Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR

SPOUSES DIONISIL R.
MORALES AND MARY ANN C. DARAB CASE NO.XI-2285-
MORALES D0-2013
Petitioner
FOR: Legal Redemption,
-versus- maintenance of peaceful
possession, injunction,
SPOUSES FLORANTE damages and TR0
MONDAY AND ARLYN
MONDAY, ET AL
Respondents
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS – APPELANTS

Respondents, SPOUSES FLORANTE MONDAY AND ARLYN

MONDAY, through the Undersigned Counsel and unto this
Honorable Board, respectfully states that:

A. PARTIES

1. That Respondents SPOUSES FLORANTE AND ARLYN

MONDAY are the appellants in this case , and petitioners
SPOUSES DIONICIL AND MARY ANN MORALES are the appellees
hereof;

B. NATURE OF THE CASE:

2. This is a an appeal from the RESOLUTION ( Annex “

1 “ ) dated, October 26, 2016 and the DECISION ( Annex “2”)
dated, July 22, 2016, both rendered by Provincial Adjudicator, the
dispositive portions of which reads as follows:

a. Resolution dated october 26, 2016

“wherefore, in view of the foregoing, respondent’s Motion for

Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit”.

Petitioners are hereby directed to deposit the redemption price

of the subject landholding before the Land Bank Provincial of the
Philippines, Mati Branch in the names of respondent Spouses
Florante and Arlyn Monday, and the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer of Davao Oriental

b. Decision dated July 22, 2016

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the

petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioners are hereby declared to be
tenant of the two parcels of land located at Barangay Abejod, Cateel,
Davao Oriental with an aggregate area of 53,745 square meters,
sold to respondent spouses Florante and Arlyn Monday with the
right to redeem the same for Nine Hundred Forty Six Thousand
Pesos ( Php 946,000.00)

Petitioners are hereby directed to deposit the redemption price

before a reputable Bank or the DAR Cashier at the DAR Provincial
Office in Mati City, Davao Oriental.

The Provincial Sheriff with the assistance from the Municipal

Agrarian Reform Officer of Cateel, Davao Oriental to assist the
parties in the execution of the appropriate sale documents for the
transfer of the title in favor of herein petitioners.

C. TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

3. That the Notice of Appeal along with the

Memorandum as well as the appeal fees are filed within the
reglementary period; that the RESOLUTION dated October 26,
2016, denying the Motion For Reconsideration is filed with in
the prescribed period as the RESOLUTION was received in
November 4, 2016.

D. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

4. That the Provincial Adjudicator, in resolving the case

and denying the Motion For Reconsideration filed by the
respondents-appellants FLORANTE and ARLYN MONDAY,
committed the following errors , to wit:

a. In declaring petitioners as tenants of the two parcels

of land subject matter of this case with an aggregate
area of 5.3745 hectares which were sold to
respondents-appellants Spouses Florante Monday and
Arlyn Monday;

b. In granting the right to the petitioners to redeem the subject

two lots for an amount of Php 946,000.00.
E. Discussions

5. That respondents-appellants have exhaustively and

collectively argued their defense and position in this case-
that the petitioners were and are not tenants on the subject
two (2) lots, or to say the least, were not tenants of all the
two lots as a portion of which was not devoted to rice
production and was not cultivated/tenanted by the
petitioners; that respondents-appellants spouses have
already introduced improvements-appellants spouses have
already introduced improvements into the subject lots as
stated by them in their pleadings and other documents
submitted to this Honorable Board. Finally, petitioners are
not entitled to redeem the subject two lots.

6. To support this appeal, respondents – appellants hereby attached

the following documents in accordance with the rules:

a) RESOILUTION dated October 26, 2016 ( Annex “ 1”)

b) DECISION dated July 22, 2016 ( Annex “ 2 “)
c) Motion For Reconsideration On the Decision Rendered by
Provincial Adjudicator Nilo C. Tillano, Dated July 22, 2016
( Annex “ 3 “ );
d) Position Paper With Formal Offer of Exhibits for Respondents
Spouses Florante Monday and Arlyn Monday dated September
1, 2015 ( Annex “ 4”)
e) Addendum To The Position Paper For Respondents Spouses
Florante Monday and Arlyn Monday dated December 1,
2016( Annex “5”)

F. PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Board that the subject
RESOLUTION and DECISION of the Provincial
Adjudicator be renewed, reconsidered and set aside,
and that the claims and reliefs prayed for by the
respondents-appellants Spouses Florante Monday and
Arlyn Monday in their Answer and other pleadings be
GRANTED.

Respondents-Appellants

Respondents had not disputed about MRS. SENENCIA

DE LEON receiving the share of the produce because of the
following reasons:
1. The responsibility of answering and preparation of
all related documents falls directly in hands of
SPOUSES FLORANTE and ARLYN MONDAY; their
knowledge of the case is quite limited and the
determination whether the documents presented by
the petitioner are really applicable to the subject
lots; verification was pressured by time and
resources;

2. Through the passage of time , HEARINGS and the

presentation OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS,
RESPONDENTS NOW CLEARLY SEE that there are
documents and situations which were not
appropriately applied to this case;

3. PETITIONER used the leasehold Contract ( Annex 3 )

entered by DIONICIL MORALES and SENENCIA DE
LEON for LOT NO. 2610 with an area of 4.7719
hectares. Petitioners insisted in all their PLEADINGS
that this contract was meant for Lot No. 2205 and
2204. This was confirmed by MRS. SENENCIA DE
LEON her Affidavit attached to our ADDENDUM TO
THE POSITION PAPER FOR RESPONDENTS
SPOUSES FLORANTE MONDAY AND ARLYN
MONDAY ( Annex “ 4”).

4. In the JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF MERITS ( Annex “ 5 “)

executed by DIONISIL R. MORALES and MARY ANN C.
CLAMOR, they stated that :

“ A copy of our Agricultural Leasehold Contract is

attached as Annex P to Amended Petition.
Unfortunately, through the fault of the personnel of
the MARO/DAR, the tenanted lot is wrongly
described in the said instrument as lot 2610,
instead of Lot No. 2205 and Lot No. 2204 as stated
in the titles. A sample Acknowledgement Receipt
for the remittance of lease rentals is attached as
Annex “Q” to the Amended Petition”

The above statement were executed by the

PETITIONER KNOWING PRETTY WELL that the
LEASEHOLD CONTRACT was REALLY MEANT FOR
LOT 2610 ,owned by MARIANO DE LEON. He is the
deceased husband of SENENCIA DE LEON. This
assertion is based on the fact that Lot 2610 really
existed as shown by a REAL PROPERTY FIELD
APPRAISAL & ASSESSMENT SHEET-LAND/OTHER
 IMPROVEMENTS ( Annex “6”) issued by
ENGR:DANNY C. FLORES, CE, REA, Municipal
Assessor . Affidavit of Previous Offer to
Sell,executed by Senencia De Leon supporting this
statement is attached to this Appeal as Annex “ 6”;

5. The Sample acknowledgement Receipt for the

remittance of lease rentals , attached as Exhibit “Q”
of Petitioner’s Amended and Position Paper, was
meant for Lot No. 2610. Petitioners’ used this receipt
fully aware that this is not the receipt of Lease
Rental for Lot 2205 and 2204. The intention to
mislead is very evident;

6. THE LETTER ( Exhibit “ U “ of the Petitioner’s

Position Paper and Amended Petition) FROM ONE
OF THE RESPONDENTS, REGALADO C. REYES
which stated that “ PLS. REMOVE (SIC) YOUR
HOUSE AT THE BRGY. SITE. I’LL GIVE YOU 30
DAYS” was erroneously used to show wrestling of
possession as stated in page 4 of the DECISION.
The house of DIONICIL MORALES is in the
Barangay Site and not in the subject lots. This
assertion is based on real facts because they were
not the only one who were made to remove their
houses. There were 62 families. Respondent
Spouses Florante and Arlyn Monday are one of
them. The removal of the houses was ordered by the
Municipal Mayor because the place will be used for
the establishment of Barangay housing within the
Proper Abejod after Typhoon Pablo. It is a
government property.

In fact, the respondents and some others wrote a

letter to the Municipal Mayor requesting him to
allow their houses as it is. The cost of their house
is more than the benefits they will received In
response, Municipal Mayor, CAMILO T. NUÑEZ,
issued a CERTIFICATION that the following
households should not be removed or destroyed
from its permanent location:1) . Noli D. Antoniano,
2) Joseph O, Cañete, 3) Ermelita M. Latiban, 4) Allen
Cañete, 5) Nestor Clamor 8) Rogelio Colonia, and
9) Florante A. Monday. Apparently, the letter of
Regalado Reyes cannot be used to establish
Petitioner’s occupancy of the Parcel of Land. To
support this Statement, A JOINT COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT is hereto attached as Annex “ 9”.
 7. The Police Blotters, Exhibits “ EE”, “GG”, “HH” of the
Petitioners Position Paper are mere statements of
the Petitioners. These were not verified as to the
truthfulness of the allegations. No witnesses to
support of what had been stated.

b. That he erred in disregarding Improvements introduced by

the respondents in the subject lots, to wit: In September
2013, Spouses Florante and Arlyn Monday, planted
2,200 TREES of FALCATA , 190 trees of COCONUTS and
.130 bananas ; To date, Nine (9) Nine DSWD houses are
now constructed in the area and Two ( 2 ) Warehouse
are built within the land with 10 x 12 meters floor
areas.

It is an error because Respondents are entitled to

introduced improvements to the property as the New
Owners. The area was fully devastated after typhoon
Pablo hit Cateel. The respondents had exerted much
effort in the planting and the construction of houses and
warehouse. They did it before the Temporary Restraining
Order for the Riceland Area was ordered in 2015. The
upland area were not included in the Restraining Order;

c. That he erred in not taking into account the financial

expenses of the Respondent. Spouses Florante and Arlyn
Monday bought the area in August 20, 2013. From then on,
up to this time, Financial expenses had been defrayed for
the improvements made on the land as well as the taxes
obligation. Below are the the expenses he incurred excluding
operation expenses such as transportation, food and
communication expenses. Machine Copies of the Official
Receipts and Clearances are hereto attached as Annex “ “)

Date Receipt No. Particulars Lot No. Amount

Dec. 2. 2015 0234561 RPT 2205 7,129.92
Dec. 2. 2015 0234562 RPT 2204 8,365.74
Dec. 2, 2015 7710787 Tax Clearance 2205 50.00
Dec. 2, 2015 7710787 Tax Clearance 2204 50.00
Dec. 2, 2015 7710782 Tax Dec. 2205 50.00
Dec. 2, 2015 7710783 Tax Dec. 2204 50.00
Dec. 2, 2015 6693847 Brgy. 2204/2205 50.00
Certification
Dec. 22, 2015 7860285 Transfer 2204 1,592.00
Tax/Certification
fee
Dec. 22, 2015 7860286 Transfer 2205 4,632.00
Tax/Certification
fee
 Dec. 22, 2015 7860287 Transfer 2204 1,592.00
Tax/Certification
fee
Dec. 22, 2015 7860288 Transfer 2205 4,632.00
Tax/Certification
fee
Jan. 5, 2016 LBP No.32116 Documentary 2205- 2.9458 3,093.09
Stamp Tax has.
Total Taxes
Paid and 31,286.75
Certifications

d. That he erred in deciding that the subject lots are

redeemable; the arguments embodied in our Motion for
Reconsideration are sufficient enough to established the fact
that the Petitioner were informed that the subject land are for
sale ; to wit;

1. The subject Lots were offered to Spouses Dionicil R.

Morales and Mary Ann Morales way back 2011 and 2012. These
were not Denied by the Petitioners . The only problem was that
this was not put into writing.

Although this was not put into writing, the fact remains
that Petitioner had been notified of the planned to sell and they
declined the offer.

2. Spouses Dionicil and Mary Ann Morales did not deny

when Senencia De Leon also stated that she offered to sell the
land to the Morales because she was in immediate need of
money. But, they did not give even a small amount. Furthermore,
she had reminded them of her dire financial need , the same
happened , they did not give any amount. They just said “ Ahh
mahal man kaayo dili na lang mi” ( TSN, Bautista, page 4, May 6,
2015)

3. In page 6 of TSN , prepared by CATHERINE PALPARAN

BAUTISTA on the hearing held last May 6, 2015, SIMA
MORALES said that “ Dili.. excuse sa.., way back 2010, nag call
si mama Seneng sa akoa na ibaligya ang ..na cost ano.. 2 Million
so, ni-ana ko sa iyaha na pwdi makahangyo ana dili man gud na
irrigated so na area .. kay kung mag follow man gud ta your
honour naa man gud siya price ana..so nag hangyo ko pwdi na
siya babaan, sa 2 Million. Pwdi man hatian ninyo sa inyu
manghud para tulong pd ninyo sa akoa.. okay mama seneng
kung pwdi istoryahon daw niya si Ante Auring, si Aurora de
Leon, ug miingon si mama senen 1 million, kuhaon nako na. so
nagwait ko ug tawag, magtawag man daw si mama senen,,
nghulat ko ug tawag, naghulathulat pud ko ug tawag, wala lang
pud kay nag-adto mi sa ilaha wala man pud niya nabanggit, nag-
inom-inom mi sa ilaha, nahubog pako sa ila mama senen, wala
gyud sulti na ibaligya na namo.

The above statements of SIMA (SILMA) MORALES

revealed the following facts:

a. From 2 million Selling Price, Senencia de Leon

reduced the price to 1 million.

b. SILMA ( SIMA in the TSN) MORALES did not give the

One Million readily. She waited for SENENCIA DE LEON TO GET
IT.

c. She did not even bother to discuss the matter when

she visited her. This means that she not really interested to buy
the land. She did not take into consideration the predicament in
which the Family had been going through.

d. Now that it is already sold, they wanted to get it back.

They now realized how valuable was the land when it is already
beyond their control.

e. Thirty Three years of utilizing the land had also help

them in their livelihood. Now, that the family is in great need of
for Medical Assistance, they did not give the necessary support.

f. The offer was made in 2010, it was finally sold in August

20, 2013.

4. “The statement of the Honorable PARAD that the price

may seem reasonable to the seller at that time considering the
reason for its conveyance, the fact that the property was
subsequently sold at a time when the reason for its conveyance
had already ceased for a much lesser purchase price of P
946,000.00 , any disqualification to the petitioner’s to redeem the
property would be unfair and unjust.”

Again, respondents dis-agree to these statements for

the followings reasons:

a. Benjamin De Leon, was still alive when the sale was

executed. He died in September 2013. The sale was made in
August 20, 2013.

b. The Price was already reduced to One (1) million. Yet,

the petitioner’s did not bother to give them any payment.
 c. It is not unfair if they will not be allowed to redeem the
property. They did not bother making the moves when the
Benjamin De Leon was in the hospital, requiring immediate
financial assistance. They were relatives, yet it seems that they
did not care the predicament in which the family of Benjamin
suffered.

f. That he erred in finding no cogent reason to reversed or

modify his DECISION dated June 22, 2016 as hereunder argued:

1. Petitioners knew fully well that the Documents they

used is not appropriate for the case as discussed in Letter a of
errors.

2. Temporary Restraining Order was for the Riceland Only

as discussed in the hearing held in May 9, 2015.Therefore, the
landowner has the right enter the upland in which he had
introduced improvement.

3 Mrs. Senencia De Leon certified that Spouses Dionicil

and Mary Ann Morales are her tenants for Lot No. 2610 which
was in the name her husband, Mariano De Leon.

g. That he erred in Denying the Motion for Reconsideration

for lack of Merit because the MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION is FULL OF MERIT. Respondents pointed
out valid arguments and discussion . Attached hereto is
Respondents’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION as Annex “
“.

5. Based on the foregoing facts and arguments, Lot No.

2204 and 2205 are not redeemable, therefore, they should be
granted all the remedies entitled to them under the law.

E. PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED:

a.) Annex 1 - RESOLUTION dated October 26, 2016

b) Annex 2 - Decision dated July 27, 2016
c). Annex 3 - Leasehold Contract –
d. Annex 4 - POSITION PAPER
4.1 ADDENDUM TO Position Paper
e. Annex 5 Answer to Amended Petition
f). Annex 6 - Join Affidavit of Merits
g). Annex 7 - Real Property Field Appraisal
h. Annex 8 – Joint Counter Affidavit
i. Annex 9 – Machine Copies of Official Receipts totaling
to P 31,286.75
j. Annex 10 – Motion for Reconsideration w/ Annexes
 Respondent prays for such other reliefs just equitable
under the circumstances.

Mati City, Davao Oriental,

ALEJANDRO A. AQUINO `
Counsel for the Private Respondents
Madang, Mati City, Davao Oriental
PTR No. 7824042- 01-06-16
IBP No. 716612 - 01-06-16
Roll 34047
MCLE Compliance V-0021699
Issued – 5/24/16 @ Pasig City