Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT &

NATURAL RESOURCES
Quezon City

SALLY G. PARINGIT,
Protestant,

Case Ref. No.

-versus-

KAISER P. GARCIA,
Protestee.
x-------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW the PROTESTEE KAISER P. GARCIA,

by himself, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully files
the foregoing Reply to the protest filed Sally G. Paringit.

TIMELINESS

On August 30, 2017, the Protestee received an Order

sent by Atty. Manuelita C. Jatulan, Chief of the Legal
Division of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) – National Capital Region dated August
15, 2017 directing Protestee to submit his answer to a
Verified Protest filed by Protestant Sally G. Paringit within a
period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Order. The
copy of the Verified Protest was received by the Protestant
on September 2, 2017. If the 15 day period shall be counted
from the receipt of the Order, the Protestee has until
September 15, 2017 or until today, hence, this timely
answer to the protest.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
 PROTESTEE KAISER GARCIA is of legal age, Filipino,
widower, and a resident of Block 190, Lot 3, Tambuli Street,
Zone 8, Pembo, Makati City, where he can be served with
summons and other processes of this Honorable Office.

As per records, Protestant is the sole survey claimant of

a parcel of land with an area of one hundred and ninety
three square meters (193 sq.m.) known as Lot #3 Block 190
Psd-13-005204 situated at Barangay Pembo, Makati City as
evidenced by a Certification for Lot Data Computation issued
by the Land Survey Records of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources-NCR hereto attached as
Annex 1 and made an integral part hereof. In the said
Certification, the name of the protestee is entered under the
“Claimant” section. From 1978 up to the present, protestee
remains to have an open, continuous, actual and notorious
possession over the land as evidenced by a house erected
thereon where protestant and his family reside. A copy of
the photo of the house is hereto attached as Annex 2 and
made an integral part hereof.

The controversy arose when the Protestee applied for a

Residential Free Patent in order to obtain a title over the
land abovementioned. A copy of the Application for
Residential Free Patent is hereto attached as Annex 3 and
made an integral part hereof. When protestee went to the
barangay office of Barangay Pembo to obtain documents
relating to the lot, he learned based on the records in the
barangay that a portion of the lot is already in the name of
Protest Sally G. Paringit. Confused and bewildered, the
Protestant proceeded to the DENR to confirm this, and there
he was notified and apprised that under their records, he
remains to be the original, sole and unshared claimant of the
lot.
6
The truth of the matter is that sometime ago,
Protestant Sally Paringit approached Protestee Kaiser Garcia
and asked that she be allowed to build a small house on a
small portion of the subject lot in order that when her
children decide to study in Manila in the future, they could
have a place to stay, being that the family of the protestant
maintains their residence at San Vicente, East Asingan,
Pangasinan. Out of pity and compassion, the protestee
consented and the two had a verbal agreement relating to
thisplea. Thereafter, protestant constructed a small house

2
which they however never utilized. So just imagine the
surprise of the protestee when, as narrated above, he
learned that a portion consisting of 96.5 square meters of
the total area of 193 square meters of the subject lot is
already under the name of the protestant in the records of
the barangay.

The protestee likewise learned that protestant Sally G.

Paringit mortgaged the said portion a number of times to
different persons. LAter on, protestee was also informed that
the same portion is also sold by the protestant to yet
another person, manifestly and patently defrauding these
people.

Furthermore, the protestant was even more surprised

and dumbfounded when he was shown a Waiver/TRansfer of
Rights allegedly executed and signed by him. A copy of the
said document is hereto attached as Annex ___ and forms
an integrap part hereof. In the said Waiver/Transfer of
Rights, it is provided that protestant Kaiser GArcia transfers
and waives his rights and interests over a portion of the land
subject of this case. The protestant however firmly
asseverates that he has no knowledge of the existence and
execution of such document. THe protestant likewise does
not know the persons who stood as witnesses and who
signed the document.

SPECIFIC DENIALS

Protestee specifically denies, for the reasons stated

below and those under “Affirmative Defenses”, the
allegations made in the following paragraphs of the Protest:

1. Under “PARTIES”, that Protestant is a resident of

Block 190, Lot 3 Tambuli Street, Pembo City and that she
may be served with summons and other processes at said
address, the truth being that she resides at San Vicente,
East Asingan, Pangasinan. Although it is denied that Block
190, Lot 3 Tambuli Street, Pembo City is the address of
Protestant, for purposes of these proceedings, service of
pleadings shall be made upon her at said address, unless
she be represented by counsel with a different address, in

3
which case service shall be made upon said counsel, or
unless otherwise directed by this Honorable Office.

2. Paragraph 1, the alleged Marriage Contract

attached to the Protest as Annex “B” between Protestant and
Romulo Gutierez Paringit, for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to for a belief as to the truth of the
contents, genuiness and due execution of said Marriage
Contract.

3. Paragraph 2, the alleged AFP ENLISTED

PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION CARD and ID as PNP SPO1 of
Romulo Gutierez Paringit, attached to the Protest as
Annexes “C” and “D”, respectively, for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to for a belief as to the truth of the
contents, genuiness and due execution of said identification
cards.

4. Paragraph 3, the alleged CERTIFICATION dated

November 17, 1973 issued by Luis D. Ramos, Jr., Colonel,
CSC, Director of Adm. & Pers., attached to the Protest as
Annex “E”, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
for a belief as to the truth of the contents, genuiness and
due execution of said certification.

5. Paragraph 4, the alleged CERTIFICATION

(SERVICE RECORD) dated May 10, 2017 issued by Nelissa
Gomez Tibor, from PRBS RECORDS FILE, National
Headquarters, Philippine National Police, Directorate for
Personnel and Records Management, Camp Crame, Quezon
City, and Death Certificate, attached as Annexes “F” and
“G”, respectively, for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to for a belief as to the truth of the contents,
genuiness and due execution of said certifications.

6. Paragraph 5, that Protestant and Romulo Gutierez

Paringit have been in actual and continuous occupation and
possession of the subject property situated in Block 190 Lot
3 Tambuli Street, Barangay Pembo, Makati City since 1973,
and that they are entitled to remain on the property, the
truth of the matter being those stated under the “Affirmative
Defenses” below.

7. Paragraph 5.1, the alleged Water Bill from

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM as

4
of May 31, 1997 attached to the Protest as Annex “H”, for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to for a belief as
to the truth of the contents, genuiness and due execution of
said water bill.

8. Paragraph 5.2, the alleged CERTIFICATION dated

June 25, 2013 issued by Hon. Jeline M. Olfato, Punong
Barangay, attached to the Protest as Annex “I”, for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to for a belief as to the
truth of the genuiness and due execution of said
certification. The contents of said certification are specifically
denied because Protestant is not a bona fide resident of the
Barangay and does not reside and have postal address at
Block 190 Lot 3 Tambuli Street, Zone 8, Barangay Pembo,
Makati City.

9. Paragraph 5.3, the alleged letter dated October

15, 2015 released by Lourdes C. Wagan, OIC, Regional
Director of DENR, NCR to Protestant and photo of the house
of the protestant, attached to the Protest as Annexes “J” and
“K”, respectively, for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to for a belief as to the truth of the genuiness and
due execution of said letter and photo. The contents of said
letter and photo are specifically denied insofar as it is made
to appear that Protestant has titled/private property at Block
190 Lot 3 Tambuli Street, Zone 8, Barangay Pembo, Makati
City, because she does not.

10. Paragraph 5.4, the alleged WAIVER/TRANSFER OF

RIGHTS dated January 12, 2001, attached to the Protest as
Annex “L”, its contents, genuiness and due execution, for
the reason that the same is falsified as explained under the
“Affirmative Defenses” below.

11. Paragraph 6, the alleged letter dated May 10,

2017 from Protestant to Atty. Manuelta C. Jatulan, Chief
Legal Division, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to for a belief as to the truth of the genuiness and due
execution of said letter. The contents of said letter are
specifically denied insofar as it is made to appear that
Protestant own or has a right to the property at Block 190
Lot 3 Tambuli Street, Zone 8, Barangay Pembo, Makati City,
because she does not.

5
 12. Paragraph 7, insofar as it alleges that PSD-13-
005204 was procured through fraud and misrepresentation
by Protestee and that he failed to show clear, strong and
convincing documentary evidence that he is the real genuine
owner of the subject property. Protestee likewise specifically
denies the allegations that he is trying to mislead the DENR-
NCR to believe that he is the owner of the subject property,
that the only basis for said ownership is a survey conducted
on the property, that he falsely claimed that he was the
person who occupied the property at the time of the survey,
and that he failed to prove how he was able to acquire the
subject property. As explained under the “Affirmative
Defenses” below, Protestee is the true and absolute owner of
the subject property and has sufficiently proven such fact.

13. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, for being mere

opinions and conclusions of law and for the reasons stated
under the “Affirmative Defenses” below.

14. Paragraph 12, that there was a verbal and

gentleman’s agreement between Virginia Paringit Garcia and
Romulo G. Paringit, granting an urgent request to allow
Virginia Paringit Garcia, and her husband Kaiser P. Garcia, to
build a small house on the subject property in order to have
a dwelling for their youngest son, Marlon, because there was
no such verbal and gentleman’s agreement and neither was
there any such request made, and for the reasons stated
under the “Affirmative Defenses” below.

15. Paragraph 13, insofar as it is being made to

appear that Protestant has any right over the subject
property by virtue of the Amicable Settlement, the truth
being that the parties only agreed to a right of way in the
said Amicable Settlement.

16. Paragraph 14, insofar as it is alleged that

Protestant’s daughter, Lotis admitted before the Office of the
Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Pembo that there was a
waiver signed by her father, because no such admission was
made and for the reasons stated under the “Affirmative
Defenses” below. The contents of the Minutes of Meeting
dated October 12, 2016, attached to the Protest as Annex
“P”, insofar as it alleges that Lotis made such an admission,
are likewise specifically denied because they do not reflect
what truly transpired during the meeting.

6
 17. Paragraph 19, the alleged CERTIFICATE TO FILE
ACTION dated February 1, 2017, attached to the Protest as
Annex “U”, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
for a belief as to the truth of the contents, genuiness and
due execution of said certificate.

18. Paragraph 20, insofar as it alleged that Protestee

failed to comply with the Amicable Settlement, for the
reason that the same merely relates to granting a right of
way. Protestee likewise denies that he failed to comply with
the Waiver/Transfer of Rights and that the same is binding,
for the reason that it is falsified and those stated under
“Affirmative Defenses” below.

19. Paragraph 21, that it was Protestee who requested

Protestant to prepare the Waiver/Transfer of Rights and that
he signed the same, because he never made any such
request and neither did he sign the said document.

20. Paragraph 21, that Protestant is the rightful owner

of 96.5 square meters of the subject property, that
Protestant is entitled to specific performance, that Protestee
signed the Waiver/Transfer of Rights, that actual possession
of one-half portion of the subject property must be
transferred and given to protestant, for the reasons stated
under the “Affirmative Defenses” below.

21. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25, and the matters stated

under “ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION”, for being mere opinions
and conclusions of law and for the reasons stated under the
“Affirmative Defenses” below.

ISSUES
In the Protest filed by Protestant Sally G. Paringit, she
raised issues which are herein summarized as follows:

1. Whether or not Protestee Kaiser P. Garcia is qualified to

acquire Block 190, Lot 3, Tambuli Street, Barangay
Pembo, Makati City under Proclamation No. 518;

2. Whether or not the Waiver/Transfer of Rights dated

January 12, 2011 allegedly executed by Kaiser P.

7
 Garcia in favor of the Protestant is valid and binding
between the parties;

3. Whether or not the Amicable Settlement allegedly

entered into between the Protestant and Protestee
dated April 11, 2015 binds the parties;

4. Whether or not protestee Kaiser P. Garcia is the

absolute and sole owner of the lot subject of this case.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The application and interpretation

of protestant of Proclamation No. 518
are misplaced, and the same cannot
be raised and invoked in proving her
right over the lot subject of this case

In her protest, the protestant invokes Proclamation No.

518 to be her legal basis in proving that her late husband
Romulo Paringit is the qualified beneficiary of the land
subject of the case being that the latter is an enlisted
personnel of the AFP. It is the belief of the protestant that
Proclamation No. 518 strictly reserves the lands stated
under said law which includes Pembo, Makati to be for those
who serve in the military only. Paragraph 11 of the Protest
states that Romulo PAringit and his surviving spouse,
hereing protestant Sally Paringit, are qualified beneficiaries
of the land covered by the military reservation since the
former is an AFP enlisted personnel. Protestant further
contended that unlike Romulo Paringit, protestee KAiser
GArcia is a civilian, hence he cannot be considered as a
qualified beneficiary.

It is our humble opinion that the understanding and

interpretation of Proclamation N. 518 is misplaced and
erroneous.
Proclamation No. 518 merely states that the lands
stated therein, which specifically include Pembo, Makati are
excluded from the operation of Proclamation No. 4235.
Proclamation 4235 is the one which established the military
reservation known as Fort Bonifacio. Stated simply, Pembo

8
is now excluded from the coverage of Proclamation No.
4235. There was nothing provided in the law which states
that only soldiers, police, and other members of the AFP or
PNP could acquire lands situated therein.

In fact, Proclamation No. 518 even clearly and

categorically provides that the certain portions of land
embraced in the said proclamation are declared open for
disposition to bona fide occupants who are residing on the
proclaimed area on or before January 7, 1986. Evidently, the
protestant is incorrect and inaccurate in using the
Proclamation No. 518 as her legal basis in proving that she
and her late husband are the qualifies beneficiaries of the lot
subject of this case.

As it happens, Proclamation No. 518 is even favorabl1e

and further proves of the right protestee Kaiser Garcia has
over the lot. Proclamation No. 518 clearly stipulates that it
declares the lands included therein open for disposition, and
such disposition shall be limited to bona fide occupants who
are residing on the proclaimed area on or before January 7,
1986.

The protestee asserts that he and his family have been

continuously residing, occupying and possessing, under a
bona fide claim of acquisition and ownership of the subject
land since 1978. This claim is bolstered by the fact that
based on records, the protestant is the only claimant of the
subject land and was the only one who submitted a
residential free patent application. Protestant is the one who
has a better right over the same, as evidenced by the
following:

a) Application for Residential Free Patent hereto

attached as Annex __ and made an integral part hereof
______date
b) Affidavit in support of the application for residential
free patent executed by Analiza Rodriguez on September 30,
2016 hereto attached as Annex __ and made an integral
part hereof;
c) Affidavit in support of the application for residential
free patent executed by Erica Jacinto on September 30,
2016 hereto attached as Annex ___ and made an integral
part hereof;

9
 d) Lot Data Computation of Lot 3 Block 190 of Psd-13-
005204 dated ________ surveyed by Geodetic Engineer
David M. Medina attached as Annex __ and made an integral
part hereof;
e) Certified copy of the Lot Data Computation dated
October 24, 2016 signed by Ludivina Aromin, CHief of the
Land Records Section. In the said certification, it is indicated
that Kaiser GArcia is the claimant of Lot 3, Block 190 of Psd-
13-005205 with an area of 193 sq.m attached as Annex ___
and made an integral part hereof;
f) Sketch Plan of Lot 3, Block 190, Psd-13-005204 as
prepared for Kaiser P. GArcia prepared on JAnuary 11, 2011
attached as Annex __ and made an integral part hereof.
g) A picture of the house of the protestee constructed
on Lot 3, Block 190, Tambuli St., Zone 8, Brgy Pembo,
Makati City hereto attached as Annex __ and made an
integral part hereof.

Based on the foregoing, it is evident that protestee has

been in continuous and actual possession of the subject
land. As can be seen on the evidence presented, protestee is
the sole claimant of the subject land based on the records of
DENR. Furthermore, protestant is the only one who has
applied for a residential free patent application over the
subject lot. Such act is a positive and clear indication that
protestee has always been the one in possession with a bona
fide claim of ownership and acquisition.

Waiver/Transfer of Rights allegedly

executed by Protestee Kaiser Garcia
in favor of Protestant Sally G. Paringit
was not executed nor signed by the
Protestant

In her protest, Protestant alleged that Kaiser Garcia

executed a Waiver/Transfer of Rights purportedly executed
on January 12, 2011. In the said document, it was stated
that protestant transfers and waives his rights, ownership,
possession and interests over Block 190, Lot 3, Tambuli St.
ZOne 8, Pembo, Makati City consisting of 96.5 square
meters which is a portion of the total lot area of 193 square
meters in favor of protestant Sally G. Paringit. The
Waiver/Trasfer of Rights is hereto attached as Annex ____
and made an integral part hereof.

10
 The Protestee vehemently denies the genuineness,
authenticity and due execution of the said document. The
Protestee did not sign such document nor does he have any
knowledge of its existence and execution. The protestant
transaction covered by the waiver. The signature which can
be seen on top of the name KAISER GARCIA (transferor) is
not his, hence it was merely forged.

Protestee never sold nor intended to sell a portion of

the subject land to herein protestant. As a matter of fact,
what actually transpired between the two are far different
from what is now claimed and alleged by the protestee.

The truth of the matter is that sometime ago, the late

Romulo Paringit and herein protestant Sally Paringit
approached Protestant and requested the latter to allow
them to use a small portion of Lot 3, Block 190 which is now
the subject land of this dispute. The former told the latter
that they would like to construct a small house on the said
portion so that they could have a place in Manila whenever
they visit. Therefore, the protestant firmly asseverates that
the small house presented by the protestant in her protest
attached as Annex K was only constructed by the latter with
the consent and by mere tolerance of Kaiser Garcia. There
was never any agreement entered into between the
protestant and the protestee that would amount to a waiver
or transfer of rights over the portion of the subject lot.

It is also important to note that there were major

inconsistencies in the protest that cannot be ignored.

First, the protestant alleges that protestee executed a

Waiver/Transfer of Rights over the disputed land subject of
this case allegendly executed on January 12, 2011. To
reiterate, it is clearly stated therein that protestant
transferred all his rights and interest over the portion
consisting of 96.5 sq.m. which is part of the total area of
193 sq.m. of Lot 3, Block 190. HOwever, in the protest,
particularly in Paragraph 12 thereof, it is stated:
“ 12. The truth of the matter is that during the lifetime of
Virginia Paringit Garcia and Pomulo Paringit, as sibling
entered into a verbal and gentleman’s agreement and
granted the urgent request to allow Virginia Paringit Garcia
and her husband Kaiser P. Garcia to build a small house in

11
order to have a dwelling sometime in 1980 for her youngest
son, Marlon, who was given an inheritance by his late uncle
Pantaleon Polenday, an old bachelor who lived in Hawaii,
who adopted Marlon as his son, on the parcel of land
situated at Block 190, Lot 3, Tambuli Street, Barangay
Pembo, Makati.”

Here, it becomes more than apparent that the

allegations of the protestant are mere fabrications, lies and
were merely concocted. If it were true that she and Romulo
Paringit agreed to enter into a verbal agreement with
protestee and allowed the latter to build a small house on
the subject land, implying that protestant and her deceased
husband were the ones in actual and continuous possession
of the land, why then is there a need to execute a
Waiver/Transfer of Rights on January 12, 2011? If it were
true that the protestant is the one who originally occupied
the subject land and has been in continuous possession
since 1973, then the execution of the waiver/transfer of
rights which states that protestee transfers and waives his
right over a portion of the subject land would have already
been futile, pointless and unnecessary. The said
inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the protest
only strengthens our stand that what are contained in the
said protest are mere fabrications and falsehood

Second. The protestant alleges that the protestee

cannot be a lawful claimant of the subject lot because the
latter is a civilian, unlike the husband of the protestee who
was a a member of the military, arguing that Proclamation
No. 518 strictly reserves the lands covered by the said
proclamation to the military. Hence, impliedly, the
protestant is claiming and alleging that protestee Kaiser
Garcia cannot be a lawful possessor and claimant of the
property nor can he be a qualified beneficiary of the said
lots. In this regard, it is absurd for the protestant to present
the Waiver/Transfer of Rights allegedly executed by the
protestee in proving that they have already acquired from
the protestant the portion of the subject lot which is
disputed in this protest. In presenting the Waiver/Transfer of
Rights allegedly executed on January 12, 2011 as evidence,
then the protestant is now clearly acknowledging and
recognizing the protestee as a lawful claimant and possessor
of the lot. Assuming arguendo that a waiver/transfer of

12
rights was indeed entered into between the protestant and
protestee, it clearly follows that the protestee in fact
accepted and admitted that the protestee is the one who has
a better right over the land because in the said document, it
was the protestee Kaiser Garcia who allegedly transferred
rights and interests over the land in favor of protestant Sally
Paringit.

Again, these inconsistency and contradictions contained

in the protest clearly show that the allegations of the
protestant are mere fabrications.

The Amicable Settlement entered

into between the protestant and
protestee does not, in any way prove
nor show that the protestant is
the absolute and rightful owner of the
disputed portion of the subject land
subject of this controversy

In her protest, Prostestant Sally Paringit also based her

right over the subject land in dispute and presented as
evidence the Amicable Settlement executed before the Office
of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, Barangay Pembo entered into
on April 5, 2011. The protest provides that “….Kaiser Garcia
dishonored the Amicable Settlement to make it appear that
that Protestant Sally Paringit is not the owner of the half
portion containing an area of 96.5 square meters.”

This contention of the protestant is, again, illogical and

misplaced.

In the Amicable Settlement entered into by the

protestant and the protestee, there was nothing mentioned
that would clearly and intelligibly show nor imply that would
support the averment of the protestant that the amicable
settlement justifies her claim that she is the absolute and
rightful owner of the lot in question.

A careful reading of the Amicable Settlement hereto

attached as Annex ___ will show that what the parties, Sally
Paringit and Kaiser Garcia, merely agreed upon were issues
pertaining to the right of way which Kaiser Garcia agreed to
give to the protestant The protestant assails that the

13
protestee dishonored the amicable settlement. Assuming
arguendo that the protestee indeed failed to honor what was
agreed upon in the Amicable Settlement, this is however
immaterial and irrelevant to the case at bar because what is
being assailed here is who between the protestant and
protestee is the lawful claimant and possessor of the subject
land.

14