Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Regional Office No. 08
Sto. Niṅo Extension, Tacloban City

In Re: Protest on the DAR CASE NO.

Identification of Respondent as
Farmer Beneficiary; Petition for
Disqualification and Exclusion
of Respondent as Farmer
Beneficiary; Petition for
Reallocation of Lot 8, portion
of Lot No.10261, Cad 256,
Ormoc Cad., now covered by
OCT No. OE- ____ EP No. A-
_____ with an area of 17,896
sq. m., in the name of JESUS
CAUBAT, located at Sto.
Nino, Kananga, Leyte;

TEODORO VALENCIA JR.,

Petitioner,

-versus-

JESUS CAUBAT,
Represented by:
JOCELYN CAUBAT,
Respondent.

x--------------------------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW, PETITIONER, unto this Honorable Office,

most respectfully states;

1. That petitioner, is a Filipino, of legal age, married, and

resident of Brgy. Cacao, Kananga, Leyte, where he may
be served notices and other processes of this Honorable
Office;

2. That respondent, is already deceased but is represented

by his daughter, who is also a Filipino and resident of
Brgy. Sto. Nino, Kananga, Leyte, where she may be
 served notices, orders and other processes of this
Honorable Office;

3. That petitioner has the capacity to sue and be sued;

4. That petitioner’s father, Teodoro Valencia, together with

Conrado Valencia, was the tenant, actual cultivator, and
tiller of Lot No. 8, which has an area of 17, 896 sq.
meters, more or less. This lot is one of several other
portions that petitioner’s father cultivates as a tenant.
Moreover, this lot is a portion of a parcel of agricultural
land denominated as Lot No. 10261, Cad-256, Ormoc
Cadastre, which has an aggregate area of 22. 3084
hectares, more or less, formerly covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. TP- 8990, registered in the name
of Eugene Aranas. (Photocopy of the Approved
Subdivision Plan indicating Lot No. 8 is a part of Lot No
10261 is hereto attached as Annex A of this Petition);

5. That as such tenant, actual tiller, and cultivator,

petitioner’s father personally cultivated the land with
the consent of the landholder; shared the produce
thereof to the same landholder; and made the land
productive; Petitioner was his father’s household help in
the cultivation of the subject land;

6. When petitioner got married, his father (Teodoro

Valencia) asked the permission of the landowner if
petitioner could be the one to cultivate the portion now
denominated as Lot 8, so that he can support his future
family. Without hesitation, the landowner consented that
the portion now denominated as Lot No. 8 be cultivated
by petitioner. Thus, petitioner became the tenant of Lot 8
in lieu of his father Teodoro Valencia - who remained a
tenant on the other portions;

7. That petitioner, together with his father, until now

remains the tenants and are in physical possession of the
lands or areas they cultivate with the consent of the
landowner, except for the portions that respondent and
his cohorts have usurped and forcibly taken which
amount to a total area 3.5 hectare;

8. That this 3.5-hectare portion can be broken down into the

following: 1 hectare by Fernando Caubat; 1 hectare by
Artemio Caubat; 1 hectare by Jesus Caubat; & ½
hectare by Alberto Caubat; And that this facts is
 expressly declared and proven by the Decision of then
Provincial Adjudicator Prospero T. Rapada (PARAD
Rapada) in DARAB Case No. R-0801- 159-99, entitled
Conrado Valencia et al vs. Jesus Caubat et al., for
Reinstatement and Damages, with Preliminary Injunction
and Restraining Order; (Photocopy of the Decision is
hereto attached as Annex B of this Petition);

9. Without the knowledge of the petitioner, and without

considering petitioner’s tenancy status on the land, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the subject
land under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program
of PD 27; And consequently, the DAR identified
respondent Jesus Caubat as the Farmer Beneficiary of
Lot No. 8, and thereafter, issued to respondent OCT
No. OE- _____ EP No. A- ______ covering an area of
17,896 sq. m.; (Certified True Copy of the
Emancipation Patent is hereto attached as Annex C of
this Petition);

10. That in the fifth (5th) and sixth (6th) paragraph of

Presidential Decree 27, states:

“PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 27, October 21, 1972

DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS

FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL,
TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE
INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR

xxx

This shall apply to tenant farmers of private

agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn
under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether
classified as landed estate or not;

The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as

landed estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion
constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not
irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated;”

x x x

11. That in the case of Heirs of Leonilo P. Nunez et al.

vs. Heirs of Gabino Gabino T. Villanoza et. al. GR No.
218666, April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that:
 “On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27, or the
Tenants Emancipation Decree, superseded Republic Act
No. 3844. Seeking to "emancipat[e] the tiller of the soil
from his bondage," Presidential Decree No. 27 mandated
the compulsory acquisition of private lands to be
distributed to tenant-farmers. From 75 hectares under
Republic Act No. 3844, Presidential Decree No. 27
reduced the landowner's retention area to a maximum of
seven (7) hectares of land.

Presidential Decree No. 27 implemented the Operation

Land Transfer Program to cover tenanted rice or corn
lands. According to Daez v. Court of Appeals,[ "the
requisites for coverage under the [Operation Land
Transfer] program are the following: (1) the land must be
devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a
system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein."

Therefore, the land for acquisition and distribution must

be planted with rice or corn and must be tenanted under a
share tenancy or an agricultural leasehold
agreement. The landowner would not enjoy the right to
retain land if his or her entire landholding was intact and
undisturbed.” (underscoring supplied for emphasis).

12. Therefore, it is clearly improper and highly irregular for

the DAR to identify the respondent as the farmer
beneficiary of the subject lot because respondent is not
its tenant, but merely a usurper of the same property;
PD 27 and well-settled jurisprudence are explicit on the
matter that it applies only to tenant farmers, and to rice
and corn land that are tenanted;

13. That aside from not being a tenant, respondent cannot

also be properly identified as farmer beneficiary because
respondent, together with some other persons, is a
usurper of the property, and is therefore guilty of acts that
disqualifies him to become a farmer beneficiary; That
respondent is an active member of the “SAGUPA”- a
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) popular in the
locality for using brute force in usurping and grabbing
landholdings, and depriving lowly farmers and small
landowners of possessions of lands;

14. That the law and settled jurisprudence are very clear
on the matter that a usurper cannot be appointed as
farmer beneficiary;

15. That in this instant case however, despite being

usurper, as found out to be as such usurper of the
 subject land by then PARAD Rapada in the DARAB
case, the DAR has still identified the respondent as
farmer beneficiary of the subject lot, and was
consequently issued OCT No. OE-_____ EP No. A-
_______ covering Lot 8, with an area of 17,896 sq. m.;

16. That as have been said, the provisions of the PD 27

(Operation Land Transfer Program), is very explicit that
only tenants can be appointed as farmer beneficiaries
under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program;
Otherwise, the identification of farmer beneficiary
becomes highly irregular, and is null and void;

17. That on the other hand, in the same Decision of then

PARAD Rapada, the latter also found out that herein
petitioner’s father was a tenant of the land; Thus,
petitioner could validly succeed such tenancy right.
Hence, petitioner is the most qualified to be identified
as farmer beneficiary of the subject property; That, it is
the petitioner that has the better right over Lot 8, and
therefore must have been prioritized in the identification
as farmer beneficiary of the same lot;

18. That aside from the Decision of then PARAD Rapada,

it is also of public knowledge among the residents of the
barangay were the property is located, that petitioner was
the tenant, actual tiller and cultivator of the subject
landholding for already a long period of time; (Attached
as Annexes D and D-1 hereof are Joint Affidavits of
witnesses Antonio B. Almaden and Rafael Otida Noyna
Jr.);

19. Further, petitioner, together with his father, and

Conrado Valencia, are clearly the de jure tenants of the
land because they were installed therein as tenants by
the landholder himself, and there was consent from the
landowner for them to cultivate the subject lot (Attached
as Annex E hereof is the Memorandum of Agreement
signed by the petitioner and the landholder Eugene
Aranas);

20. That aside from being the tenant of the subject land,
petitioner is also a landless citizen owning no other
property; Petitioner merely rely on the subject land for
his family’s daily subsistence; (Certifications of being
landless citizen issued by the Municipal Assessor of
 Kananga, Leyte and by the Provincial Assessor of Leyte
to petitioner are hereto attached as Annexes F and F-1
of this petition);

21. That verily, the identification of the respondent as

farmer beneficiary of the subject landholding was made
hastily, in bad faith, and without considering petitioner’s
right to due process, thus, the documentation is a total
nullity;

22. Further, Section 22 of R.A. 6657 provides:

Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered by

the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless
residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof,
landless residents of the same municipality in the following order
of priority:

(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;

(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.

Provided, however, that the children of landowners who are

qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in
the distribution of the land of their parents: and provided, further,
that actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or
removed therefrom.

Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably

sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to
become beneficiaries under this Program.

A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness,

aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive
as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the
record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary
guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended
to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The
DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the
beneficiaries to the PARC.

If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to the number of

tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land
to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted
ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at
the option of the beneficiaries.

Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the

distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential
rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.
23. That even in the later agrarian law, R.A. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL), an agricultural lessee, or a share tenant is
in the top of the order of priority in the selection and in
the identification of farmer beneficiaries; Hence,
petitioner must have been the one identified as farmer
beneficiary of Lot 23, instead of the respondent because
the latter is not a tenant but a mere usurper or grabber of
the subject lot;

24. That Section 43 and 45 of DAR Administrative Order

No. 07, Series of 2011, also provides:

CHAPTER 7
Farmer Beneficiary Identification, Screening and Selection

SECTION 43.   Who are Qualified Beneficiaries. —

Farmers/Tillers and farmworkers who meet the following
qualifications shall be eligible as beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

a. General Qualifications. All ARBs must be:

i.          A farmer/tiller who owns less than three (3)

hectares of agricultural land;   TDEASC
ii.         A Filipino citizen;
iii.       A resident of the barangay (or the municipality if
there are not enough qualified ARBs in the barangay);
iv.        At least fifteen (15) years of age at the time of
identification, screening, and selection of farmer-
beneficiaries; and
v.         Willing, able, and equipped with the aptitude to
cultivate and make the land productive.

x x x

SECTION 45.   Prioritization of Qualified

Beneficiaries. — Qualified beneficiaries shall be prioritized
in the following order:
i.                    Agricultural lessees and tenants;
ii.         Regular farmworkers; 
iii.       Seasonal farmworkers;
iv.        Other farmworkers;
v.         Actual tillers or occupants of public lands, only
insofar as untitled private agricultural lands are concerned;
and
vi.        Others directly working on the land.

25. That in the implementing laws, and in the above-

quoted administrative order, the DAR, in its enforcement
of the Agrarian Reform Program, either, in the Operation
 Land Transfer (OLT) or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP), must consider an agricultural
lessee or a share tenant to be the top priority in the
selection and identification of farmer beneficiaries of land.
Hence, there is no single reason why petitioner should
not have been identified as farmer beneficiary of Lot 23,
and on such other lots that he cultivates as a de jure
tenant;

26. That on the other hand, respondent has not meet any
of the required qualification set by the above-quoted
provisions of PD 27, R.A. 6657, and DAR AO 07, Series
of 2011; Clearly therefor, respondent is not qualified
to become a farmer beneficiary of the subject lot;

27. That the due process clause enshrined in the

Constitution, explicitly states that no one should be
deprived of his property without due process of law; It
further requires that a person must be given the
opportunity to defend his side in any proceedings for that
matter; And a proceeding that does not afford a party his
right to due process, is a total nullity;

28. In this present case, petitioner was openly deprived of

due process;

29. Consequent of the violation of due process, the

Emancipation Patent generated in the name of the
respondent, cannot not be a source of a lawful right, and
it will not ripen into a lawful title; It was a total nullity;

30. In sum, there were shortcuts committed by the DAR

field personnel when it documented the land under the
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program. Hence, the
presumption of regularity of the performance of the DAR
field personnel cannot be upheld, and, must therefore be
corrected to afford proper administration of justice;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Office, that judgment be rendered as
follows:

1. DECLARING respondent Jesus Caubat as disqualified

to become farmer beneficiary of the subject landholding,
Lot 8;
 2. DECLRING as null and void ab initio, and without force
and effect, OCT No. OE-______ EP No. A-______ with
an area of 17, 896 sq. meters., in the name of
respondent Jesus Caubat, covering Lot No. 8 portion of
Lot 10261, Cad-256, Ormoc Cadastre, located at Sto.
Nino, Kananga, Leyte;

3. DECLARING petitioner Teodoro Valencia Jr. to be the

rightful farmer beneficiary of the aforementioned Lot No.
8, and REALLOCATING unto said petitioner Teodoro
Valencia Jr. Lot No. 8, being the rightful farmer
beneficiary of the subject lot, and eventually generating
unto said petitioner Teodoro Valencia a new title over the
subject lot;

4. ORDERING respondent Jesus Caubat through his

representative to surrender to the Department of Agrarian
Reform through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of
Kananga, Leyte, the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the
foregoing Emancipation Patent, and in case of failure to
do so, the same be declared lost;

Such other relief or remedy just and equitable under the

foregoing premises is also prayed for.

Kananga, Leyte for Tacloban City

March 23, 2022

TEODORO VALENCIA
Petitioner

VERIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

I, TEODORO VALENCIA JR., Filipino, of legal age,

married, and resident of Brgy. Cacao, Kananga, Leyte, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above captioned case /

petition;
 2. That I caused the preparation of the above-captioned
petition, and, that I have read and understood the
contents thereof to be true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief, and in accordance with authentic
documents;

3. That I have not commence and/ or not aware of any other

action or proceeding involving the same lands or portions
thereof, or issue in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial
agency; and to the best of my knowledge, no such action
or proceeding is pending in any court, tribunal, or quasi-
judicial agency except the previous DARAB Case, and if
we learn thereafter that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, we shall report that
fact within five(5) days therefrom to the DAR Office
where this Petition has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands

this __ day of March 2022 at Tacloban City.

TEODORO VALENCIA JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this __ day of

March 2022 at Tacloban City.