REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR
(Branch I)
R.S. Bldg., Corner Hilado & 6th Street
Bacolod City

RODOLFO P. DUMAY, JR., REX C.

DUMAY, DARAB CASE No. R-0605-0086-19-I
Complainant(s)/ Petitioner(s),

vs.

RAMIL SALDUA, RAYMUND

SALDUA & BUDDY BOY JISON,
Defendants. FOR: “RECOVERY OF POSESSION”

_____________________________________________________________________________
ANSWER

COME NOW, defendants thru the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Adjudicator, most respectfully submit their Answer to the Complaint, a copy of which
they received on 13 February 2019 and avers as follows:

1. The circumstances of plaintiff as stated in paragraph 1 of the Complaint are denied

for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof.

2. The personal circumstances of defendants Ramil Saldua and Raymund Saldua are
admitted with qualification that defendant Buddy Boy Jison’s legal name is Emilio
Jison, Jr. It is most respectfully requested of the Honorable Adjudicator that,
henceforth, copies of notices, summons, and orders be furnished to the
undersigned counsel in representation of the defendants to reflect his legal name.

3. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint are specifically denied for lack of
knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

4. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint are denied

5. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are specifically denied for being
false, the truth being that complainants/petitioners do not own the 23.60999
hectares property covered by CLOA No. 13. The truth of the matter is that the
subject property has yet to be delineated from the 206, 699 square meter property
owned by Oselisa Realty Corporation. The annotation in CLOA No. 13 reads:
Page 2 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANNOTATION

“This is to certify that area acquired under VOS in this CLOA

and covered by an LBP Certification of Trust Deposit is more or
less TWENTY NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE
METERS (29,400) sq. meters. The remaining portion which is
TWO HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY
NINE (206,699) sq. meters is subject for segregation and
reconveyance or subsequent acquisition. A copy of CLOA No.
13 is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

6. The allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are further specifically denied for
being false, the truth being that complainant/petitioner Rex C. Dumay is not
among the beneficiaries awarded of the subject property. Rex C. Dumay’s alleged
claim of ownership of the subject property must fail as the same has been derived
from his late father Renato Dumay’s claim, who was found to have been
disqualified by the Agrarian Reform Regional Office No. 6 in ADM. Case No. A-
0605-0341-2011 dated October 4, 2011. Having been disqualified from being a
beneficiary of the collective CLOA No. 13, Renato Dumay could not have
transmitted any rights on the subject property to his son, petitioner/complainant
Rex C. Dumay. A copy of the Order dated October 4, 2011 is hereto attached as
Annex “B”.

7. The allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint are further specifically denied for
being false, the truth being that the area claimed to have been entered by the
respondents Ramil Saldua and Raymund Saldua are not owned by
petitioners/complainants.

Petitioners/complainants’ allegations further contradict themselves in alleging in

paragraph 2 of the complaint that the subject property’s previous owner is
Oselisa Realty Corporation and yet again in paragraph 6 of the Complaint that
the same subject property was previously owned by the defendant Buddy Boy
Jison.

8. The allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint are further specifically denied for
being false, the truth being that it was respondents who planted the trees inside the
landholding. Such ownership of the trees is recognized by no less than the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in its Memorandum
dated July 1, 2010 and the Certificate of Tree Plantation Ownership No. BAC 2010-
005 issued to Oselisa Realty Corportion dated the same day. Copies of the CENRO
Memorandum and Certificate of Tree Plantation Ownership No. BAC 2010-005 are
hereto attached as Annex “C” and “D”, respectively.

9. The allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint are further specifically denied for
being false, the truth being that it was in fact petitioners/complainants who have
caused the interruption and the peaceful cultivation of the owners on the subject
property by preventing the ingress and egress of the latter’s agents in the
landholding.
Page 3 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

In fact, as early as April 22, 2014, Oselisa Realty Corporation has registered the
disturbance caused by petitioners/complainants before the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Program Office. Attached herewith is a copy of the Letter Request of
Oselisa Realty Corporation for the implementation of the segregation survey of
the subject property as ordered in Adm. Case No. A-0605-0341-2011 in order to
properly delineate the metes and bounds of the subject property.

10. The allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint are further specifically denied for
being false, the truth being that it is petitioners/complainants who are illegally
conducting kaingin on the subject property. In fact, portions of the area have been
cleared of trees and burned to produce charcoal. Among those even cut down and
turned to charcoal were hardwood Narra trees. Photographs of the illegally
conducted kaingin system are hereto attached as Annex es “E-1 to E-7”.

11. The allegation in paragraph 9 of the Complaint is admitted.

12. The allegations in paragraph (10) of the Complaint are specifically denied for lack
of knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants replead and incorporate all the foregoing allegations and further state, by
way of special and affirmative defenses as follows:

13. On April 6, 1984, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8072 was issued to Oselisa
Realty Corporation covering an area of 23.6099 hectares situated in Sitio Lantawan,
Silay City, Negros Occidental.

14. Sometime in the early 1990s, Plan H-211769 consisting of a total area of 236,099
square meters was offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform in the form of a
Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). Considering however, that the subject landholding
consists mostly of more than 18 degrees slopes and is planted with different kinds
of trees, only 29,400 square meters of the subject property was valued by the Land
Bank of the Philippines.

15. By virtue of said transaction, on September 24, 2012, CLOA No. 13 was issued
Although appearing on its face that CLOA No. 13 contained an area of 236,099
square meters. A closer scrutiny of the Annotation on the title would readily
disclose that only 29,400 square meters of the subject property was acquired under
VOS and covered an LBP Certification of Trust Deposit. The remaining portion of
206,699 square meters remained under the ownership of Oselisa Realty
Corporation. The remaining portion of 206,699 square meters has continuously
been planted with trees thereon.

16. Because of the confusingly issued CLOA No. 13, Renato Dumay, the father of
petitioner/complainant Rex P. Dumay Jr. has mistakenly insisted that the entire
area of 236,099 square meters was his, notwithstanding the fact that only 29, 400
square meters thereof was acquired by the DAR and valued by LBP, Renato
Dumay erroneously stood by his claim notwithstanding that he was disqualified
Page 4 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

from being a farmer beneficiary pursuant to the Order dated October 11, 2011 of
the DAR Regional Directror.
17. Even prior to the VOS, Oselisa Realty corporation had been planting forest trees
therein and have been enjoying continuous uninterrupted and unimpeded
possession and all such other attributes of ownership over the property. As part of
exercising its right on the subject property, Officer-in-Charge of Oselisa Realty
Corporation, Emilio “Buddy Boy” Jison, Jr. assigned brothers Ramil Saldua and
Raymund Saldua as caretakers of the said property. As caretaker, the Saldua
brothers were allowed to occupy a portion of the property.

18. Despite the fact that petitioner/complainant Rodolfo P. Dumay Jr. was awarded
only a portion of the 29,400 square meters acquired by DAR, which is still subject
for a segregation survey in order to properly delineate the metes and bounds of the
property, he together his fellow petitioner/complainant Rex C. Dumay has
continually caused damage and prejudice to the rights of Oselisa Realty
Corporation.

19. Aside from conducting Kaingin on the property and preventing defendants’
ingress and egress on the property, petitioners/complainants have continuously
filed blotter reports against the defendants.

20. On January 22, 2019, petitioners/complainants filed a case of Recovery of

Possession against defendants before this Honorable Office. Defendant received a
copy of the Complaint on February 13, 2018 with notice to file Answer within
fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Accordingly, defendants have until February
28, 2019 to file the same. Therefore, defendants’ Answer is seasonably filed.

21. However, petitioners/complainants’ Complaint must be dismissed for lack of

cause of action. Petitioners/ complainants Complaint hinges on the assertion that
they own the 23.6099 hectares property covered by CLOA No. 13. As earlier
asserted, petitioners/complainants’ Complaint for Recovery of Possession against
the defendants must simply fail for the simple reason that they do not own nor
possess the property claimed of.

22. At the risk of being repetitious, the property aimed to be recovered by petitioners/
complainants have not yet been delineated. While petitioners/complainants’
rightful claim only consists of a portion of 29,400 square meters covered by CLOA
No. 13, defendants derive their authority from the owner of the 206,699 sq. meters
of the disputed property. It is therefore absurd that petitioners/complainants
demand to recover a property which was never theirs nor possessed by them in the
first place.

23. In petitioners/complainants’ submitted evidence, it can be readily verified from

CLOA No. 13 that petitioner/complainant Rex C. Dumay nor his father Renato
Dumay were not among those farmer beneficiaries awarded of the property.

24. Likewise, from the same evidence, the Annotation found on the title indicates the
area petitioner Rodolfo P. Dumay, Jr. may be entitled to. However, without the
segregation survey, petitioner cannot lay claim to an exact portion of the property
which he allegedly owns. Thus, the Complaint for Recovery of Possession must
fail.
Page 5 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

25. From these premises, until and unless petitioners/complainants can secure a
segregation survey supporting the correctness of the property they claim, their
Complaint must be dismissed for being baseless and without merit.

COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendants replead and incorporates all the foregoing allegations and further
states by way of counterclaims as follows:

26. Because defendants were compelled and constrained to hire the services of the
undersigned lawyer to protects their interests, they are entitled to damages for
actual expense paid to his counsel at the retained amount of thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) only, with appearance fees at three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) per
appearance.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the

Honorable Office:

(1) That the Complaint be DISMISSED for lack of cause of action;

(2) That, by way of counterclaim, defendant be awarded the amount of

P30,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and reimbursed of P3,000.00 per hearing as
appearance fees.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 26 February 2019, City of Bacolod, Philippines.

Jona C. Villanueva-Rubica
Roll of Attorneys No. 45607
IBP Lifetime No.030179, January 10, 2018
Negros Occidental Chapter
PTR No. 7533116, Jan. 03, 2019, Bacolod City
MCLE Compliance VI-0000637, Sept. 30, 2016
Page 6 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

VALENCIA VALENCIA CIOCON PANDAN RUBICA

RUBICA GARCIA PEÑALOSA LAW OFFICES
2 Floor, Stonehill Suites, San Agustin Drive cor. 18th Street
nd

6100 Bacolod City, Philippines

(034) 433-3444
contact@valencialaw.com.ph

Counsel for Defendants

Copy furnished:

Atty. Leandro P. Castro

Counsel for the Complainants
Department of Agrarian Reform
North Negros I
Dawis -San Sebastian Streets
Bacolod City
Page 7 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, RAMIL SALDUA, RAYMUND SALDUA and EMILIO

“BUDDY BOY” JISON, JR. , of legal age, Filipinos, and a residents of
Silay City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law depose and
say that:

01. We are the defendants in the case; We have caused the

preparation of the foregoing Answer; We have read the said Answer and
We hereby attest that the allegations therein are true and correct of our
own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records;

02. Further, we hereby certify that we have not commenced any

action or filed any claim involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi judicial agency, and
to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein, and that if we should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, we shall report the fact within
five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this _________________________ in the City of Bacolod, Philippines.

RAMIL SALDUA RAYMUND SALDUA

Affiant Affiant

EMILIO “BUDDY BOY” JISON, JR.

Page 8 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

_______________________ in the City of Bacolod, Philippines. Affiants
exhibited to me their competent evidence of identity bearing their
respective photos and signatures thereon as follows:

Competent Evidence Date of Issue Place of Issue

of Identity
RAMIL SALDUA
RAYMUND
SALDUA
EMILIO “BUDDY
BOY” JISON, JR.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No._____;
Book No._____;
Series of 2019.
Page 9 of 9
Rodolfo P. Dumay , Jr. et. al vs. Ramil Saldua et. al.
Recovery of Possession DARAB Case No. R-0605-0086-19-I
x------------------------------------------------------------------x