Você está na página 1de 3

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)


Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
Max Suniel-Yakal Sts, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City

BELZEDISE L. NISPEROS,
Petitioner, DARAB CASE NO. ___________
CANC. CASE NO. 1008-0004-2017
- versus-

HIERS OF ORENCIO ARIVAS For:


Sr., namely: Erlinda “NORMA” CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL
Oyog Arivas, Marivic Arivas CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. E-597
Esperagoza, Orencio O. Arivas (Emancipation Patent No. 026007),
Jr., and Six (6) other children: REALLOCATION TO PETITIONER,
John Does Arivas & Jane Does REMOVAL OF ANY BENEFECIARIES
Arivas, AND DAMAGES with PRAYER FOR
Private Respondents, ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR
Provincial Agrarian Reform Program PRELIMENARY OR PERMANENT
Officer (PARPO); and Provincial INJUNCTION
Register of Deeds of Misamis
Oriental (ROD)
Public Respondents,
X= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = == == = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = =/

COMES NOW, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Misamis Oriental, as


represented by the PARPO Zoraida Omar- Macadindang, Al-Hadj, through the
undersigned counsel of Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) and unto this
Honorable Provincial Adjudicator most respectfully submit their Joint Comment
and state that:

ADMISSIONS/DENIALS
1. The allegation under paragraph (1) with respect to the personal
circumstances of the petitioner is specifically denied for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
2. The allegations under paragraph (2), (3) and (4) referring to herein
respondents are all admitted;
3. The allegations under paragraph (5), (6) and (7) are specifically denied for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
4. The allegation under paragraph (8) to (12) are specifically denied for lack
of factual basis;
5. The allegation under paragraph (13), (14) and (15) are admitted with
respect to the area acquired by Orencio Arivas. The rest of the allegations
are denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof;
6. The allegation under paragraph (16), (17) and (18) are specifically denied,
the truth of the matter is that the Respondent never sold nor mortgaged
the subject land but only entrusted his landholding to the late Genaro
Nisperos Sr. and the amount of P6,000.00 was not a consideration for the
alleged sale but only a mere ordinary loan. Respondent Orencio Arivas Sr.
and Ms. Emeliana Nesperos never signed or executed a Deed of Sale or
Deed of mortgage and that the respondent was actually cultivating his
landholding but was forced to leave because his life was endangered due to
life threats by some members of the New People’s Army (NPA);
7. The allegations under paragraph (19) and (20) are specifically denied, the
truth of the matter is that the respondent tried to recover his landholding
but the petitioner refused as the latter already leased the property to Roger
Edma and again to a certain Jose Xi the amount of 10,000;
8. The petitioner is nothing but a mere land grabber considering that this land
is a titled in the name of the respondent;
9. The allegation under paragraph (21) is specifically denied, the truth of the
matter is that the respondent was willing to pay the real property tax but
the petitioner insisted that they will pay the property tax in return for their
possession of the subject land in which the respondent agreed;
10.The allegation under paragraph (22) is specifically denied for lack of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
11.The allegation under paragraph (23) is specifically denied, the truth of the
matter is that the petitioner approached Erlinda Arivas and Marivic
Esparagosa while the two were taking a bath in the “well” (Tabay) and
forced them to sign the Affidavit. Since Erlinda and Marivic were half
naked, they forced to sign the affidavit without reading it. However as soon
as they read and understand the content of the affidavit, they withdraw
their signature by not giving back the document. This is the reason why the
affidavit was not notarized. Copy of the Affidavit is hereto attached and
marked as “Annex-A”
12.The allegation under paragraph (24) is admitted;
13.The allegation under paragraph (25) is specifically denied;
14.

Affirmative Defenses

With all due respect to our honorable Board, this petition is in the nature of
Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case which is an exclusive jurisdiction of the
DAR in its administrative function.