REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Tunay na Pagbabago sa Repormang Agraryo

December 1, 2021

Mr. BONIFACIO B. ASILUM

Barangay Capalayan, Surigao City

Sir,

This is in response to your letter dated 29 November 2021. We have your

queries regarding your status as tenant.

We regret that you are being ejected as you believe but a relocation of tillage is
not an ejectment.

Lot no. 2466-F has several landowners and each landowner has their identified
portion of the land. They agreed among themselves to come up the need for new
boundaries with their landholding, and conducted a subdivision survey. All of them have
agreed to bind themselves of the outcome of the survey. But you disagreed of being
relocated, and likewise, of being detached from your original cultivation. In other words,
you do not want to bind yourself by the survey.

Your position is to remain in the old cultivation, instead, of being relocated to the
new area under the same lot number, which in effect, denies the landowners of what
may be the right thing that a tenant has supposed to do- to abide. According to you, that
would violate your security of tenure should you be moved from your original cultivation.
But a tenant cannot have a superior right over the landowner in terms of fixing the
boundaries. As a tenant, therefore, you have to follow the correct area and boundaries
set by the survey.

Since, according to you, the relocation violates your security of tenure because
that amount to ejectment, thus, you want to remain in your tillage. But please take note
that the landowners are unanimous to correct their respective boundaries. Not being a
party to it, you have no any right to shun of their will.

We would suggest to transfer your cultivation to the area that the survey has
pointed out for your landowner because the lot where you had your tillage now by the
domino effect of the survey is directed to Lilybeth Crisologo, who has no tenancy
relationship with you. It is chaotic to insist to remain in your tillage because she would
not acknowledge you to be her tenant. Be that as it may, please be advised you are not
ejected here but you are only to be relocated appropriate of your tenancy relationship
with your landowner.

Concerning, the mediation report of the MARPO-Surigao City, we know it has no

force and effect of the law after Lilybeth Crisologo had realized that the mediation report
would make her acknowledge you as her tenant even without a basis. Had she not
objected to it, this will lead you to believe such tenancy exist between you. Said report
leads to arbitrariness after some series of mediation had been conducted that
she had no intention to make you her tenant.

For your guidance.

Very truly yours,

LYDELL C.A. NOBLEZA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Tunay na Pagbabago sa Repormang Agraryo