and related agrarian reform laws;

21. The complaint failed to comply with condition precedent as the letter
of the Barangay Chairman of Locsoon is fatally defective and violative of
Memorandum Circular No. 05, Series of 2010 and 2009 DARAB rules of
Procedure issued by DAR which categorically requires that the BARC
proceedings shall be administered not by the Barangay Chairman alone but
by the BARC Council and the mere letter of the Barangay Chairman fell
short of the statutory requirements.
 WILLINGNESS TO AMICABLY SETTLE

22. The respondents are willing to amicably settle this case but only
insofar as both parties are willing to settle in mutually agreeable terms.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed that the

instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for being violative of
the rules and applicable laws.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 8th day
of October 2019 at Borongan City, Eastern Samar.

SUILA CARANZO SEVERINO CARANZO MELANIE C. CASPE

Respondent Respondent Respondent
ID No. ______ ID No. ________ ID No. _______

ALIE CARANZO HELEN CARANZO ANDRES CARANZO

Respondent Respondent Respondent
ID No. ______ ID No. _______ ID No. ______

DONALD CARANZO EDWIN CARANZO

Respondent Respondent
ID No. ________ ID No. ________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of October 2019

at Borongan City, Eastern Samar, affiants showing me their identification
cards above-indicated and they have verified and sworn unto me that they
have voluntarily and intelligently executed the foregoing answer to the best
of their personal knowledge and belief.

Doc. No. ____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2019.

Copy furnished by registered mail as personal service is not practicable for lack
of personnel to effect the same:

PILAR SABATE
Brgy. Locsoon, Borongan City