Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ALTAVAZ Brief
ALTAVAZ Brief
RODELINO N. RODRIGUEZ,
Plantiff-Appellant,
Appealed Civil Case No. 11104
Sixth Municipal Circuit Trial Court
Altavas-Balete, Balete, Aklan
Lower Court Case No.: Civil Case
No. 3115
-versus-
APPELLEE’S MEMORANDUM
Submitted by:
ATTY. MELANIE OBRIQUE-GUEVARRA
Cos Guevarra and Associates
Counsel for the Defendants-Appellees
Unit 201 Dona Eusebia Rodriguez Bldg.
0611 Quirino Avenue, Paranaque City
IBP No. 070285;01-21-19;Pasig City
PTR No. 1741150;01-17-19; Parañaque City
Roll No.56511
Copy Furnished:
1
Page 2 of 27
SUBJECT INDEX
In Nuesa v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 132048, 06 March 2002, 378 SCRA
351, 361-362.
De Grano v. Lacaba,G.R. No. 158877, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 148
2
Page 3 of 27
RODELINO N. RODRIGUEZ,
Plantiff-Appellant,
Appealed Civil Case No. 11104
Sixth Municipal Circuit Trial Court
Altavas-Balete, Balete, Aklan
Lower Court Case No.:Civil Case
No. 3115
-versus-
APPELLEE’S MEMORANDUM
Defendants-Appellees, in answer to the allegations raised by the
Defendants-Appellees in its Brief, respectfully states:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
a) Decision dated 10 April 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC for
brevity) of Pasay City, Branch 109 in Civil case No. R-PSY-17-26770-
CV declaring the marriage between appelle Jordan Inanod and
respondent Ma. Odette Conde-Inanod void on the ground of the alleged
psychological incapacity of both parties under Article 36 of the Family
Code,
2. This appealed case stemmed from a Forcible Entry with Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction case filed by
Plaintiff-Appellant, RODELINO N. RODRIGUEZ, on April 19, 2018,
which sought to recover the material possession of a parcel of land and
the award of damages, against defendants-appelles FELOMINA
PASTOLERO y RODRIGUEZ, BEBOT PASTOLERO, GIL OBRIQUE,
MYLENE OBRIQUE and ENGR. BORGIE RODRIGUEZ with the
3
Page 4 of 27
3. On May 20, 2018 defendants filed their Answer dated May 20, 2018
and on May 30, 2019, defendants-appelles filed their Amended Answer
dated May 25, 2018.
1) Who, between the plaintiff and the defendants, was/ were in atual
and physical possession of Lot No. 1442- D prior to June 20, 2017?
2) Was the plaintiff unlawfully deprived of the possession of the land
in question by the defendants?
3) Who, between the plaintiff and the defendants, are entitled to
damages?
SO ORDERED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Declaration No. 2779, and the Entry in the said Tax Declaration, which
states that, to quote “Transferred by virtue of Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by Inocentes Jimera in favor of Lovell R. Obrique before
Notary Public Emilio C. Nabor dated October 8, 1964, Doc. No. 88;
Page No. 20; Book No. III; Series of 1964”.
10. In 1984, Lot 1442 was mortgaged and eventually transferred from
Robin Abello to (DBP) Development Bank of the Philippines by virtue of
Deed of Sale and Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership as evidenced
by Tax Declaration No. 3731, and its Entry, which states that, to quote,
“Formerly declared and assessed in the name of Rubin Abello and now
transferred in the name of Development Bank of the Philippines by
virtue of Deed of Sale & and an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership
executed before Notary Public, Daniel Martelino for Aklan and entered
in the Notarial registry as Doc. No. 127 & 126; Page No. 27; Book No.
IX; Series of 1984.”
14.6. That there are pending complaints filed by both plaintiff and
defendants involving the same essential facts and
circumstances, causes of action, subject matter and issue of
possession with the DAR.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
DISCUSSION
6
Page 7 of 27
17. In the Decision dated February 28, 2019, the Honorable Municipal
Circuit Trial Court was correct in its findings that plaintiff-appellant was not
able to adequately prove that he was in prior actual possession of the land
subject of this case which is the very crux of this suit. Paragraphs 25, 26
and 27, Pages 8 and 9 of the Decision dated February 28, 2019, provide
that, to quote:
19.It is clear that the issued agreed by the parties during the preliminary
conference are only the following:
8
Page 9 of 27
II. Was the plaintiff unlawfully deprived of the possession of the land
in question by the defendants through force, intimidation,
strategy, threat or stealth?
III. Who, between the plaintiff and the defendants, are entitled to
damages?
20.Hence, whether or not the said CLOA was issued with regularity by the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), is not an issue in the instant
case. Moreover, discussing the validity of the CLOA will divest the court
of its jurisdiction as any question regarding the issuance of CLOA is
under the jurisdiction of DAR or DARAB.
1
G.R. No. 132048, 06 March 2002, 378 SCRA 351, 361-362.
9
Page 10 of 27
24.Assuming for the sake of argument that Isagani Neron did not withdraw
the case, perusal of his Judicial Affidavit also shows that his allegations
are too sweeping to believe as he only claimed the same as to Rogelio
Neron; that he only came to know that plaintiff-appellant cultivated the
property because during his teenage years, he used to help the
deceased parents of plaintiff-appellant. They both did not even mention
in what instances did they help the parents of plaintiff-appellant.
2
PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LAZARO CRUZ, FRANCISCO T. CRUZ,
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer ERLINDA PEARL V. ARMADA, DAR Provincial Adjudicator HON. GREGORIO D.
SAPERA and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN, G.R. No. 132561, June 30, 2005.
10
Page 11 of 27
On plaintiff-appellant’s claim that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court did not
give weight to the Subdivision Plan.
“ATTY. IBARRETA:
ATTY. PESCASIOSA:
We denied that fact, Your Honor, rather the DAR was the one
who awarded the plaintiff this farmer beneficiary. We did not apply.” 3
On plaintiff-appellant’s claim that complaint with the DAR was only filed in
2017.
32.On the other hand, as correctly found by the lower court, defendants-
appelles were able to prove by preponderance of evidence that they
are the actual and physical possessors of the land subject of this case
long before the alleged incident of June 20, 2017.
12
Page 13 of 27
for Aklan and entered in the Notarial registry as Doc. No. 127
& 126; Page No. 27; Book No. IX; Series of 1984.
“xxx
3. Q: Kilala mo ba ang plaintiff sa nasabing kaso na
ito?
A: Opo. Kilala ko po siya dahil sya po ang lumabas
na kasama naming sa collective CLOA na na-issue ng DAR. Sya
rin po ang aming hinainan ng protesta sa DAR bandang 2004 at
pagkatapos ay hinainan ng Petition for Disqualification sa DARAB,
DAR, Ioilo City sa kadahilanang hindi nman sya nag-okupa at
nagsaka kailanman ng kahit anong portion ng Lot 1442.
15
Page 16 of 27
34.For a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiffs must allege and prove:
(a) that they have prior physical possession of the property; (b) that
they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth; and, (c) that the action was filed within one (1) year
from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their
deprivation of the physical possession of the property.
19
Page 20 of 27
40.In this case, the plaintiffs’ evidence inadequately proved their claim that
they have a case of forcible entry against the defendants. The plaintiff
failed to prove and present evidence that he had prior actual, material,
or de facto possession of the said Lot 1442-D. The subdivision plan is
not a conclusive proof of his right to possess, either actual or de facto
possession, of the said land. In fact, it is undisputed that the
defendants were occupying the land in the concept of an owner as
early as 1948 even until the land was mortgaged to DBP and
sufficiently established by their evidence of tax declarations; testimony
of the independent witnesses and adjoining owners; entries in the tax
declarations of assignments from the predecessors to successors of
defendants made by a government agency, the Office of the Municipal
Assessor of Altavas, Aklan; and Certifications of the Punong Barangay
that plaintiff has never occupied or tilled the subject property, and who
stated that defendants were known cultivating and occupying said
property prior to June 2017. These are very important evidence that
establish preponderance of evidence of possession of the Lot 1442 in
favor of defendants.
20
Page 21 of 27
46.Indeed, it has been established that the basis of his alleged ownership,
which is the Collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award is still
pending investigation with the DAR.
21
Page 22 of 27
48.On June 25, 2017, defendant Felomina followed-up the status of their
Letter-Complaint with the DAR. The DAR informed her that based on
the records of the office, a Memorandum dated June 22, 2017 was
already issued by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II, Ma.
Theresa C. Valencia directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer,
Marissa O. Mendoza, to conduct investigation and submit MARO’s
Investigation Report with Recommendation regarding the Follow-Up
Letter-Complaint of Felomina Andrade and Joel Obrique on erroneous
inclusion of FB on Lot No. 1442 PT.
50.Thus, in a forcible entry case, "a party who can prove prior
possession can recover such possession even against the owner
himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he
22
Page 23 of 27
has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that
entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better
right lawfully ejects him."4 Emphasis supplied.
56.The truth of the matter of the incident that took place on June 20, 2017
was even narrated by plaintiff himself in his police blotter, which copy of
4
Calingasan vs. Rivera, Jr., G.R. No.171555, April 17, 2013.
23
Page 24 of 27
the same was submitted by plaintiff before this Court as his evidence In
plaintiff’s police blotter and complaint, he alleged that on June 19,
2017, after
herein defendants confronted and threatened him to stop his workers
from working in the rice field, he went home to Kalibo, Aklan. The
following day, June 20, 2017, which is the alleged day of the incident,
while he was at his residence in Kalibo, Aklan, he was informed by his
brother thru cellphone that there were police officers of Balete Police
Station in the rice field together with the defendants. Then, a police
officer talked to him on the cellphone informing him if he could stop his
workers for the reason that there was a complainant for the possession
of the rice field which herein plaintiff agreed. Verily, nowhere in his
narration in the police that at the time of the incident or on June 20,
2017, defendants employed force, threat, intimidation, strategy and
stealth in order to stop plaintiff’s workers from working in the subject
lot. It was very clear that plaintiff agreed when asked by the police to
stop his workers who stealthy intruded and attempted to cultivate the
land. Also, there was no allegation in the police blotter contrary to his
allegation in the complaint that defendants brought along 20 civilian
armed men together with policemen of Balete Aklan. If this were true,
then, he should have filed a criminal case against the policemen and
herein defendants, but there was none.
24
Page 25 of 27
60.To prove further that it was plaintiff who attempted and tried to
unlawfully deprive defendants of their peaceful possession of Lot 1442,
police blotters are hereto marked as Exhibits “7”, “8”, “9” and “12”.
61.That the act of the workers of plaintiff working in the rice field is not a
proof of plaintiff’s prior physical possession as it was the defendants
who were in possession at that time when plaintiff intruded without
defendants’ knowledge and consent. That was why when he was
asked by the police on the phone to stop his workers from plowing the
land, he readily agreed.
62.That in fact, before the alleged incident on June 20, 2017, plaintiff and
defendants Filomena and Mylene had appeared before the Office of
the Punong Barangay, Barangay Morales, Balate Aklan to possibly
settle the dispute over the subject lot with the plaintiff as the latter kept
on threatening to kill them. In the said barangay conciliation there was
no settlement reached. However, in the said barangay record as shown
in the Certification issued by the said Office of the Punong Barangay,
herein plaintiff did not question its contents particularly the entry that
states, to quote in dialect, “May 16, 2017 alas 9:00 ro oras sa agahon,
sanda ra ging husay iya sa opisina sa pamuno ni Hon. Jonise D.
Ambrocio Punong Barangay parti sa eogta nga ginakultibaran ag
ginaposisyunan nanday Filomena Pastolero, Jan Carlo Rodriguez and
Joel Obrique nga Makita an sa rayang Barangay Morales Sitio
Awayon.” (Empasis supplied) This only proves further that Filomena
Pastolero, Jan Carlo Rodriguez and Joel Obrique are the actual
cultivators and possessors of the subject lot.
the owner of the premises subject of this suit and he was unlawfully
deprived of the real right of possession or the ownership thereof, in the
case of Sarmiento vs. CA, 320 Phil. 146 (1995), the Supreme Court
held that:
“He should present his claim before the Regional Trial Court in
an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the
Municipal Trial Court in a summary proceeding of unlawful detainer
or forcible entry. For even if one is the owner of the property, the
possession thereof cannot be wrested from another who had been
in the physical or material possession of the same for more than one
year by resorting to a summary action for ejectment. This is
especially true where his possession thereof was not obtained
through the means or held under the circumstances contemplated
by the rules on summary ejectment.
66.It is worthy to note that at the time of the filing of this case, defendants
had been in physical possession of the property for more or less sixty
nine (69) years.
67. Verily, plaintiff-appellant has not sufficiently alleged and proved prior
physical possession, as well as petitioner’s entry and possession by
intimidation or force.
PRAYER
5
Ong v. Court of Appeals, 407 Phil 1045 (2001).
26
Page 27 of 27
EXPLANATION
27