Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB)

Office the Provincial Adjudicator, Branch III, Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

KATHLEEN P. GABATA,
represented by her Attorney-
In-Fact, EDUARDO GABATA,
Petitioner,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO.

13485’SNE’18
FOR: RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION

MANOLITO BULAWIT and any

person deriving authority
from him,

Respondent.
x-----------------------x

DECISION
This is an action for Recovery of Possession involving an agricultural
landholding, situated at San Mariano, Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, with an
area of Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Six (31,786) square
meters, more or less, covered and embraced by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. EP-89088, registered in the name of the petitioner.

In substance, petitioner Kathleen Gabata (Kathleen) alleged that she

is a Grantee of an Emancipation Patent (EP) covered by TCT No. EP-
89088 as per Annex “A” and she is cultivating the subject landholding as
evidenced by a “Pagpapatunay” issued by the BARC Chairman of San
Mariano, Penaranda, Nueva Ecija.

According to her, respondent Manolito Bulawit (Manolito) unlawfully

entered, usurped possession, cultivate and excluded her from the peaceful
enjoyment and cultivation of the subject landholding.
Page 2 of 4
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13485’SNE’18
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

She also alleged that she demanded Manolito to vacate the land but
he failed to do so.
The matter was brought by the petitioner’s father Eduardo Gabata
(Eduardo) to the Punong Barangay and the BARC Chairman of San
Mariano for possible settlement but none was reached.

She maintained that up to present, Manolito did not vacate the

subject land and still insisting that he owns and he is entitled to the
cultivation of the same.

She further maintained that being the Grantee of the subject land by
the Government, she is entitled to continuously possess and cultivate the
land.

In sum, petitioners prayed that after due notice and hearing,

respondents be directed to vacate and surrender the subject landholdings.

On May 30, 2018, respondent filed his Answer with Special and
Affirmative Defenses, denying the material allegations of the petitioners. He
argued that he is the one in possession of the subject land since year 1995
up to present, as evidenced by the “CERTIFICATION” issued by the BARC.

He averred that his possession of the subject land for many years is
by virtue of Waiver of Rights executed by the farmer-beneficiary named
Elvira J. Bote (Elvira), in favor of him as per Annexes “2” and “3”.

He further argued that if the EP was in fact issued in the name of the
petitioner, such issuance of the same was erroneous because since year
1995, the subject land was already waived by the registered farmer-
beneficiary Elvira, in favor of him.
Page 3 of 4
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13485’SNE’18
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

He maintained that if it is true that such EP covering the subject land

was erroneously issued in the name of petitioner, he will file a case for
cancellation to the proper forum.

In an Order dated 8 March 2018, parties were directed to file their

respective Position Paper within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Order.
Both parties complied reiterating the same in their pleadings.

The issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the

possession of the subject landholdings from the respondent.

This Board now resolves.

It is clear from records that the subject land in this case is covered by
TCT No. EP-89088 with an area of 31,786, square meter, registered in the
name of the petitioner.

The respondent presented weak and self-serving evidence that are

undeserving of weight in law. He was not able to present evidence that
would sustain a conclusion that they are the rightful owners of the subject
landholding. Also, respondent failed to adduce any evidence that will
support their bare allegation that the EP was erroneously issued in the
name of the petitioner.

Noteworthy to mention, that an Emancipation Patent holder acquires

the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding — a right which
has becomes fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or
controversy (PAGTALUNAN VS. TAMAYO, 183 SCRA 253).
Page 4 of 4
DECISION… DARAB Case No. 13485’SNE’18
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

Thus, petitioner Kathleen, being an emancipation patent holder, has

absolute ownership over the subject landholding.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, DIRECTING the

respondent to vacate and turn over the subject landholding to the
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. _____________.

ATTY. ARIEL D. MAGLALANG

Provincial Adjudicator

Copy furnished:

MANOLITO BULAWIT
Brgy, Bago, 3104 Gen. Tinio, Nueva Ecija

LO DONATO ESTRELLA
DAR-BALA, Cabanatuan City

EDUARDO GABATA
Manito Ave., Cor. Abegail St.,
Kapt. Pepe, Cabantuan City

ATTY. MARIO BENITEZ

273 Magsaysay Sur, Cabanatuan City