Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIBAL COURT

10th Judicial Region
Branch 31
Dapa, Surigao del Norte

MARVEB P. DELA PEÑA, Civil Case NO. SP-23-04

(for and in behalf of FOR: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TRIXIE VELLE D. SANTUYA, 13 yrs old
RHEANNA VELLE D. SANTUYA, 11 yrs old
ATHASHKA VELLE D. SANTUYA, 7 yrs old)
Petitioner

-versus-
JOY DELA PEÑA SANTUYA (datu kalipay) &
all persons acting on his behalf,
Respondent

ANSWER
WITH GREATEST RESPECT, Respondent through his counsel unto this honorable court,
respectfully answers:

1. That paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted, for in addition to the fact that Joy Dela Peña Santuya
(datu kalipay), the respondent, is an Indigenous People (IP) who exercised a preferential
rights of application under R.A. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act of 1997, a machine copy of his identification card is hereto attached as Annex “A”
respectively;

2. That paragraph 3 is admitted;

3. That paragraph 4 is hereby denied on two points:

a. First JOY DELA PEÑA SANTUYA (datu kalipay) is the biological father of the
abovementioned minor children, whereas pursuant to Executive Order No. 209,
Series of 1987, Title IX Parental Authority, Chapter 1 General Provision, Article 211
provides,

“The father and the mother shall exercise parental authority over the persons of
their common children. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail,
unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.”

Article 212 of the same provides,

“In case of absence of either-parents, the parent present shall continue exercising
parental authority. In which the respondent is exercising parental authority to the
abovenamed children in the absence of their mother MARVEB P. DELA PEÑA,
therefore the respondent is in lawful custody of the named minor children”;

Page 1 of 8
 b. Second, the liberty of the subject named minor children is not restrained; in fact,
during the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent brought the children to the
Maharlika Nation for safety, and the said community provided first the safety of its
members through its customary laws and practices, customs and traditional
institution; they also provided education to the children through their own
educational system, as provided under Section 30 of R.A. 8371.

In pursuance to Sec. 1 and 2 (4), Article XIV, of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines provides, that:

“The State shall promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels of
education and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all,
and Sec. 2 “The state shall encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous
learning systems, as well as self-learning, independent, and out of School Study
Programs particularly those that respond to the community needs”;

Furthermore, pursuant to 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article X111, Section

15 & 16, provides;

“Sec. 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to
enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful
means.

People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated

capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership,
membership, and structure.

Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and
reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-
making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of
adequate consultation mechanisms.”

In this connection, the Independent Indigenous Cultural Community/ Indigenous

Peoples (ICCs/IPs) of Maharlika Nation would like to explain and inculcate what
indigenous people really mean. In accordance to section 3, par. h, of Republic Act
8371 or otherwise known as Indigenous Peoples Right Act of 1997, provides that;

h) Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples — refer to a group of

people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by
others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally
bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time
immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common
bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who
have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization,
non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the
majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as
indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the
country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-
indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries,
who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political
institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or
who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains;”

Furthermore, during the midst of the pandemic, the Maharlika Nation provided face-
to-face classes based on children’s learning interests, and the said community is
COVID-free. The subject minor children are free to go to school during their period
classes inside the Messhall compound. They are free to wander around inside the
compound anytime to meet their friends and relatives. Generally speaking, going

Page 2 of 8
 outside of the compound is strictly restricted by the gate guard for the minor
children due to the danger zone since outside the gate is a main road or highway for
such running motor vehicles. Thus, children alone going outside the gate is
prohibited unless accompanied by a parent or adult, and this is contrary to the
allegation of the petitioner;

4. That paragraph 5 of the petition is inconsistent, as the petitioner stated that she has had
actual and physical custody of the above-named children from birth, but that until recently
the respondent refused to give their children to her, so she denies the fact that there were
times when she did not have actual and physical custody of the children. This statement
does not conform to paragraph 10 of the petition, which states that on May, 2019, the
petitioner went to Manila to undergo training for the job abroad. These statements display
falsity, which leads to false;

5. That paragraph 6 admits that the petitioner and respondent separated, but not mutually; the
petitioner took an action that led to their separation; a brief history is heretofore supplied;

BRIEF HISTORY

On January 8, 2018, the petitioner and respondent made an agreement that the petitioner will go
to Surigao to find a job, and the respondent agreed because she already decided to go. After how many
days, the respondent became curious why he did not receive a message from the petitioner, so he
decided to make a call, and the petitioner said in Visayan dialect, “Ngano man hing tawag paman ka
nahu, nag too pa diay ka nga ahu pa kang ulion? Naa nay ahung laki deri nga isay bata, hugaw
nako ganahan pa diay ka nahu?” Then the respondent replied “Di man na maoy atong
kasabutan, ag atong sabot mag trabahu raka kadali, ag atong mga bata?” He asked, then the
petitioner replied “Hahaha, buhia nang imung mga bata.” After almost one month the petitioner
returned to Socorro. She did not go to their home but she directly went to the house of her cousin
named LYNLYN M. DELA PEÑA-DACERA, while the respondent went to her after hearing and he
was kneeling and begging while crying saying in Visayan dialect, “ Mag uli ta kay arang ka pangalooy
ag mga bata magdako nga way ginikanan isa pa waya man ta mag buwag kay waman ta magsabut.”
Then she replied, “Dili nako nimu kay waya nako nimu nahigugma naa nakoy uyab nga isay bata unja,
ganahan pa diay ka nahu nga hugaw naman ko?” Then the respondent replied, “Bahalag hugaw ka ag
importante nga kompleto ag ginikanan sa mga bata.” Then she replied, “Mag istorya rata kay naa
pakoy lakaw maghuwat kas bay kay mo adto rako.” The respondent replied, “Dili! mag uban ta karon
kay ag mga bata nag huwat nato.” But the petitioner did not agree, after the respondent went home, he
wait for her arrival at their home the petitioner never returned. Weeks had passed, the petitioner was
just wandering around, and then the respondent decided to find a job to provide adequate food and
needs for the children. Since the petitioner was at their place in Socorro, the respondent left the
children on her. So, he proceed to manila for a job. The children were left in custody of LOU D.
SANTOYA. While he was there in Muntinlupa City, Quezon Province, he received an information that
the children was taken by the petitioner and put in custody of WELA P. DELA PENA. But because of
their conflict between WELA P. DELA PENA and the petitioner, the latter then left the house of
WELA P. DELA PENA and abandoned the children. Until they left in custody of JANICE DELA
PEÑA JUGAR a.k.a. “Negring” at Barangay Taruc, Socorro Surigao del Norte. Days had passed, the
first daughter named TRIXIE VELLE D. SANTUYA reported on call to his father the respondent,
stating in Visayan dialect, “Uli na deri pa kay angka hadlok deris among gi puy an bija-bijaan raming
mama mag laba rakan ko deri bisag alas dose (12:00 AM) sa gabii.” Then the respondent replied, “Ouh
segi mo uli rako.” On OCTOBER 20, 2018, the respondent arrived in Socorro. On OCTOBER 21,
2018, they celebrated the 9th birthday of their first daughter TRIXIE VELLE D. SANTUYA. The
respondent asked to JANICE DELA PEÑA JUGAR to get with him the three children and Janice
replied, “Oo Noy, dad-a rakan nang mga bata kay nia man ka og ag inahan ana waya man deri.” So,
they lived in their house at Sitio Tinago, Barangay San Roque, Socorro, Surigao del Norte while the
respondent waiting for the action of the petitioner and hoping their family to be completed again for
the sake of the children to live in harmony. Since, the respondent did not get married to another woman
after one month, the respondent made a choice to find a job for the needs of the three children. Then
the respondent took an immediate action to find help and support from his family where he can leave
the children. After several refusals from his own family, he decided to go to the family of MARVEB P.

Page 3 of 8
DELA PEÑA, but the parent of the petitioner said before in Visayan dialect, “ Waya koy mga apo nga
mga baji, nanghunaw nako ana dili nako, waya nag ahung anak nga si MARVEB.” Because of their
outrage from being a live-in partner between MARVEB P. DELA PEÑA the petitioner and JOY D.
SANTUYA the respondent. After then, he reached WELA P. DELA PEÑA, sister of the petitioner
asking a favor to leave the three children in her custody and WELA replied, “Kinasing-kasing nahu
ning dawaton noy kay ahu man ning mga pag-umangkon, peru abag-abagi laman mi noy kay wa man
pod mi ego nga trabahu para suporta sa mga bata.” The respondent agreed stating, “Ouh ahung
paningkamotan nga makahatag kog supporta kutob rapod sa ahung maabot kay wa man lagi koy
regular pod nga trabahu.” Then the three children were left at Wela’s custody at Barangay Navarro,
Socorro Surigao del Norte. After then, the respondent went to Manila again to find a job to provide
support for his three children as their agreement to Miss WELA P. DELA PEÑA.

While working at Manila, the respondent acted in accordance with their agreement to WELA
so he provided support every 15 days. Four months had passed, the respondent received an information
that MARVEB P. DELA PEÑA the petitioner brought the abovenamed children from the custody of
WELA P. DELA PENA wherein the respondent left the children before he went to Manila, the
petitioner brought the children to CHADDIE DELA PEÑA - PANGATONGAN at Sitio Binagjuhan,
Barangay San Roque, Socorro, Surigao del Norte, the respondent received a call from his first daughter
TRIXIE VELLE D. SANTUYA reporting in Visayan dialect, “Pa uli deri kay dia mis binagjuhan
mahadlok mi deri kay tungod sa dagat ag among gi puy-an unja bija-bijaan raming mama, unja dihay
gihilantan ko hing hanjo ko nga magpa tabang kong mama unja hing lakaw ra sija kay malibang kuno
bisag alas dose nas gabii unja pag sunod nahu ni mama nakit-an nahu nga didto na hinoon nag gakos si
mama ug ijang uban nga laki, nasungot gajud ko nija pa kay adto ra nuan sa laki mag atubang permi,
dili hinoon kami maoy gi bantajan maong uli na deri pa kay ikaw mag bantay namu.” The respondent,
after hearing such pitiful request, he immediately went back to Socorro, but after his arrival, the
respondent did not go to the place wherein the three children is there because he received the threat
from the petitioner stating that if he will get the children, there will be unnecessary events, so the
respondent directly went to his place at Sitio Tinago, Barangay San Roque, Socorro, Surigao del Norte.
After five (5) days, the above-named children went to the respondents’ place after hearing of the
returned of their father. Bringing some of their clothes, the children decided to live together with their
biological father, then the respondent accepted his three children and went home. After several days,
the respondent needs to work for their food and daily needs. Then he went to CHADDIE DELA PEÑA
- PANGATONGAN begging and hoping to leave again the children to her custody, since she is the one
who entrusted by the petitioner. But Chaddie refused stating, “Dili nako ikaw bantay ana kay nia
naman ka unja ug ari na nahu arang ka panga lungas nang mga bataa ug manga bali na ako napoy
basulon ninju dili nko ana mo bantay.” So the respondent find someone entrusted to be a guardian of
the children and he even offering salary to the one who will be accepted as guardian of the children.
There are some of his relatives will accept the offer but only two children be accepted. The youngest
one is to be left which is not good for them to live separately. So, the respondent then went to
LYNTON S. CAGATIN his sister asked for the second time and begging to leave his three children to
LYNTON’s custody for the second time. LYNTON S. CAGATIN agreed since her husband RONALD
C. CAGATIN sympathized about the situation of the children and also the late sister of the respondent
named CHARMIE S. VIRTUDAZO made a promised at that time to provide support since they are
neighborhood. So, respondent decided to find a job at Manila, but unfortunately the PANDEMIC
COVID-19 was happened that caused him not to leave. The respondent went back to his children and
joined the group of the Maharlika Nation. His sister LYNTON S. CAGATIN returned the custody of
the three children to him, the respondent. And until this present, the above-named children living
together happily and in good health with their father, the respondent.

6. That paragraph 7 is denied; it is before the separation when the petitioner goes to find a
work in Surigao City as stated on the brief history supplied; after the petitioner and
respondent’s severe relationship as common-law spouses, it is provided under the brief
history, the situation of the children after their separation;

7. That paragraph 8 is admitted; the respondent went to Manila to find a job to provide support
for his children as provided on the brief history;

Page 4 of 8
 8. That paragraph 9 is denied; the petitioner is not the only one providing for her children, as
stated in the brief history, that the petitioner did not provide support to the children, that is
why the respondent decided to find a job for the sake of his three children;

9. That paragraph 10 is admitted;

10. That paragraph 11 is denied; after the returned of the respondent to Socorro Surigao del
Norte, he did not visit to his children because the petitioner threaten him, if he will go to the
place of the children, so he went directly to Sitio Tinago, Barangay San Roque, Socorro
Surigao del Norte, but after five (5) days, the above-named children voluntarily and
willingly went to their father’s place after hearing of his returned;

11. That paragraph 12 is denied; it was the choice of the above-mentioned children not to go
back to the petitioner’s cousin’s place at Sitio Binagjuhan, San Roque Socorro Surigao del
Norte due to maltreatment and such place is hard to live according to the children, wherein
the respondent exercising the parental authority to the above-named children as their
biological father. Furthermore, the above-named children were already enrolled at ATOYAY
TRIBAL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL (ATEDS);

12. That paragraph 13 is admitted; the respondent joined the Maharlika Nation in which all
members welcomed and not forsaken their family. Such words without proof is an act of
defamation to the whole community which violates the equal protection and non
discrimination of the ICCs/IPs;

13. That paragraph 14 is denied; the petitioner is hereby informed about the children’s choice to
live in Maharllika Nation and a very big lie that Maharlika Nation don’t have access to
proper education and health care services. In fact, we have our own educational system,
tribal courts, clinic, and other institution which is appropriate for the community by virtue
of self-governance and self-determination to pursue our economic, social and cultural
development as provided under section 13 of R. A. 8371, otherwise known as the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 ;

14. That paragraph 15 is denied; in which there is no concrete evidences to prove that the
children are suffering because of their father, even the children have a clear statement that
they are satisfied to live together with their father and relatives;

15. That paragraph 16 is admitted; after the returned of the petitioner in Socorro, she, together
with her company, made harassment in the Maharlika Nation compound on March 9, 2023
at around 10:30 A.M., it is the duty of the guards to protect the members inside the
compound, where it is duly regulated, that no outsiders can get inside the compound
without the permission of the admin. They even threaten the people who are in actual by
the petitioner while shouting a curse word in Visayan dialect, “ MGA JAWA MO, HAE
MAG AHONG MGA BATA, PAMATJON TA MO!” Wherein the people in actual were
frightened and witnessed how they acted violently, the extract copy of the police blotter
no. 031 March 09, 2023 is hereto attached;

16. That paragraph 17 is denied; the respondent did not refuse to meet JEMARY and his
children, they are even welcomed as visitor every time they visit the children while asking
the custody of the child but the respondent has original parental authority as he is the
biological father of the three children. Aside from that, they refused before the time when
the respondent was begging to them as stated on the brief history. Furthermore, the
respondent never happened to bring any of his children to the farm alone. They have no
proof of such allegation and even the said child can testify on that matter. The three children
are fortunately healthy and in good hands of their father together with their relatives who
supported them. Such accusation without evidence is clearly a defamation against the
respondent;

17. That paragraph 18 is denied; the respondent did not forcibly taken the custody of the above-
named children, it was their choice to go with their biological father and the children can

Page 5 of 8
 prove it on how they treated by him with love and care as a good father. And on how they
are free to wander around as stated on paragraph 3 of this answer, that their liberty are not
restrained, such accusation of kidnapping and illegal detention are completely false and
incorrect, they have no evidences on that matter and such act of false statement is clearly a
defamation which violated the R.A. 8371, preferential rights of the ICCs/IPs which the
petitioner can be liable for criminal defamation;

18. That paragraph 19 is denied; the children are not prohibited to go to their mother, the
petitioner, it was the children’s choice not to go to their mother the petitioner because she
has a live in partner, and likewise the petitioner got abandoned the three children before and
they don’t want to make it happen again, according to TRIXIE VELLE D. SANTUYA the
first daughter of the petitioner and the respondent;

19. That paragraph 20 is admitted; the children must be in the company of the mother which
does not conform to the petitioner, because she abandoned her children while she was with
her hooker, and even after she found a job to abroad, the petitioner did not provide a proper
support to the children. Furthermore, once the said child is beyond ten (10) years of age, the
court will allow the child to choose which parent he prefers to live with, pursuant to section
6, rule 99 of the 1997 rules of civil procedure, as amended, whereas the above-named
children clearly chosen to live with their biological father at the said community where they
live in today;

20. That even the signatory of the birth certificate attached as Annex “D” of the petition was
JOY DELA PENA SANTUYA and the reason for the delay in registering is NEGLIGENCE
as indicated at the back of the birth certificate, this clearly confirmed of her abandonment
as a parent from the first place;

21. That the photo attached from the petition as Annex “E” was taken by LYNTON S.
CAGATIN at pizzarilia de drew, that they were eating pizza happily at that time, even the
petitioner doesn’t have a photo together with her children because she is not in actual and
physical custody of the children;

22. Whereas the statement of JEMARY P. DELA PENA, is completely false, first they have no
concrete evidences about their claims, second JEMARY P. DELA PENA stated in paragraph
2, that the father of her children was JOY D. SANTUYA, who is the biological father of the
above-named children. According to the subject named children they visit to the town to
meet them to ask for additional support which is contrary to the statement of JEMARY that
the children are not allowed to meet them;

23. Whereas their false statement causes defamation to the respondent which affect his living
status as a human being;

24. Whereas the primacy of customary laws shall be used when resolving disputes involving
ICCs/IPs per section 65 of R.A. 8371;

25. Whereas, pursuant to the Administrative Circular No. 1, Series of 2014 THE 2014
REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, RULE IV – PRECONDITION FOR ADJUDICATION, Section
1. Exhaustion of Remedies Provided under Customary Laws. – It is the responsibility of the
complainant/petitioner to set the case for mediation and/or settlement. No case shall be
brought before the Regional Hearing Office or the Commission unless the parties have
exhausted all remedies provided for under customary laws. The exhaustion of customary
laws shall strictly adhere to the processes and modes prescribed by customs and traditions
duly validated and/or documented. Wherefore, the regular court exercise no jurisdiction
over ICCs/IPs, the due process of law shall be followed for the harmonious decision
making of any of the judicial body, the primacy of customary laws shall be upheld, to the
respective tribal courts;

Page 6 of 8
 26. Whereas pursuant to the RULE VII – PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS of the same
administrative circular, Section 6. Motion to Dismiss, Prohibited. – No motion to dismiss
on any ground shall be allowed. All defenses including grounds for a motion to dismiss
such as lack of jurisdiction, prescription, res judicata, or improper venue, should be stated
in the answer. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint/ petition for lack of jurisdiction, res
judicata, or for improper venue must be pleaded at the answer and not in a motion to
dismiss;

27. Lastly, the answer is supported by the following documents pertaining to the respondent,
petitioner and the child subject o this petition as Annexes:

a. Annex “A” – A machine copy of identification card of the respondent;

b. Annex “B” – List of members of ICCs/IPs received files by NCIP Caraga Region;

c. Annex “C” – Administrative Circular No. 1 Series of 2014;

d. Annex “D” – Enrollment Certification of the above-named children from ATOYAY

TRIBAL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL (ATEDS);

e. Annex “E” – A machine copy of school IDs of the above-named children

f. Annex “F” – Hand written statement of TRIXIE VELLE D. SANTUYA;

g. Annex “G” – Hand written statement of RHEANA VELLE D. SANTUYA;

h. Annex “H” – Actual video of interview from the above-named children;

i. Annex “I” – A file copy of the petition together with the annexes.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Premises seriously considered, it is prayed that the instant petition be

dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.

Respondent likewise prayed for settlement on this family matter through Customary Laws and
Practices to live a harmonious way of life for the above-named children, and for the good cause.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ___th day of April 2023, at Bucas Grande Island-
Socorro, Maharlika Nation.

datu likha (Mike Kevin P. Arcular)

Customary Lawyer
Member International Customary Lawyers
Association (ICLA)

Copy furnished:

1. Atty. Maica C. Garrido-Naybe

Page 7 of 8
 Public Attorney III
Counsel for the Petitioner
Public Attorney’s Office
Dapa District Office
Old Municipal Building, Sto. Niño St.
8417 Dapa, Surigao del Norte

Page 8 of 8