Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Catalunan Pequeno, Davao City

IN RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION ALI CASE NO. __________

NULLITY OF THE VLT APPLIED BY
RODOLFO DEL ROSARION FOR: DECLARATION OF
INVOLVING NULLITY OF THE VOLUNTARY
LAND TRANSFER FOR
T- 19779;T-19780;T-19781;T-19782;
T- 19783;T-20046;T-20047;T-20048;
T- 20049
DECLARATION OF LINDARBAI
AS BENEFICIARY/IES OF THE
442.1310 HAS.

------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR DECLARATION

OF NULLITY OF VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER AND
DECLARATION OF LINDEARBAI AS BENEFICIARY OF
442.1310 HAS.

COMES NOW, PETITIONER Association through its representative,

assisted by its counsel, and unto this Honorable Regional Director, seeking a
declaration of nullity of the Voluntary Land Transfer, respectfully avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Agrarian Reform is a meticulously conceived project

of the government, primarily designed to uplift the
socio-economic status of the farmer-tiller, through
increased agricultural production, by emancipating
them from the bondage of the soil, under the
concept of owner-cultivatorship.

The State shall be guided by the principles that land

has a social function and land ownership has a social
responsibility. Owners of agricultural land have the
obligation to cultivate directly or through labor
administration the lands they own and thereby
make the land productive.

The agrarian reform program is founded on the

right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are

1
 landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to
receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
the priorities and retention limits set forth in this
Act, taking into account ecological, developmental,
and equity considerations, and subject to the
payment of just compensation. The State shall
respect the right of small landowners, and shall
provide incentive for voluntary land-sharing.

The instant petition is being filed effectively in

defense of the right of the petitioners who have
been in actual possession of the property subject of
this void order ought to be nullified. The assailed
order herein is currently being used by the owner,
through their agents and counsel, to harass
legitimate actual possessors in the covered area.
Said assailed Order is void and should be annulled
for having been issued by the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer Court without jurisdiction.

NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

This is a petition for the declaration of nullity of the Voluntary Land Transfer
(VLT)/ Direct Payment Scheme (DPS) applied by Tagum Development
Corporation (TADECO) involving an area of 448.7769 hectares which is the same
landholdings applied for Conversion which has a final and executory Order
dated February 13, 2006.

Only recently the Petitioner Association knew of the Voluntary Land Transfer
(VLT) proceedings when the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Davao del
Norte wrote the Petitioner in a letter dated August 10, 2015 which says:

“ Anent the same, please be informed that the landholdings

involved in this case were already placed under the
coverage of the program through the Voluntary land
Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT.DPS). The Deed of
VLT/DPS was entered into by and between Tagum
Agricultural Development Company, Inc. (TADECO) and
Central TADECO Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CTMPC) in
February 8, 2006”

Hereto attached and marked as Annex “A”.

2
Aggrieved by the proceedings made by the Department of Agrarian Reform as
the Petitioner Association was not informed of the Voluntary Land Transfer ,
there is now denial of due process .

Hence, this Petition is timely filed.

THE PARTIES

The Petitioner Linda District Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

Association , Inc. (LINDEARBAI) represented herein by its President Bonifacio
Degamo . The Petitioner- association is the Protestant-Intervenor of DARCO
Order NO. Con-0602-055 Series of 2006.

The respondent is Department of Agrarian Reform, Davao del Norte and

impleading herewith the Central TADECO Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CTMPC) as
beneficiaries of the CLOA sought to be nullified.

FACTS AND ANTECEDENTS OF THE CASE

Tagum Development Corporation (TADECO for brevity) through its

Attorney-in-fact, Atty. Antonio Brias applied for Conversion
involving the following parcel of agricultural lands:
T-58329 (Lot No. 4880-A)
T-58330 (Lot No. 4880-B)
T-58331 (Lot No. 4880-C)
T-58332(Lot No. 4880-D)
T-58333(Lot No. 4880-E)
T-58334(Lot No. 4880-F)
T-58335(Lot No. 4880-G)
T-58336Lot No. 4880-H)
T-58337(Lot No. 4880-I)
T-58340(Portion of Lot No. 4880-I)

Hereto attached and marked as Annex “B to B-9”, the landholdings

applied for conversion.

3
The said conversion was approved as contained in DARCO Order NO.
Con-0602-055 Series of 2006 dated December 8, 2003. However, the
Petitioner on September 3, 2004, filed a Motion for Leave to
Intervene and to Admit Protest/Motion for Reconsideration in
Intervention. Hereto attached the Motion for Intervention filed by
the Petitioner as Annex “C”.

On February 13,2006, then Secretary Nasser Pangandaman issued

and order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Intervention dated

September 3, 2004 is hereby GRANTED. The Application for Land Use
Conversion is hereby DENIED with regard to the 448.7669 hectare
property planted to bananas while the remaining 59.8557 hectare-
portion with existing non-agricultural structures is hereby GRANTED.
Therefore, the assailed order dated 08 December 2003, docketed as
DARCO Order NO. Con-0602-055 Series of 2006 is MODIFIED
accordingly.

FINALLY, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Tagum, Davao del

Norte and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Panabo, Davao del
Norte are hereby DIRECTED to immediately proceed with the coverage
of the 448.7669 hectare portion of the subject landholdings and
subsequently distribute the properties to qualified farmer-
beneficiaries pursuant to existing law, rules and regulations.

Hereto attached and marked as Annex “D”, the order.

Even before the implementation of such order, the Department of

Agrarian Reform Province of Davao del Norte processed the
Application of Rodolfo del Rosario dated March 2, 2006, for
Voluntary Transfer on the following subject landholdings:

TCT No. T- 178007

TCT No. T- 178004
TCT No. T- 177999
TCT No. T- 177998
TCT No. T- 177997
TCT No. T- 177996
TCT No. T- 58337

4
The above titles were generated from the landholdings subject for
conversion. Hereto attached and marked as Annex “E to E-6”.
Table 1
Landholdings Applied for Conversion and
Applied for Voluntary Land Transfer

Applied for Conversion Applied for Voluntary Land Transfer

Title No. Date Issued Date Title No. Date Date
Registered Issued Registered
T-58329 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 178007 6-23-53 10-11-2002
T-58330 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 178004 6-23-53 10-11-2002
T-58331 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 177999 6-23-53 10-11-2002
T-58332 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 177998 6-23-53 10-11-2002
T-58333 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 177997 6-23-53 10-11-2002
T-58334 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 177996 6-23-53 10-11-2002
T-58335 6-23-53 10-4-88 T- 58337 6-23-53 10-04-1988
T-58336 6-23-53 10-4-88
T-58337 6-23-53 10-4-88
T-58340 6-23-53 10-4-88
T-58331 6-23-53 10-4-88

Table 2
Landholdings Applied For Conversion Are The Same Landholdings
Applied For Voluntary Land Transfer

Applied for VLT Generated from Titles applied for

March 2, 2006 Conversion
2001
TCT No. T- 178007 - 347.1494 hectares T-58332 -1.9139 has.
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 178004 - 3. 5638 hectares T-58332 -1.9139 has.
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177999 - 13.6733 hectares T-58332 -1.9139 has.
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T-58337 - 54.5719 hectares T-58337 - 54.5719 has.

TCT No. T- 177998- 28.9722 hectares T-58332 -1.9139 has.

T-58335 -3.2544 has.
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177997- 3.1924 hectares T-58332 -1.9139 has.
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177996- (Applied for VLT in T-58332 -1.9139 has.
December 21, 2001) T-58335 -3.2544 has.
274.5680 hectares T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
Approved for VLT - 442.1310 hectares Approved for CARP Distribution -
448.7769

Verily, the landholdings involved in the Order dated February 13,

2006 are the same landholdings applied for Voluntary Land Transfer

5
although bearing different title numbers as reflected in Annexes B-
B9 and E to E-6.

On March 2, 2006, Rodolfo Del Rosario, as representative of TADECO

applied for Voluntary Land Transfer and the generation of CLOA was
made one day AFTER RECEIPT of the application of VLT. Hereto
attached and marked as Annex “F, the application for VLT and the
CLOA as Annex “G to G-8”

Table 3
CLOA Generation from the landholdings applied for conversion

Applied for VLT Generated from Titles CLOA GENERATTION

March 2, 206 applied for Conversion Issued : March 3, 20016
2001 Registered: March 6, 2006
TCT No. T- 178007 - T-58332 -1.9139 has. T- 17983 - 347.1494 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
347.1494 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 178004 - 3. T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-17982-3. 5638 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
5638 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177999 - T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-17981- 13.6733 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
13.6733 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177998- T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-17980-28.9722 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
28.9722 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177997- T-58332 -1.9139 has. T- 19779-3.1924 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
3.1924 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177996- T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-15232-69.6932 has.
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
(Applied for VLT in T-15233-136.3465 has.
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
December 21, 2001) T-58340 -691.8017 T-15234- 57.7020 has.
274.5680 hectares
T-15235-17.8263 has.
TOTAL -274.5680 has.
TCT No. T-58337 - T- 20049-15.9707 has
T-20048-18.9401 has.
54.5719 hectares
T-20047-3.5482 has.
T-20046-7.7209 has.
TOTAL - 54.5719
Approved for VLT - 442.1310 Approved for CARP VLT (2001) - 274.5680 has.
hectares Distribution - 448.7769 VLT (2006) - 442.1310 has.

On March 3, 2006, the Certificate of Landownership Award was

generated in favor of Central TADECO Multi Pupose Cooperative
(CTMPC) , pseudo beneficiaries and failed to include the Petitioner
Association. Worst, the Petitioner was DENIED DUE PROCESS in the

6
distribution of the landholdings. The generation of CLOA was made
one day after the receipt of the Application of VLT and awarded
the same to Central TADECO Multi-Purpose Cooperative who were
not even an intervenor in the Application for Conversion.

Republic Act 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP), explicitly provides:

Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition,

lease, management, contract or transfer of possession
of private lands executed by the original landowner in
violation of the Act shall be null and void xxxxx.

Section 70 of RA No. 6657, also referred to in Item no. 4 of DAR AO

05-06 partly provides:

The sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a

landowner as a consequence of Section 6 hereof shall be
valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned
by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be
acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceilings
provided for in this Act. Any sale or disposition of
agricultural lands after the effectivity of this Act found
to be contrary to the provisions hereof shall be null and
void. xxx (Emphasis supplied.)

ISSUES AND DISCUSSIONS

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS

ARE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF
SOUGHT FOR

7
Petitioners-Appellant strongly maintained, that they are entitled to
the relief sought.

DAR Administrative Order No. 3 Series of 2003 provides:

“NO intervention shall be given due course unless

the intervenor shows proof that he a substantial
right or interest in the case which he cannot
adequately protect in another case. This
notwithstanding, potential beneficiaries have
substantial right, interest and legal personality to
intervene.

It was the petitioner who exerted effort in opposing the application

for conversion. When the conversion was denied and was ordered
for distribution to the qualified beneficiaries, it is but logical to
award it to the Petitioner Association in accordance with the
guidelines set forth in the selection of qualified beneficiaries.

Awarding it to the other group who did not have the interest in the
opposition for conversion is a mockery. Worst, the landholdings for
conversion were the same landholdings of the Voluntary Land
Transfer of which the Petitioner Association were not informed of
the proceedings.

On February 13, 2006, when there was an order for distribution, the
Petitioner Association has an inchoate right already of the subject
landholdings. When the application of VLT was received by the
PARO Davao del Norte, the Petitioner Association should have been
informed that the owner wants the VLT. But the PARO Davao del
Norte maliciously intended to hide the proceedings in order for the
Petitioner Association not to file its opposition.

WHETHER OR NOT PROCEEDINGS OF

THE VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER BE

8
NULLIFIED DUE TO VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE

The assailed and questioned generation of CLOA issued by DARPO

Davao del Norte , dated March 3, 2006, be cancelled and nullified
on grounds that it is a blatant contravention of the DAR
Administrative Order NO. 2 Series of 1995.

It has been observed that in spite of the expressed provisions of DAR

Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 1995 relating to the Voluntary
Land Transfer Direct Payment Scheme vis-à-vis the generation of
Certificate of Landownership Awards (CLOAs) CARP Form No. 5(a)
of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2003 and Section 13.2 of DAR
Administrative Order No. 03, S. 2003), said provisions have, in a
number of instances, been misunderstood, and/or, have not been
observed or complied with.

The Voluntary Land Transfer proceedings was void because it did

not comply with the process and there was denial of due
process .Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process
is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for
lack of jurisdiction. The rule must be equally true for quasi-
judicial administrative bodies, for the constitutional guarantee
that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process is unqualified by what type of proceedings
(whether judicial or administrative) he stands to lose the same.

Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an

opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
Hence, even if administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial

9
powers are not strictly bound by procedural requirements, they are
still bound by law and equity to observe the fundamental
requirements of due process. In the application of the principle of
due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of
previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.

In the graphic words of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA

110, 122:
"x x x. (A) void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid
judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any
tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none
of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding
effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair
or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no
protection to those who seek to enforce. All proceedings founded on the
void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. In other words, a void
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would
be if there were no judgment x x x”

This Court has already ruled that the mere issuance of an

emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian
reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation
patents issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be CORRECTED
AND CANCELLED for violations of agrarian laws, rules and
regulations.

In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, which was
issued in March 1994, enumerates the grounds for cancellation of
registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of Landownership
Award:

Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs [Emancipation

Patents] or CLOAs [Certificates of Landownership Award] may
include but not be limited to the following:

1. Misuse or diversion of financial and support services extended

to the ARB [Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries]; (Section 37 of R.A.
No. 6657)

Xxxx

3. Material misrepresentation of the ARBs basic qualifications as

provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and
other agrarian laws;

10
 Xxxxx

10. Other grounds that will circumvent laws related to the

implementation of agrarian reform program. (Emphasis supplied)

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION

FOR VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER
COMPLIED THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET
BY DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2
SERIES OF 1995

Despite the patent absurdities of the assailed proceedings which

raises serious and unending doubts, the DARPO Tagum mandated its
execution to the prejudice of the of affected Petitioner
beneficiaries of the area. Apparently unmindful of the dire
consequences of its Proceedings, the DARPO initially caused the
exclusion of the Petitioner from being a beneficiary by denying
them due process. This is a blatant contravention of the DAR
Administrative Order. The CLOAs were issued despite the glaring
impossibility of complying with the jurisdictional requisites and its
subsequent processes, the span of time from application to
generation of CLOA. Therefore, is not merely a disturbing presence
but rather a malignant tumor that must be excised before it causes
a breakdown in the trust reposed by the public, not just in the
Department of Agrarian Reform but, more importantly, the Agrarian
program as well.

WHETHER OR NOT THE MEMORANDUM

OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY TADECO
AND CTMPC IS EFFECTIVE AND
ENFORCEABLE AND CAN BIND THE
DEPARTMENT

The Memorandum of Agreement by and Between TADECO and the

CTMPC cannot be binding as the authority to approve transactions

11
involving agricultural lands pertains exclusively to the DAR. In the
absence of the approval of such MOA, there is no legal impediment
to proceed with the acquisition and distribution of subject
properties under CARP.

The beneficiaries of the CLOA are the members of CTMPC which

until now the members are unaware that they have lands nor CARP
beneficiaries in TADECO properties.

The Administrative Rules Governing the Voluntary Land Transfer

and Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Under R.A. 6657, is governed
by DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1995.

It was noted that the generation of CLOA one day from the time of
application is A CLEAR MANIPULATION in order to circumvent the
order.

Taking a second look, the application dated March 2, 2006 was

received by DARPO Davao del Norte on March 3, 2006 and
immediately there was generation of CLOAs. Hereunder are the
generated CLOAs with its issuance and date entered with the
Register of Deeds.

Table 4
CLOA Generation from the landholdings applied for conversion

Applied for VLT Generated from Titles CLOA GENERATTION

March 2, 206 applied for Issued : March 3, 20016
Conversion Registered: March 6, 2006
2001

T-58332 -1.9139 has.

TCT No. T- 178007 - T- 17983 - 347.1494
T-58335 -3.2544 has.

12
347.1494 hectares T-58336 -9.0134 has. hectares
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 178004 -
T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-17982-3. 5638 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
3. 5638 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177999 - T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-17981- 13.6733 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
13.6733 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177998- T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-17980-28.9722 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
28.9722 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177997- T-58332 -1.9139 has. T- 19779-3.1924 hectares
T-58335 -3.2544 has.
3.1924 hectares
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
T-58340 -691.8017
TCT No. T- 177996- T-58332 -1.9139 has. T-15232-69.6932 has.
T-58335 -3.2544 has. T-15233-136.3465 has.
(Applied for VLT in
T-58336 -9.0134 has.
December 21, 2001) T-58340 -691.8017 T-15234- 57.7020 has.
T-15235-17.8263 has.
274.5680 hectares
TOTAL -274.5680 has.
TCT No. T-58337 - T- 20049-15.9707 has
T-20048-18.9401 has.
54.5719 hectares
T-20047-3.5482 has.
T-20046-7.7209 has.
TOTAL - 54.5719
Approved for VLT - Approved for CARP VLT (2001) - 274.5680 has.
442.1310 hectares Distribution - 448.7769 VLT (2006) - 442.1310 has.

WHETHER OR NOT UPON

DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE
PROCEEEDINGS OF THE VOLUNTARY
LAND TRANSFER, NAMED
BENEFICIARIES IN THE CLOAS SHALL
AUTOMATICALLY BE DISQUALIFIED

The VLT/DPS was made in violation of the due process clause and
DAR administrative rules. Hence, It has no legal or binding effect or
efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or
create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no
protection to those who seek to enforce. All proceedings founded to
be void are themselves regarded as invalid. In other words, a void

13
proceedings are regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same
as it would be if there were no proceedings. It, accordingly, leaves
the parties litigants in the same position they were in before the
trial.”

A. Doctrine of Necessary Implication

Under the Doctrine of Necessary Implication, Chua v. Civil Service

Commission and In Atienza v. Villarosa, the doctrine was
explained, thus:

“No statute can be enacted that can provide all

the details involved in its application. There is
always an omission that may not meet a particular
situation. What is thought, at the time of
enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may
be inadequate to provide for the unfolding of
events of the future. So-called gaps in the law
develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of
statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the
doctrine of necessary implication. The doctrine
states that what is implied in a statute is as much a
part thereof as that which is expressed. Every
statute is understood, by implication, to contain all
such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate
its object and purpose, or to make effective rights,
powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants,
including all such collateral and subsidiary
consequences as may be fairly and logically
inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And
every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is
deemed to include all incidental power, right or
privilege. This is so because the greater includes
the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit,
simper inest et minus.”

To construe it otherwise would result in an absurd situation

whereby the nullification of order would be vested in another forum
applying the 2017 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases
in relation to the hierarchy of administrative positions. Irrefragably,

14
once the proceedings area nullified, the accessory proceedings like
issuance of CLOAs, identification of beneficiaries and the like
should be deemed to nullified.

Following the doctrine of necessary implication, As held the City

of Manila and Treasurer vs. Judge Gomez [G.R. No. L-37251. August
31, 1981]

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine

of necessary implications in statutory
construction and sustained the City of
Manila’s contention that the additional
one-half percent realty tax was
sanctioned by the provision in Section 4 of
the Special Education Fund Law. The
doctrine of implications means that “that
which is plainly implied in the language of
a statute is as much a part of it as that
which is expressed”. The obvious
implication is that an additional one-half
percent tax could be imposed by municipal
corporations. Inferentially, that law (the
ordinance) fixed at two percent the realty
tax that would accrue to a city or
municipality. Section 4 of the Special
Education Fund Law, as confirmed by the
Real Property Tax Code (later), in
prescribing a total realty tax of three
percent impliedly authorized the
augmentation by one-half percent of the
pre-existing one and one- half percent
realty tax.

The doctrine of necessary implication this doctrine states that what

is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is
expressed. Every statute is understood by implication to contain
all such provision as may be necessary to effectuate to its object
and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or
jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and
subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from
its terms. The principle is expressed in the maxim EX NECESSITATE
LEGIS or from the necessity of the law.

15
 ANCILLARY REMEDIES AS AGREED DURING THE JUNE 14, 2018

Immediately upon receipt of the Petition, the Regional Director

shall issue an interlocutory order for the conduct of survey and
determine the metes and bounds of the 448.4068 hectares out of
the CLOA issued, and to validate the names of the beneficiaries
inscripted in the CLOA.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Office that:

1) Upon the filing of the instant petition, an Interlocutory Order be

issued requiring the PARO Davao del Norte :

A. To submit the folders and documentation of the Voluntary

Land Transfer including the forms signed by the named
beneficiaries in the CLOA;

B. To conduct survey and determine the 448 hectares in the

application for conversion and the 442 hectares
transferred through VLT.

C. To make necessary reports if the named beneficiaries are

still actually tilling the land and require the named
beneficiaries to execute an affidavit that they are actually
tilling the land, if not, to execute affidavit that they are
named beneficiaries but no knowledge about the same;

16
2) The instant Petition be given due course and consequently to
cancel all the CLOAs T- 19779;T-19780;T-19781;T-19782; T-
19783;T-20046;T-20047;T-20048; T- 20049 and re allocate the same
to the Petitioner Association;

3) The Voluntary Land Transfer Proceedings be declared void.

Other relief’s just and equitable are also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

July 8, 2018, Davao City, Davao del Sur, Philippines.

BONIFACIO DEGAMO
Petitioner

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I. BONIFACIO DEGAMO, President of LINDEARBAI. after having been

duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition;

2. I have read and understood the contents thereof;
3. The allegation therein are true and correct based on my/
personal knowledge and authentic records;

17
4. I have not theretofore commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals but there is a Petition for CARP Coverage pending
before DAR Central Office. While the subject property is the same
but the remedy sought for is different.

BONIFACIO DEGAMO
Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of July 2018. I

HEREBY CERTIFY, that I personally examined the affiant and I am
satisfied that he has read and understood the contents of the
Petition and that he executed the same freely and voluntarily.

Doc. No. _______;

Page No. _______;
Book No. ________
Series of 2018

Copy furnished

Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer

Department of Agrarian Reform
Tagum City

Central TADECO Multi-Purpose Cooperative

18