REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 44

8th Judicial Region
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Magsaysay Blvd., Tacloban City

MARIA SUSANA JOYCE ESPELETA Civil Case No.

Y CHAVEZ R-TAC-18-00368-CV
Plaintiff, For: Recovery of
Ownership and
Possession with Claim
for Damages and
Application for
Preliminary Injunction

vs.

SPOUSES JUANITO and ANACORITA

PALACIO, SPOUSES NILO AND
CRISTINA PALACIO, CHARLITO
PALACIO, GIOVANNI OTOM AND
NELSON OTOM
Defendants

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendants, through the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court most respectfully avers;

1. That defendants admit paragraph 1of this complaint insofar as

the personal circumstances are concerned;

2. That defendants admit paragraph 2 of the complaint;

3. That defendants admit paragraph 3 of the complaint ;

4. That defendants admit paragraph 4 of the complaint;

5. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations in paragraph 5, thus they cannot admit
or deny said allegations. Defendants have not seen the Tax
Declaration of their tenanted land nor the receipts of their
payments thereof.

1
6. That, defendants deny paragraph 6 of the complaint. Abundio
Samson is a good friend of herein defendants being the neighbor
of Juanito Palacio. Abundio Samson is a tenant of herein plaintiff
on another parcel of land, not on Lot 5047-A. The tenant on Lot
5047-A is Juanito Palacio. Defendants recognize the ownership
of herein plaintiff, in fact, they have been depositing to the
barangay their share intended for the plaintiff for the reason that
the landowner refuses to receive her share since the time a
conflict on the sharing between them ensued. Copy of the record
of deposits at the barangay is hereto attached and marked as
Annex “A”;

7. That, defendants deny paragraph 7 of the complaint. Juanito

Palacio is a de jure tenant of herein plaintiff and should not be
deprived in cultivating the land in issue. A complaint for
Ejectment with Damages was filed by the parents of herein
plaintiff before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board(DARAB) on November 17, 2011 and was decided with
finality by the Honorable Regional Adjudicator Atty. Sheila B.
Enciso on February 8, 2013. Dispositive portion of which reads
as follows:

“Thus in summary, Spouses Chavez failed to establish the

grounds warranting the ejectment of the tenants. Thus, Juanito’s
and Anacorita’s security of tenure as tenants of the subject land
should be respected.” (Copy of decision is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “B”)

8. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations in paragraph 8, thus they cannot admit
or deny said allegations;

9. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations in paragraph 9, thus they cannot admit
or deny said allegations;

10. That, respondents have no personal knowledge as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations in paragraph 10, thus they cannot admit
or deny said allegations;

11. That, defendants deny paragraph 11 of the complaint. As de jure

tenants, it is their duty to harvest the matured coconuts, process
them into copra, sell the copra, then deliver the landowner’s
share.;

12. That, defendants deny paragraph 12 of the complaint. The

defendants were long been declared by the DARAB as de jure
tenants, hence, they have the right to possess the land in issue;

2
 13. That, defendants deny paragraph 13 of the complaint. To restrain
the defendants from possessing the property is to deny herein
defendants their tenancy rights;

14. That, defendants have no personal knowledge as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations in paragraph 14, thus they cannot admit
or deny said allegations;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Agrarian Dispute.

15. That a careful perusal of the present complaint would reveal that
there exists an agrarian dispute between the herein plaintiffs and herein
defendants as defendants are TENANTS of herein plaintiff and
jurisdiction of the same clearly falls with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board(DARAB). Jurisdiction over Agrarian
disputes lies with the DARAB. Section 3(d) of RA 6657 provides:

d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to

tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers
associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms
or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of

lands acquired under this Act and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to
farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

3
Exclusive Jurisdiction of DAR on Agrarian Dispute

16. Moreover, relative to DAR’s exclusive jurisdiction on agrarian

dispute, this Honorable Court, with all due respect, shall not proceed to take
cognizance of the instant case and instead refer to the DAR as clearly
mandated by Section 19 of Republic Act 9700 which just took effect on
July 1, 2009, otherwise known as “AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM(CARP),
EXTENDING THE ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING NECESSARY REFORM,
AMENDING FRO THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
REPUBLIC ACT 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS
AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE,”, which
provide as follows:

Section 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended is

hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:

“Section 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute – No

Court or prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining
to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under
Section 57 of Republic Act 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation
from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of
the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be
automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR
which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from
referral whether an agrarian dispute exists.

This is in consonance with Department of Agrarian Reform v.

Cuenca, where the Court stated that all controversies on the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal or
constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the
DAR, since the law has granted it special and original authority to
hear and adjudicate agrarian matters." (Emphasis supplied) In Salazar
v. de Leon, the Court dismissed the Complaint for recovery of
possession of real property and declared that the dispute between the
parties as landowner and tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the
domain of the DARAB. The Court also noted that such ruling is "in
line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the
regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction
has been lodged with an administrative body of special competence."

4
17. In its implementing rule under DAR Administrative No. 04,
Series of 2009, otherwise known as the RULES AND
REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING SECTION 19 OF R.A.9700
(JURISDICTION ON AND REFERRAL OF AGRARIAN
DISPUTE), it provides that all cases which allege tenancy and
agrarian dispute or any action related thereto in the pleadings whether
it was filed with MCTC which include this Honorable Court by
landowners shall be referred to the DAR as provided as follows:

Section 2. Cases Covered – This guideline shall apply to cases filed

before the Prosecutor’s Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court(MCTC, MTC,
MTC and RTC), whether it be criminal or civil in nature by
landowners/lessors or their representatives against a
tenant/lessee/farmer-beneficiary/farmer/farmworker and/ or cases
that may arise out of or in connection with an agrarian dispute except
those cases provided for under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657.”

18. Specifically in said guidelines, the instant case shall

AUTOMATICALLY BE REFERRED by the Honorable Court, with
all due respect, to the DAR for the determination whether an agrarian
dispute exists considering of defendants’ allegation in their answer
that the case is an agrarian dispute and defendants tenant-lessees over
the lot in issue as evidently mandated below:

Section 3. When Automatic Referral Shall Be Made – Referral

to DAR shall be made when:

a. There are “ALLEGATIONS” in the pleadings from any of

the parties that the case is agrarian in nature or involves an
agrarian dispute and one of the parties is a tenant, lessee,
farmer-beneficiary, farmer or farmworker; or

b. That the case arises out of or is in connection with an

agrarian dispute.

Section 4. Who Shall Make the Referral – When the

complaint or information is filed before the Office of the
Prosecutor or before the court, the case shall be referred to
the DAR by:

1. The concerned judge or fiscal motu proprio; or

2. Upon motion by the party concerned

5
 19. Defendants received their respective copy of the Summons
issued by this Honorable Court with the complaint attached thereto on
May 21, 2018. Computing the 15-day reglementary period from
receipt thereof, defendants have until June 5, 2018 within which to
file this Answer with Affirmative Defense before this Honorable
Court.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court issue and order:
(1.) The complaint dismissed in favor of the defendants for lack of
jurisdiction;
(2.) The Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction be denied;

(3.) The award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s

fees and litigation expenses in favor of the plaintiff denied;
(4.) The plaintiff to refrain from doing acts violative of the right of
the defendants as tenants and to allow the defendants to continue in
peaceful possession of their tenanted land;

Other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for.

June 1, 2018

BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE (BALA)

Counsel for the Defendants
DAR Provincial Office of Leyte-Biliran
LVD Compound, Avenida Veteranos
Tacloban City

By:

ATTY. CHRISTOPHER RYAN P. ROSAL

Attorney III

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. MENCHITO L. VIOVICENTE

No. 119, Shopping Center, Tac. City