Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
THRID JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 23
Cabanatuan City
-o0o-

PADRE CRISOSTOMO MABINI

EXTENSION NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOSCIATION INC., (PCMENAI).
Represented by
JOSE M. PETALINO JR.
Petitioners,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 8929-AF

For: Declaratory Relief
under Rule 63 of the Rules
of Court

CONRADO ESTRELLA III, in his

capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), MARPO GENOVEVA U.
TALPLACIDO member of TASK
FORCE on FR. CRISOSTOMO
ESTATE,
Public Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
with SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
and MOTION TO DISMISS

COME NOW, Public-Respondent MARPO Genoveva U. Talplacido,

through the Bureau of Agrarian legal Assistance (BALA) of the Department of
Agrarian Reform-Provincial Office of Nueva Ecija (DARPO-Nueva Ecija) and
through the undersigned counsel to this Honorable Board, most respectfully
avers:

1. That the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the petition are

specifically denied for failing to allege the real party-in-interests and for
failing to attached the Articles of Incorporation stating the actual

1
incorporators/members of the petitioner corporation together with their
actual addresses and potion that they actually occupy in the disputed Padre
Crisostomo Estate;

2. The allegations in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of the petition are admitted

as far as the personal circumstances of the public-respondents are concern;

3. That the allegations in paragraphs 6 through 21 are specifically

denied and discussed as follows:

3.1 On February 1, 1918, the late Rev. Fr. Gregorio L.

Crisostomo
through his last will and testament bequeathed to the Republic of
the Philippines all his personal and private properties during his
lifetime as a priest as follows:

“It is my wish that my personal and private

properties acquired during my lifetime as a
saserdote assigned in the Province of Nueva Ecija
and the fishpond located here in Malolos, Barrio
of Balayong be given to the benefit of the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, so the the
same maybe converted into the errection of a
maternity or other revolving project that will be
beneficial to the Filipino people.”

3.2 The copy of the last will and testament of Padre Crisostomo is
appended in the petitions filed before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Office of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija;

3.3 Initially, the Attorney-General was designated as the

Administrator of the Estate through the Rural Progress Administration
(RPA);

3.4 The Attorney-General subsequently turned-over the

administration of the Estate to the Director of Bureau of Lands;

3.5 The Bureau of Lands then passed the administration of the

Estate to the defunct Land Tenure Administration (LTA), which was
renamed as Land Authority (LA) by virtue of Republic Act No. 3844
merging the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) and National
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Administration (NARRA);

2
 3.6 Upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 6389, the Land
Authority was converted into a department which is presently known
as Department of Agrarian Reform;

3.7 In the year 2021, the DAR Secretary through the DAR
Regional Director created the Task Force on Padre Crisostomo Estate
and directed them to conduct an inventory of the actual occupants of
the Crisostomo Estate and the amount of lease rentals to be paid by
such occupants;

3.8 In accordance with the inventory, it was found that the persons
in actual possession of some portions of the land of Crisostomo Estate
are not paying the lease rentals;

3.9 The reason of their failure to pay the lease rentals is the fact that
no updated rate of lease rentals was made with regard to certain
portions of the Crisostomo Estate;

3.10 The Department of Agrarian Reform with the aid of the Land
Bank of the Philippines secured an Initial Appraisal Report to
determine the value of the landholding covered by the Crisostomo
Estate;

3.11 In the year 2021, on the basis of the results of the conduct of
inventory of actual occupants of the Crisostomo Estate, the Task
Force filed petitions for the fixing of lease rentals before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The herein petitioner corporation through its representative seeks to

ventilate its right as the present occupant of the Padre Crisostomo Estate by
filing a Petition for Declaratory Relief, allegedly this right is affected by the
actions of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in collecting lease
rentals, and as alleged by the petitioner herein its right may be breached if no
judicial declaration is made, these contentions do not have any legs to stand on;

The petitioner corporation is a juridical entity who is not the real party
in interest who stands to be benefited nor injured by the judgment in the suit,
nor the party entitled to the avails of the suit;

It is provided by the 2019 Revised rules of Court, to wit:

3
 RULE 3

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. -

Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized
by law may be parties in a civil action. The term
"plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-
claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) [-]
party plaintiff. The term "defendant "may refer to the
original defending party, the defendant in a
counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth,
etc.) - party defendant.

Section 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is

the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest.

Section 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action

is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity,
the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case
and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party
authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his
own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal
may sue or be sued without joining the principal except
when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.

It is axiomatic under the Doctrine of separate juridical personality,

which provides that a corporation has a legal personality separate and distinct
from that of people comprising it (Heirs of Tan Uy v. International Exchange
Bank, 703 Phil. 477[2013]).

The petitioner corporation without naming its members and by failing

to attach it articles of incorporation cannot seek to have a declaratory
judgement as each member of the petitioner corporation has different rights
that can be ventilated in a petition for Declaratory Relief, these rights may vary
as to the locations and/or portions presently occupied by the members of the
petitioner corporation, hence, it cannot be gainsaid that the subject matter of

4
the controversy is one of common or general interest to all the members of the
petitioner corporation;

Conclusively, the members of the corporation and all other persons

presently occupying portions of the Padre Crisostomo Estate are indispensable
parties to the petition for declaratory relief;

An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the

court’s action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the
case can be had. The party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the
relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his
legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his
absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the
court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void,
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present. (Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 486 Phil. 366, 379-
380 (2004), citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA, 450 Phil. 532, 541
(2003); further citation omitted; Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265
[2004])

In accordance with reality, the petitioner corporation having a separate

juridical personality from its members cannot negate the fact that each member
of the petitioner corporation has different rights which they seek to ventilate in
a petition for declaratory relief;

Declaratory Relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a

deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution to
determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument,
executive order or regulation, or a statute; and for a declaration of his rights
and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be raised in such a petition is a
question of construction or validity of provision in an instrument or statute
(Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, 600 SCRA 569,584-585);

Corollary is the general rule that such that such action must be
justified, as no other adequate relief or remedy is available under the
circumstances (Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc., 542 SCRA 470,
478-479);

The prevailing rule, therefore “where a declaratory relief judgement

as to a disputed fact would be determinative of issues rather than a
construction of definite state rights, status and other relations, commonly
expressed in a written instrument, the case is not one for declaratory
judgement.” Considering the nature of a proceeding for declaratory judgement,
wherein relief may be sought only to declare rights and not to determine or try

5
issues, a declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where judgement would
have to be made, only after a judicial investigation of disputed issues
(Kawasaki Port Service Corporation v. Amores, 199 SCRA 230, 236-237, as
cited in CIVIL PROCEDURE, Book II, Willard B. Riano, 2016 ed.);

The case of Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc., 542 SCRA

470, 478-479 enumerates the requisites of an action for declaratory relief, to
wit:
a) The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or
other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation or ordinance;
b) The terms of the said statute or document and the validity thereof are
doubtful and
require judicial construction;
c) There must have been no breach of the statute or document in
question;
d) There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the “ripening
seeds” of one between
persons whose interest are adverse;
e) The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
f) Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or
proceeding.;

The herein petitioner failed to establish the fact in issue that is

determinative of whether the petition for Declaratory Relief may be given due
course;

The petitioner failed to establish that there is an actual justiciable

controversy or the “ripening of seeds” between the herein parties and failed to
substantiate the claim for the allowance of the declaratory relief;

The petitioner has not alleged that there is no other adequate relief
available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding available
to be allowed for a declaratory judgement;

The case for the determination of the lease rentals to be paid by the
present occupants of the Crisostomo Estate is currently pending before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan
City;

6
 The herein petitioners failed to exhaust the administrative remedies
available to them since the case is still under the jurisdiction of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija where the
cases are still pending for resolution;

The petitioner failed to establish the jurisdiction of the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija had
actually ceased or the Department of Agrarian Reform in general;

The petitioner did not specify the law or contract that is in need of
construction by the Honorable Court that would warrant the allowance of a
declaratory judgement;

The petitioner also has no interest whatsoever in the construction of

the will of Padre Crisostomo bequeathing the administration of his estate in
favor of the Philippine Government.

MOTION TO DISMISS
The case should be dismiss base on the grounds stated in the 2019
Revised Rules of Court, section 12;

That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the petition, the petitioner corporation did not allege any lease contract nor
specific statute that would justify the grant of a declaratory judgement; and

That there is another action pending in the Provincial Agrarian

Reform Adjudication Board having the same parties and for the same cause.;

That the petition should also be dismissed for failure to state any
cause of action against the herein public respondent;
That the petition in its entirety lacks merit for being contrary to the
prevailing rules and jurisprudence appurtenant thereto.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Court that this Answer with Special and Affirmative
Defense be considered in the determination and resolution of the petition for
Declaratory Relief filed by the herein petitioner and the same be dismissed on
the grounds of failure to state any cause of action, litis pendencia and lack of
jurisdiction.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

February 22, 2023 Cabanatuan City.

7
By:

BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Department of Agrarian Reform
Mabini Ext., Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

ATTY. ALVIN B. SORIANO

Chief, Legal Division
IBP Lifetime Member No. 08883
Issued on January 8, 2010
PTR No. 4497290 L -01/03/23 at Tarlac City
Roll No. 53674
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0001628
Valid until April 14, 2025
Email Address: atty_alvin@rocketmail.com

The Clerk of Court

RTC, Branch 23
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

GREETINGS:

Kindly submit the foregoing Answer with Special and Affirmative Defense
with motion to Dismiss for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. ALVIN B. SORIANO

EXPLANATION
The Petitioner is served with a copy of this Answer by registered mail
considering the fact that the office of the undersigned lacks personnel to effect
personal service of the same.

ATTY. ALVIN B. SORIANO

Copy furnished:

8
ATTY. JOSEPH NIKOLAI B. CHIOCO
#20 Melencio Street, Cabanaruan City,
3100 Nueva Ecija

PADRE CRISOSTOMO MABINI EXTENSION

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.
(PCMENAI) represented by
JOSE M. PETALINO
#018 Papaya Road, Mabini Extension,
Cabanatuan City
3100 Nueva Ecija

SEC. CONRADO ESTRELLA III

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Office of the Secretary, DAR Compound,
Elliptical Road, Diliman,
Quezon City

MARPO GENOVEVA U. TALPLACIDO

General Tinio Street, corner Maharlika Highway,
Cabanatuan City
3100 Nueva Ecija

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Nueva Ecija )§
x ---------------------------------- x

I, GENOVEVA U. TALPLACIDO, member of TASK FORCE on

FR. CRISOSTOMO ESTATE, through the Bureau of Agrarian legal
Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Provincial Office
of Nueva Ecija (DARPO-Nueva Ecija), of legal age, single, Filipino and

9
having the office address located at General Tinio Street, corner Maharlika
Highway, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija after first being sworn according to
law, depose and say:

1.) That I am one of the respondents in the above-entitled case;

2.) That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer to the
petition;
3.) That the allegations contained therein are true and correct based on
my personal knowledge;

4.) That this pleading is not intended to harass, cause unnecessary delay,
or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

5.) That the factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or is

specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery;

6.) That I hereby certify that I have therefore commenced an action and
claim involving the same issues through the Bureau of Agrarian legal
Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform-Provincial Office
of Nueva Ecija (DARPO-Nueva Ecija) at the Office of the Provincial
Adjudication Board, Cabanatuan City Nueva Ecija.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hands this ____ day of

__________ , 2023 hereat _______________________.

GENOVEVA U. TALPLACIDO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of

__________2023 hereat Cabanatuan City, Affiant personally known to me and
identified by me thru her ________________________________ with No.
____________________________, bearing her photograph and signature
avowed under the penalty of law that the contents of the foregoing are true and
correct.

10
 Notary Public
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2023.

11