Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDUDICATION BOARD
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
JC Rosales Avenue, Butuan City

DOMINGO P. BENIGA DARAB CASE NO. XIII(02) 7889

Complainant
For:
-versus-
“ILLEGAL EJECTMENT
OF TENANT, ETC.”

SPOUSES ALFREDO E. LABARETE

AND LUZVIMINDA P. LABARETE
Respondents
/--------------------------/

ANSWER
WITH SPECIAL AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND COUNTERCLAIMS

RESPONDENTS SPOUSES DANILO OLVIDA AND NORMA

OLVIDA by undersigned Counsel unto this Most
Honorable Court, most respectfully state–

1. These Complaints have no factual and legal

basis;

2. The truth is –

a. The subject properties are NOT owned by

JONAS DEL ROSARIO but by the heirs of
SILVESTRE DEL ROSARIO who inherited the
said properties by way of intestate
succession.

b. Said properties are part of a bigger lot

titled in the name of SILVESTRE DEL
ROSARIO under TCT no. RT-38301.

1
ANNEX “D” to the Complaint
 c. Said title is conclusive proof of
ownership and is binding upon all persons
in rem.

It cannot be collaterally attacked and

any questions against its legality must
be brought in a direct action filed for
that purpose before a competent court.

d. In fact, it was SILVESTRE DEL ROSARIO who

was acknowledged by the DAR as the owner
of the land covered by TCT no. RT-3830,
when he assigned a considerable portion
of said land to Land Bank of the
Philippines, in relation to its coverage
under PD 27.

e. Said land is exempted from PD 27 as it

was originally titled under the Homestead
Law.

f. Sometime in 2017, JONAS DEL ROSARIO,

allegedly an adopted son of the original
patentee, caused to be annotated on said
title a notice of lis pendens with regards
to the action he filed praying for the
cancellation of TCT no. RT-3830 and of the
assignment made by SILVESTRE DEL ROSARIO2.

g. Due to the failure of JONAS DEL ROSARIO

to prosecute his case, the case was ordered
terminated by the Court a quo, which order
became final as no appeal or motion for
reconsideration was taken on its dismissal.
3

h. Said Termination is tantamount to a

dismissal, there being no other
pronouncement by the Court granting the
prayer of JONAS DEL ROSARIO.

2
See entry no. 23924 in TCT no. RT-3830
3
See entry no. 2017000545
i. Thus, SILVESTRE DEL ROSARIO, his heirs
and assigns , remained the owners of the
property.

j. Consequently, the heirs of SILVESTRE DEL

ROSARIO offered these properties to herein
herein Respondents, who then purchased it
without any knowledge of any infirmity in
its title.

k. Respondents bought it in good faith and

for value.

l. Upon payment of the purchase price, the

were eventually delivered to them without
incident.

m. It is not true that that VENERANDA P.

DELA ROSA , DOMINGO P. BENIGA or LEONOR D.
GALISAN, are tenants of the land.

They are merely agents of JONAS DEL ROSARIO

whom he installed as “tenants” to protect
his imagined interest over said land,
especially so, that his attempt to nullify
the title of SILVESTRE DEL ROSARIO did not
go his way and ended in failure.

If indeed it is true that Complainants are

tenants of said land that Respondents
bought, then the delivery thereof would not
have been peaceful and without incident.

The fact is the possession, use and

occupation by Respondents of the land sold
to them by the heirs, remains peaceful and
did not result to the dispossession of any
person.

In fact, the ones working on said lands

before are still the ones who are working on
it presently.
 n. It was only after the purchase of the
land that Respondents learned of the claim
of JONAS DEL ROSARIO.

o. Subsequent thereto, they were also taken

by surprise when Complainants had them
called by the Agrarian office for a
conference relative to some agrarian
dispute.

p. Respondents, while open to have this

instant dispute settled amicably, are firm
on their stand that Complainants are not
their tenants and have no cause of action
against them.

3. Thus, in view of the true facts as above

narrated, Respondents only admit the
allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

4. All other averments in the Complaint are

denied for being false and perjurious, for
lack of knowledge as to the truth thereof and
for being erroneous conclusions of the facts
and of the law.

SPECIAL
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. This instant Petition should be outrightly

DISMISSED by this Honorable Court on the
following grounds –

[Link] are not tenants of Respondents

and being so, the instant dispute is outside
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Board to
adjudicate.

i. As averred by Complainants in their

Complaint, they are allegedly
tenants of JONAS DEL ROSARIO.

ii. Such relations, to the knowledge of

Respondents, have not been
 terminated nor has their respective
alleged leasehold contracts with him
been voided by the parties, mutually
or otherwise.

iii. In fact, complainants from their

allegations in their respective
complaints, are insisting that that
the owner of these lands subject of
these cases is JONAS DEL ROSARIO.

iv. In view of such insistence (despite

the title covering said lands
declaring the contrary), Defendants
are now estopped from claiming that
they are tenants of Defendants.

v. A tenant can only have one landlord

and it is the duty of the tenant to
protect the owner’s interest at all
times.

vi. In the case at bar, Complainants

are the very ones disputing the
ownership and possession of
Defendants and are absurdly asking
the Honorable Board to compel
Defendants to take them in as their
tenants.

There can be no juridical tie

between the parties, under these
circumstances.

“Tenancy relationship is a juridical

tie which arises between a landowner
and a tenant once they agree,
expressly or impliedly, to undertake
jointly the cultivation of a land
belonging to the landowner, as a
result of which relationship the
tenant acquires the right to
 continue working on and cultivating
the land”4

vii. In VICENTE ADRIANO [Link] TANCO,

et. Al.5, the Supreme Court declared
that –

“The existence of a tenancy

relationship cannot be presumed and
allegations that one is a tenant do
not automatically give rise to
security of tenure. For tenancy
relationship to exist, the following
essential requisites must be
present: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the
subject matter is agricultural land;
(3) there is consent between the
parties; (4) the purpose is
agricultural production; (5) there
is personal cultivation by the
tenant; and, (6) there is sharing of
the harvests between the parties.25
All the requisites must concur in
order to establish the existence of
tenancy relationship, and the
absence of one or more requisites is
fatal.”

viii. In these instant cases, there is no

consent, no agricultural production,
no personal cultivation (as the
persons actually working on said
lands are still working thereon) and
no sharing.

Complainants wont even admit that

defendants are the owners of the
lands that they are respectively
claiming as tenants.

ix. Absent any showing of a tenancy

relationship between complainants
4
Republic Act No. 1199, Section 6, (Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines).
5
G.R. No. 168164 , July 5, 2010
 and respondents, these disputes are
not within the authority of the
Honorable Board to resolve.

x.

b. Litis Pendentia

i. From the averments in the Complaint,

it appears that Plaintiffs are
praying that they be put in
possession of the subject lands, by
reason of their alleged ownership
thereof.

ii. Not only do Plaintiffs have no case

for forcible entry which requires
them to be in prior possession of
the subject lands, they have no
right at all to ask for the
possession of said lands.

iii. Plaintiffs, contrary to their claims

in their Complaint, are no longer
the owners of subject lands.

iv. They have no right to ask for the

possession of said lands since as
early as November 2021 or 6 months
prior to the date of their
Complaint, the said lands are no
longer theirs.

v. Evidently, Plaintiffs have no cause

of action or the personality to file
the instant case against
Respondents.

c. Perjurious and Contemptuous Verification

i. A reading of the Complaint clearly

shows that Plaintiffs intentionally
lied under oath with respect to very
material matters constituting their
alleged causes of action, when,
among others, they –

a. claim that they were in

possession of the disputed
properties and it was only
recently that they were
dispossessed thereof, allegedly
by Respondents, but the truth is,
they have never set foot on said
properties for nearly 40 years.

b. claim that all Respondents are

in possession of the property,
when they are not, as it is only
defendant NELSON OLIVA who has
been cultivating and working on
said lands.

Defendant SONIA OLIVA has not

been to said properties for the
last five years because of her
failing health.

Respondents LOVELLA and EUNICE

OLIVA, have also not visited said
lands for almost three years now
as they are busy with their
motherhood duties.

The fact that the whole OLIVA

family (who are not even
residents of the place where the
lands are situated) are impleaded
in this case, proves that this is
not a case that arose from a
recent dispossession but a case
for recovery of possession based
on an alleged claim of ownership
(which clearly Plaintiffs do not
have as they are no longer the
owners thereof and by reason of
prescription).
 c. claim that they are registered
owners of the subject lands when
they filed the instant case, when
they have sold it six months
before such declaration.

Further, said lands are untitled

and not registered.

ii. Undoubtedly, Plaintiffs knowingly

lied under oath in their averments
in the Complaint.

iii. Such is contemptuous and violative

of the Rules. The immediate
dismissal of this case is proper.

EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS

6. Sworn declaration of Defendant NELSON OLIVA

declaring and proving the fact that his late
father and then him have been cultivating and
working on subject properties for nearly 40
years and other allied matters– EXHIBIT “1”.

7. Sworn declaration of Defendant SONIA OLIVA

declaring and proving the fact that she and
his late husband bought the subject properties
from the DESIATAs and that his husband and
now his son NELSON OLIVA have been cultivating
and working on subject properties for nearly
40 years . She will also deny that she
disposed Plaintiffs therefrom– EXHIBIT “2”.

8. Sworn declaration of Respondents LOVELLA and

EUNICE OLIVA declaring and proving their
family thru their father and then their
brother, been cultivating and working on
subject properties for nearly 40 years . They
will also deny that they disposed Plaintiffs
therefrom– EXHIBIT “3”.
9. Joint Sworn Declaration of Disinterested
Residents declaring and proving that the OLIVA
family been cultivating and working on the
subject properties for nearly 40 years. This
Declaration will also prove other allied and
material matters in this Answer- EXHIBIT “4”.

10. Certification from the Barangay Captain

which will negate the claims of Plaintiffs of
prior actual possession of, and recent
dispossession from, the subject properties-
EXHIBIT “5”.

11. Receipts of actual real property tax

payments by Respondents which will negate the
Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership and possession
of the subject properties – collectively
marked as EXHIBIT “6”.

12. PCA issued documents relative to the cutting

of the coconut trees of the OLIVA family by
ALEXANDER DESIATA which proves that it was the
DESIATAs who tried to dispossess NELSO DESIATA
of the subject lands and which also proves
that this instant complaint is baseless,
fabricated and imagined – EXHIBIT “7”

13. Pictures of the coconut trees illegally cut

by ALEXANDER DESIATA which corroborates
defendant’s claim that it was the DESIATAs who
tried to dispossess NELSO DESIATA of the
subject lands and which also proves that this
instant complaint is baseless, fabricated and
imagined – EXHIBIT “8”

14. Deed of sale of the subject lands executed

by Plaintiffs in favor of JULIET INTINO which
proves that Plaintiffs as early as November
2020 have sold said lands to said vendee and
that at the time of the filing of the
Complaint , Plaintiffs no longer have any
interest in said lands – EXHIBIT “9”
 15. Tax Declarations of the subject lands in the
name of JULIET INTINO which proves that
Plaintiffs are no longer “registered” owners
of said lands and have no right whatsoever to
ask for its possession or to make demands
therefor – EXHIBIT “10”.

16. Respondents respectfully ask, by way of

reservation, the chance to present additional
evidence, documentary or otherwise.

COUNTER-CLAIMS

17. Respondents hereby re-plead and incorporate

all the foregoing allegations.

18. For filing a malicious, perjurious,

contemptuous and reckless complaint thereby
causing Respondents public embarrassment,
anxiety and severe humiliation, Plaintiff
must be condemned to pay answering Respondents
the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php.
200s,000.00) as moral damages;

19. By way of example to deter the public from

making filing malicious baseless and reckless
suits in the future, Plaintiff ought to be
condemned to indemnify answering Respondents
for exemplary damages in the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php. 200,000.00).

20. Defendant was compelled to engage the

services of Counsel for FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php. 50,000.00) plus Php. 3,000.00 per court
appearance, which amount, Plaintiffs must
indemnify herein Respondents;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Most Honorable Court to –
 A. DISMISSS the instant case;

B. DIRECT Plaintiffs to pay answering

Respondents FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php.
200,000.00) as moral damages, FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php. 200,000.00) as exemplary damages,
Attorney’s fees of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php.
50,000.00) plus Php. 3,000.00 per court
appearance;

C. SANCTION Plaintiffs for filing a patently

baseless and perjurious complaint.

D. Other just and equitable reliefs likewise

prayed for.

Most respectfully submitted.

_____________________, Butuan City,

Philippines.

THE LAW FIRM OF

SALISE & SULLANO
RGCS Bldg., Narra Road cor. Molave Street
(Near DOH 13 Regional Office)
8600 Butuan City
For Respondents

By:

ATTY. ROLANDO G.C. SALISE

Roll No. 48977
MCLE Compliance VI-0013913
issued on September 29, 2018
IBP no. (awaiting OR) PTR No. 2015222 1/4/2021
TIN No. 908-310-719
e-mail add: boboysalise@[Link]
Cellphone no. 09485939047

VERIFICATION
 WE, SONIA OLIVA, NELSO OLIVA, LOVELLA OLIVA and
EUNICE OLIVA, of legal age, Filipinos, and
residents of Ampayon, Butuan City, Philippines,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby, depose and say:

We are the Respondents in this case and we have

caused this ANSWER With SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS to be prepared; that we
read and understood its contents which are true and
correct of our own personal knowledge and/or based
on authentic records; It is not being presented for
any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation; The claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or
jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument
for extending, modifying, or reversing existing
jurisprudence; The factual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support
after availment of the modes of discovery under
these rules; and The denials of factual
contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or a lack of information.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our

hands this _____________________________ in Butuan
City, Philippines.

SONIA OLIVA
ID___________________

NELSO OLIVA
ID ___________________

LOVELLA OLIVA
ID ____________________

EUNICE OLIVA
 ID _____________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me hand this

_________________________ in Butuan City,
Philippines.

CC:

Atty. Yvette Hipolito Samper

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
4th street Ext. , Guingona Subd.,
Butuan City