Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM


BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE
LAND USE CASES DIVISION
DAR CENTRAL OFFICE
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City

IN RE: PETITION FOR


REVOCATION OF
CONVERSION ORDER DATED
01 AUGUST 2017 ISSUED BY
THEN DAR REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF REGION VII
WITH PRAYER FOR
ISSUANCEOF A CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER OVER THREE
(3) PARCELS OF LAND WITH
AN AGGREGATE AREA OF
3.3560 HECTARES LOCATED
IN BARANGAY BANILAD,
DUMAGUETE CITY.

MAGDALENA LINABAN,
BRUNO LINABAN, MEDARDA
LINABAN, ROGELIO
LINABAN, FORTUNATO
LINABAN, ELENA LINABAN,
AND MARY ANN LINABAN,
Petitioners, APPLICATION NO.
AO1’02-VI-19-0614-(PR)-1357
-versus- SERIES OF 2019

THE HEIRS OF JESUS TALE,


namely: SOLEDAD TALE,
ERNESTO TALE, REBECCA
TALE BAUTISTA, CATHERINE
TALE and FLORITA TALE, THE
NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY AND CITY
GOVERNMENT OF
DUMAGUETE, NEGROS
ORIENTAL.
Respondents.

X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
1
REPLY/ COMMENT TO THE PETITION FOR REVOCATION
OF CONVERSION ORDER

Public Respondent, thru counsel, unto this Honorable Office respectfully avers
that:
I. TIMELINESS OF THE COMMENT
On November 8, 2019, Public Respondent National Housing Authority through
counsel received a copy of an order1 directing the same to file a comment within 15
days from receipt on the petition for revocation of a conversion order dated August
1, 2017 involving three (3) parcels of land located in Barangay Banilad, Dumaguete
City.
Based on the above date, Public Respondent has until November 23, 2019 to file a
comment. Thus this comment is seasonably filed.
II. COMMENTS ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS

1. Earnest Efforts were made in the payment of Disturbance


Compensation.

Comment: Earnest efforts has been exhausted by the previous land owner Soledad
Pacana Tale for them to deliver by hand the payment of the Disturbance
Compensation despite the absence of a demand from the petitioners. However,
Petitioner Rogelio Linaban the adjudged lawful tenant refuses to accept any payment
from the previous owner. Mr. Linaban refused to accept notices/invitations from the
previous owner for a conference. Mr Linaban refuses to talk/to engage into a fruitful
conversation or any form of communications2.
Previous owner Soledad Tale Pacana is left with no choice but to deposit the
payment to the DARAB in order to tender payment3 and a sheriff’s report was served
to the petitioner Rogelio M. Linaban4.
Petitioners alleges that there is non-payment of disturbance compensation implying
that no efforts were made for them to be paid. However, this allegation is not true.
The truth is that petitioners has no intention to accept any compensation from the
landowners. A demand letter would have been a sufficient proof of their willingness
to be paid.

1
Annex 1- Copy of the Order
2
Annex 2- Affidavit of Soledad Tale Pacana
3
Annex 3-DAR Receipt No. 832096, dated July 2, 2019
4
Annex 4 -Sheriff’s Report Dated July 4, 2019

2
2. There was no concealment/misrepresentation of facts in the sworn
application for conversion.

Comment: Based on the chronology of events, the issue on tenancy was only
resolved on July 7, 20175 and the filing of the petition for determination/fixing of
disturbance compensation was on October 24, 20176 while the sworn application for
conversion was submitted earlier by Engr. Gavino Figuracion on Sept. 8, 20167. The
previous owner stated in her previous affidavits/complaints8 that they merely
tolerated the occupants in their property. That the occupants never asked the
previous owner’s permission to cultivate the land and has never given her any share
of their harvests. Previous owner vehemently deny that the petitioners are lawful
tenants of the property.
This was the representation given to Engr. Gavino Figuracion by the previous owner
to which Engr. Figuracion accepted in good faith.
Engr. Gavino Figuracion did not in any way deliberately conceal or
misrepresented any material facts to the grant of conversion because such fact is
not yet available or is not yet the prevailing fact at the time he made his Sworn
Application.
Engr. Figuracion cannot be faulted for not indicating under paragraph X of Annex
“L” of the petition that there is one tenant and 7 occupants since the previous owner
did not recognize any of the 8 occupants as tenants.

3. Petitioners were provided due process in the granting of the land


conversion application.

Comment: As can be gleaned in the body of both the order granting the application
for conversion dated August 1, 20179 and the decision of the fixing of disturbance
compensation dated June 13, 2018 (Annex 6), it is crystal clear that the petitioners
were given the opportunity to be heard, the same decision stated that petitioners’
refused to participate in the mediation or negotiation. Petitioners’ refused to accept
notices and summonses.
In page 5 of Annex 9 which was conveniently omitted in the petitioners’ Annex A,
the said order stated that “Earnest effort was extended by the MARPO of Dumaguete
City to secure the rights of the said occupants, however, they refused to accept any
notice for conference with the Local Government Unit of Dumaguete City, NHA and
the Heirs of Jesus Tale.”

5
Annex 5-Memorandum dated July 7, 2017
6
Annex 6-Decision of the Petition for the Determination/Fixing of Disturbance Compensation
7
Annex 7-Sworn Application for Conversion
8
Annex 8-Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
9
Annex 9-Order granting the application for conversion

3
On March 7, 2017 Soledad P. Tale wrote ARD Ronald M. Gareza informing the
latter of the former’s offer to give each illegal settler a 200 square meter lot and a
Twenty Five Thousand Peso cash10.
On March 15, 2017 the city of Dumaguete agreed with the proposal of the NHA to
include the eight (8) families as beneficiaries of the housing project11.
On March 27, 2017 National Housing Authority wrote ARD Ronald M. Gareza a
letter of the options available in order to resolve the issue of tenancy12.
Annexes 9, 10 and 11 were some of the basis that formed part of the order granting
the application for conversion. Proof that due process was observed by the DAR
Regional Director.
Besides, the petitioners cannot deny that they have seen the billboard installed along
the pathway going to their community in compliance with Section 11 of DAR A.O.
No. 1, Series of 2002.
Among the information written in the billboard is the address of CLUPPI and
RCLUPPI and PARO where oppositors may formally file their protest.
The purpose of this information is to give those potential oppositors, like the
petitioners in this case, an avenue for expressing their grievance.
By choosing not to file a written opposition to the application for conversion by the
NHA, petitioners deemed to have waived their right to do so.
It is therefore wrong for the petitioners to claim that they were not afforded due
process during the proceedings for the application of NHA for land conversion.

4. Petitioners were consulted during the negotiations for the purchase of


NHA of the subject property.

Petitioners alleged that they were not consulted during the negotiations for the
purchase of the subject property by the NHA and the previous owners.
On the complaint affidavit of the unlawful detainer case (Annex 8 page 3 par. 9
and 10) filed by the private respondents on October 8, 2012, it was specifically
stated therein that on January 2012, NHA is interested in buying Lot 5582 which is
the subject of this petition. It is for this reason that the private respondents in this
petition filed an unlawful detainer case in order to compel the petitioners to vacate
the subject property.
In the same complaint affidavit, respondent also stated that they offered each of the
petitioners a 100 square meter relocation site and building materials plus a Two

10
Annex 10- Letter of Soledad Tale dated March 7, 2017
11
Annex 11- Letter of Mayor Felipe Remollo dated March 15, 2017
12
Annex 12-Letter of NHA Regional Manager Gavino Figuracion dated March 27, 2017

4
Hundred Thousand Fifty Peso cash assistance for all of the defendants for them to
peacefully vacate the subject property.
This was offered during a mediation proceeding before the Lupong Tagamayapa of
Brgy. Banilad, Dumaguete City. Consequently, the Lupon issued the Certificate to
File Action and the case proceeded to the regular courts which was subsequently
filed on October 8, 2012.
These statements in the complaint were never refuted by the petitioners. Based on
these evidence, petitioners were informed and were never left in the dark. Petitioners
were offered a sum of money and a relocation site in order for them to peacefully
vacate the subject property.

5. PARPO Naranjo did not show reluctance in implementing the August 9,


2018 order affirming the agricultural nature of the lots in question.

Petitioners contend that PARPO Naranjo showed reluctance in implementing the


August 9, 201813 order affirming the agricultural nature of the lots in question.
However, what the petitioners failed to emphasize is the provision in the dispositive
portion of the order which stated that “unless a valid conversion has been validly
issued” then the August 9, 2018 order could never be implemented. In fact PARPO
Naranjo correctly informed the petitioners to file an Annulment of Judgment or
Voiding of Judgment in a letter dated February 18, 201914 referring to the filing of a
petition for revocation of the DAR conversion order of August 1, 2017.

6. Petitioners were provided due process in the petition for the


determination/fixing of disturbance compensation.

Petitioners has been consistent in their allegation that they were not provided due
process, however, in the decision dated July 13, 2018 by Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator Valentin F. Nagaynay, (Annex 6) this was not the case. Petitioner
Rogelio Linaban was afforded due process. Sometime in December 2017, summons
was mailed via 2Go Express but Rogelio Linaban refused to accept it. On January
26, 2018 Sheriff Edwin B. Arnado personally served the notice but again was not
accepted by the Linabans. On February 9, 2018, Rogelio Linaban came to DARAB
Office Dumaguete City and informed Mr. Brando Farole that he will not receive any
notices from DARAB office as per instruction of his lawyer.

7. There was no sudden turn-around on Respondents contention denying


that a tenancy relationship exists between the parties.

13
Annex 13-Order affirming the Agricultural Nature of Lot 5582.
14
Annex 14- Letter of PARPO Louie Naranjo dated February 18, 2018

5
During the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint the previous landowner denied
the existence of a tenancy relationship. However, during the course of the application
for land conversion, a memorandum (Annex 5) was issued by the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer Mr. Manuel M. Galon Jr. declaring Mr. Rogelio Linaban
as a tenant. Petitioners’ allegation that there was a sudden turn-around on the
landowner’s contention regarding the tenancy relationship is out of context. The
landowner merely recognized the finding of Mr. Galon and in recognizing the said
finding, it is but proper for the landowner to petition for the determination/fixing of
disturbance compensation in order to facilitate payment and give what is due to the
adjudged tenant Mr. Rogelio Linaban.

8. Application for Cease and Desist Order should be denied.

National Housing Authority applied for the land conversion of the said property into
a residential land for the sole purpose of building a relocation site for the victims of
Typhoon Sendong that wreaked havoc in Dumaguete City on December 16, 2011.
The said relocation site will house around 500 families that were left homeless by
Typhoon Sendong’s devastation.
When NHA finally got the approval for its land conversion on August 1, 2017, NHA
faced another setback in the construction of the housing project. Inside the housing
project site are 8 families determined to stay. The houses that were once made of
light material were hurriedly transformed into concrete structures. For several years
no tangible solution is in sight. These families demand that they be recognized as
tenants and the said property be given to them in accordance with the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law so they say.
However, as early as July 7, 2017 a memorandum (Annex 5) was already issued
declaring Rogelio Linaban as the only legitimate tenant out of the 8 claimant
families. Despite this finding, NHA treated all the 8 families equally and offered to
them the same options presented previously.
For another year NHA patiently negotiated with the 8 families (the petitioners in this
instant case). After painstakingly going through the whole process, finally DARAB
in a decision dated June 13, 2018 (Annex 6), ordered the previous owner Soledad
Pacana Tale to pay disturbance compensation in the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) to the adjudged tenant Rogelio Linaban. A
Certification of Finality was issued on November 20, 2018 for failure of Mr. Rogelio
Linaban to file an appeal.15
Despite this DARAB decision, NHA out of compassion, still went on to negotiate
and again offered to the petitioners a place in the housing project. One house and lot
for each of the 8 families. During the confrontation between the petitioners and NHA
in Digong Hotline 8888 TV Program on August 19, 2019 hosted by Secretary Panelo

15
Annex 15-Certification of Finality dated November 20, 2018.

6
Salvador, NHA again proposed to them the same offer on air to which the petitioners
refused to accept16.
Due process has been afforded, a) The Department of Agrarian Reform has already
approved our land conversion in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No.
01-02 or the 2002 Comprehensive Rules On Land Use Conversion; b) The
disturbance compensation has been deposited with the DARAB Office in
compliance with the June 13, 2018 decision. Under the foregoing considerations the
application for a cease and desist order should be denied.
The delay of the implementation of the housing project would deprive the displaced
families of their shelter that has long been overdue. There are around 500 families
that would be benefitted by the said housing project. They themselves grew
impatient as government bureaucracy and due process has prolonged their agony of
having to live on a temporary shelter provided by the City of Dumaguete.
In Badillo vs NHA (G.R. No. 145846, April 3, 2003) citing People’s Homesite and
Housing Corporation vs. CIR and National Housing Corporation v. Juco and the
NLRC (No. L-64313, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 172), the Supreme Court ruled
that NHA is doing a governmental function.
It was reaffirmed in Magkalas vs. NHA, (G.R. No. 138823, September 17, 2008),
and the Supreme Court in its decision stated that in the pursuit of its mandate to
provide housing, NHA can demolish illegal structures built on properties it owned
or administered.

“Thus, on the ground of a much-delayed government infrastructure


project about to be implemented, the NHA has the authority to carry out
the summary eviction and demolition of petitioner’s structure on the
subject lot.”

Section 1 of P.D. No.1818 provides:

“Section 1. No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue


any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory
injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving infrastructure
project….. of the government … to prohibit any person or persons, entity or
government official from proceeding with, or continuing in the execution or
implementation of any such project… or pursuing any lawful activity
necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.”

Clearly, the aforecited provision of law in point prohibits the courts from issuing
injunctive writs against the implementation or execution of government
infrastructure projects (Garcia vs. Burgos, 291 SCRA 546, pp. 571,572, citing

16
Annex 16-People’s Television Invitation Letter

7
Republic of the Philippines vs. Salvador Silverio and Big Bertha Construction, G.R.
No. 108869, May 6, 1997).
Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the various plants and installations of the
National Housing Authority for its future expansion and for its staff and pilot
housing development, the housing, resettlement sites and other uses necessary and
related to an integrated social and economic development of the entire estate and
environs, x x x’ are ‘infrastructure projects’.
The various plants and installations, staff and pilot housing development projects,
and resettlement sites related to an integrated social and economic development of
the entire estate are construction projects forming part of the government capital
investment, undertaken in compliance with the mandate of the Constitution for
the state to embark upon a continuing program of urban land reform and housing
envisioned to provide at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to the
unprivileged and homeless in urban centers and resettlement areas (Sec. 9, Article
XIII, 1987 Constitution; National Housing Authority v. Allarde, G.R. No. 106593 :
November 16, 1999).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing circumstances and pursuant to the above


cited provisions, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that judgment is
rendered dismissing this petition for lack of merit and denying its application for
cease and desist order.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise, prayed for.
Cebu City for Quezon City, November 11, 2019.

BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF


THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE
COUNSEL

MA. MAGDALENA DE LEON-SIACON


Manager, Office of the Corporate Secretary
Acting Department Manager, Legal Department
NHA Bldg., Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City
Roll No. 37897
IBP Lifetime Member No. 938583; 5 June 2013; QC
MCLE Compliance completed as of March 2019,
awaiting Compliance Certificate

8
MANUEL ZOSIMO M. OZOA
Chief Corporate Attorney-Region VII
National Housing Authority
2nd Floor, Machay Building
Gorordo Ave. Cebu City
Roll No. 67670, May 25, 2017
I.B.P. O.R. No. 075064- 2/27/19
P.T.R. O.R. No. 340343-7/19/19
MCLE Comp. No. VI-0028391-05/27/19
valid until April 14, 2022

Copy furnished by mail due to distance:

1. Magdalena Linaban
Bruno Linaban
Medarda Linaban
Rogelio Linaban
Fortunato Linaban
Mary Ann Linaban
Barangay Banilad, Dumaguete City

2. The Regional Director


DAR Regional Office VII
Ground Floor, Legislative Building,
Cebu Provincial Office, Capitol Compound,
Escario Street, Cebu City

3. National Housing Authority


Legal Department
Elliptical Road, Diliman,
Quezon City

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen