Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE MOBO
Barangay Pinamarbuhan, Mobo, Masbate

MS. MIRZA L. PRESADO

Barangay Kinamaligan, Masbate City

Ms. Presado;

Greetings!

This has reference to the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) you have filed with
this office relative to the Order: Rejection of Application issued for FLA No.
054111-59 for an area of 3,111 square meters located at Barangay Kinamaligan,
Masbate City. Reading the arguments, the following are the answers of this
office for your perusal;

1. The allegation in Paragraph 1 is not correct. The “complaint or protest”

mentioned by the Applicant is not the “complaint/protest” contemplated
under DAO No. 2016-31, which requires to be heard. Under the said
issuance, the claims and cases, which this office are mandated to hear are
those claims or protests with grounds enumerated in Sec. 28 of the
abovementioned Department Order1. The correspondence filed by Marilou
S. Bajada is not a protest but a letter informing this Office that a
reclamation is being undertaken by the Applicant at Barangay
Kinamaligan, Masbate City;

2. That there is no truth to the allegation of Atty-in-fact of the Applicant in

Paragraph 2 that “no notice on the complaint against the applicant was
sent”; thereby violating the Applicant’s constitutional right to notice and
due process. The truth of the matter is that, a letter dated June 28, 2018
informing the applicant of the complaints for violations of EO No. 543,
146, and Commonwealth Act 141 was sent and subsequently received on
August 3, 2018 as per Registry Return Receipt hereto attached.
1
Grounds of Protest: Sec. 28; 1. In cases of Free Patents – The holder of the title has not occupied, possessed, and
cultivated the land applied for for the required period of time in the concept of an owner and in the manner required
by law, meaning, openly, publicly, notoriously, continuously and adversely; 2. The land has not been subjected to
classification and/or a public forest; 3. The land is classified as forest or timberland; 4. The land is part of a military or
civil reservation; 5. The land is foreshore or swamp land; 6. The land is a salvage zone or public easement; 7. The land
is part of a navigable river, stream or creek; 8. The land is part of a street or public highway; 9. The applicant has no
absolute title nor an incomplete or imperfect right which could be registered and confirmed under Act 496, PD 1529,
and CA 141; 10. The plan of the land differs from the documentary evidence of the applicant; 11. The patent was
procured through fraud and/or misrepresentation; 12. The land covers or is part of an expanded area brought about
by a series of subdivision surveys; 13. The acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or contract is in violation of
Sections 118, 121, 122, and 123 of CA 141.
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE MOBO
Barangay Pinamarbuhan, Mobo, Masbate

3. That the allegations in Paragraph 3 are illogical and replication of the

allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 2. The issue subject of herein Motion for
Reconsideration is the “Order: Rejection of Application” issued by the
Office, hence, the Atty-in-fact of the Applicant thru this MR should present
clear and convincing arguments supported with facts and additional
documents and witnesses to controvert the said Order. This Office is
under no obligation to furnish the Applicant with the Foreshore Lease
Application filed by Mrs. Bajada, if there is any;

4. That the allegation in Paragraph 4 is wrong that the application was

“simply rejected without giving a chance or opportunity to answer or
controvert ….” In accordance to the Memorandum received by this Office
and pursuant to existing laws, rules, and regulations, an ocular
inspections and investigations were conducted in May 25, 2018 and June
7, 2018 to verify the veracity, truthfulness, authenticity and validity of the
allegations stated in Mrs. Bajada’s letter. As a result thereof, the
inspectors found out that indeed an illegal reclamation is being
undertaken in the abovementioned area;

5. That this Office never “favoured” anyone as alleged by the Applicant’s

Atty-in-fact as we expeditiously conducts inspection and investigation and
performs our mandates in accordance with lawful Department Orders and
existing laws;

6. That the allegations in Paragraph 5 are bereft of merit. This Office holds
that the “Order: Rejection of Application” was anchored on the illegal
reclamation undertaken by the Applicant. Even with an existing lease, it
shall not give the lessee, if any, nonetheless, any right to conduct
reclamation work within or adjoining the area under her lease2.

7. That other allegations in Paragraph 5 are replication of the allegations in

Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4;

8. That this Office observes that the letter of Intent as stated in Paragraph 6
was submitted to Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) months after the
Investigations and Inspections were conducted and after the Cease and
Desist Order was issued by this Office. Under the law, a PRA approval is
necessary before any reclamation be undertaken 3.

9. That the allegation in Paragraph 7 is not within the ambit of the

Applicant’s Atty-in-fact to inquire or question;

2
Sec 15 par. 8, DAO 2004-24
3
Executive Order No. 543
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE MOBO
Barangay Pinamarbuhan, Mobo, Masbate

10. That the allegation in Paragraph 8 is false. The “Order: Rejection of

Application” was not “suddenly” issued as inspections and investigations
were carried out as bases;

11. That I vehemently deny the allegations of the Applicant in Paragraph 9.

This Office is committed to adhere to its mandates thus “favouritism” as
an allegation should be squarely proven. There is no “clear abuse of
discretion” as alleged by the Applicant’s Atty-in-fact due to the fact that
the approval of any Foreshore Lease Application is pursuant to the
existing Department Order and considered as a ministerial function of this
Office.

12. That the grant of Foreshore Lease Agreement is not a right but a privilege
granted under existing laws, issuances, and jurisprudence relative thereto.

13. That this Office is aware that this case is already under the cognizance of
the PRA, which, as a matter of procedure, will conduct ocular inspection
to verify the extent of the reclamation. Any decision or directive from PRA
will be given due consideration by this Office.

Wherefore, premises considered, this Office hereby DENY the Motion for
Reconsideration, without prejudice to the decision and directive of PRA.

Please be guided accordingly.

JEAN V. IMPERIAL
CENR Officer