You are on page 1of 25

I

I
in,,.n, ffx!:l,;; i:'#' iljl['""G".,0
O FFIC E OFTH E PROV I NC I A L AG RA R I A N N N T'O-NTI A DJ U D I CATOR
PROVINCE OF CAPIZ
2tul Floor, Fuentes Bltlg., Fuentes Subtliyision, Roxas Ciy,
Region V I

SECOND INDORSEMENT
18 October 2017

Respectfully indorsed to Atty. Roland C. Manalaysay, Executive Director of


DARAB Secretariat of the DARAB Gentral Board with the information per record:

DARAB CASE NO.5736 (Capiz-2010)


Francisco Cordovero Becares, Jr., plaintifi,
versus
Jose Dela Cruz, defendant

An order dated November 21, 2012 ot the PARAD Jose Maria C. Combatir
denied the Notice of Appeal filed by Jose De La Cruz and accordingly, the
plaintifPs motion for the issuance of writ of execution was granted.

As a matter of fact, a Certification on the 21d day of January, 2013 has been
issued by Marlon A. Ambrosio, DARAB Provincial Sheriff of Capiz of the tum-over
of the actual possession to the plaintiff.

DARAB CASE NO.0469 (Capiz-N141


Docketed on appeal as DARAB CASE NO. 18820
Teresita B. Becares rep. by her Attomey-in-Fact,
Donnie S. Cordovero, petitioner
versus
Jose Dela Cruz, respondent

ln the January 4, 2016 Communication to the DARAB Secretariat, DARAB,


DAR Central Office, Elliptical Road, Quezon City, forwarded the complete records
ofDCN 0459 (Capiz-2014), consisting ot 122 pages as numbered. The same
Communication is signed by Marlon A. Ambrosio, Acting Clerk of the Board.

ln a Notice dated January 27,2016, Atty. Remedios U. Mupas, OlC, Aftomey


VI, DARAB Secretariat, gives notice that the appellees are required to file their
Appellee's Memorandum.

Attached are:

-Order dated November 21, 2012 ot PARAD Jose Maria C. Combatir


Certification on the 21d day of January, 2013;
January 4, 2016 Communication to the DARAB Secretariat; and
-Notice dated January 27, 2016. (Certified true copy)

tu
Provin#l
LVACI
ranan
N NUS
Adjudicator
(

(
t
Copy furnished:

1. Mr. Jose Dela Cruz


BrgY. San Jose, Roxas CifY

2. Jaime Llagundo Mabilin


Dtector lV
Presidentiat ComPlaint Center
Matacafiang, 1 005 Manila

3. file coPY 9r

IJ? loeq,l:l B

lod""isd.+ EaM
E aM. lo'e,,
I tr]pr.
El e*. I

I FEighr

TELNO

t
o
(,
{, moniss
&
U
B fblDGl
g NEth or Goods (spedt rd
fl c"*
Io ! o*'--r !o'"'s"
Dsd r&d Er,s E po.,"r,

Eot "
TOTAL (PHP)

a@ivod in M fter & Cddilbn

-
l-)epirrtment of Agrarian Reform
r#,,st Arliudication Board (DARAB)

NOf'ICE
'l'tl Atty. Fredicind<) A Talat)uoorl I l er csitaB. Becares rep. by AIF,
J & C Santos Bldg N'lcKinlev l)orrrrie S. Cordovero, Phase 2,
St. Roxas City .\lurlntan St. Gran trlains Sub{. ,J,
terLr. llollo Citl .;..i.-]r: i,r
..\-.,d
.-.,:" .t
c
:
.: I
F.}L
ulE 6-'
t i,t

?. ,r' [E B )'i# a

r-,.
Glttr.t:-l tN(lS

Per Order of the Adjudicator grarttirrg the Appeal, and upon receipt by this Office

of the complete case records of Region:rl ( ase No. 0{69(Capiz-201.1) now docketed on

appeal as DARAB Case No. 18E20 entitled "'l'erecita B. Becares rep. by her AIF,
Donnie S. Cordovero vs. Jose Dela (fruz", Apprllees are hereby required to file their
Appellee's Memorandunr within tiftecu ( l5) days fi'om receipt hereof, to the Office of
the Seoretariat, DAR Adjudication Board, .\nner Bldg, Department of Agrarian Reforrir
Clentral Olllce Compound, Elliptical Road Dilinran. Quezon City, furnishing a copy
thcreolto the appellant/s and rhe latter'r ct;irnsel. pursuanl to Sec.:l Rute XI\r ofthe 2009
D.\ RAB Rules of Procedure.
Failure to comply w.ith the abore reiluirement or upon the expiration ofthe period
for its liling shall be deemed a waiver ro surbmit tlre same and the Board shall proceed to
render judgment thereon based on the rccorils ofthe case

January 27, 2016 Quezon (iitv. l)hilrppines

Il'1.\'. t{E I s t. \It:P.\s


Auorney L'l
)AlL4B Secretariat

Concurred hy

\t--t\'. lt()l_ \D (_-. \I N{t. YS.\Y


xecutt e
l).1p-jts Srdan
I
P. lll 1D .lulias I nttjtl .\'. ;\Iueshitl
l)-lllAB, Olla ol the p-tt{tt't
f- ERTI RUE COPY

2I l:. Fnnte.t ttlrfu., l.rcnte: Sabtti.t.ritl


l{nitl (.il,y
irl A N A. AMBROSIO
TtlE BOARB Dnlr{B'crPE
A
zlddJ'BUuU0 0u[09 Jt.t. _] l'13
OlSOUgl,llV'V ito VW

ldo, lnu IUtC


\

Atv/42 /V edz,/' ar-

:ssaulrl

sljrlureld aql ]o a^lleluasaJdag


oslAoouo ]INNOC

ul

zrdef lo lluaqs lerl d8v C


otS0uswv

'Alrl sq(r 'CIOZ' Cr) ltq') p Aep 1+H 'srql panssl


b'I
'oJa^oproJ aruuoO lrer-ur-AUV laq Aq paluasarda., 'lJrlureld uralaq ol zrdel
'Alrl sexou 'asof ues At.rg te palerol asetr sltll u! aulploqpuel lf,alqns aql ,o uorle^rllnf pue uorssassod
len]re pue 1e:rAqd aq1 JaAo uJnt fuaqs lertrur^ord 8VUVO pautrsrapun aql 'luepualao /ZnUf
\nlo lsof snsJa^ Jjlluleld ' ut 'sluvllS oul^oouot olstfNvul pallrlua 9€/s 'oN asel 8vuv0 to 0I0z
'82 llnf palep 'zrdel Jo arur^oJd aql rol Jolelrpntpv ./atrUJO urrorau uerreJEv leDur^ord 'UllVgWOf,
) vluvl l lsot alqeJouoH Aq panssr uounlaxl ]o llrM aql ,o anul^ r(q teql &lual ol sl slql
NUlf NOI AVl^l lr |AOHM OI

NOllVllllUl)

U.l0 AI.)
.).ro JcurAotd
/O8 N()lIVllOrlf0Y
6 uar.rc.riy.1o 1u;ru1.lerJq1
fiIq6 :rgt.1o :rr1qnde1

t.

\-. v
-f-
t imposed
nolice of
by the

olreody become finol qnd execuiory. The proyer for the issuonce of the writ
execution is in order os it becomes mondotory or minisieriol duty of this Office
issue lhe some (For Eostern SuretY &thsJlonce Co.. lnc. vs. Vdo. Del
I

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued de


defendont Jose Delo Cruz's Notice of Appeol for lock of merit.
Plointiff's motion for issuonce of wril of execution is hereby gron
Accordingly. let o writ of execution be issued implementing the Decision
July 28, 2010 rendered in lhe obove-entitled cose.

so

Nove,tnbe,r 27 ; 20 7 2, R.o1ra* Cay, CapW

Provir\ci.d/ Re{orruAdjudler

,1

i'r
t ED TRUE COPY

*LO0{
,:q(0F11
A o 9
ll'iE
fr
o. o Nofice ot Appeol together with the Appellont's
Filing
Memorondum: with lhe Adjudicotor who rendered the
decrsbn or finol order oppeoled from;

b. Furnishing copies of the soid Nolice of Appeol together


I
with the Appellont's Memorondum lo opposing portyls
and counsells; ond

l c. Poying an oppeQl fee of One lhousond Pesos (Php ,,,;


1,000.00) lo the DAR Coshier where the Oftice of the
Adjudicolor is siluoted or lhrovgh postol money order,
poyoble to lhe DAR Coshier where lhe Otfice of the
Adjudicotor is sifuofed. ot the option of fhe oppellonl.

A pouper litigont sholi be exempl from the poyment of the


oppeol f ee.
Proof of service of Nofice of Appeol to the offected porfies
ond fhe Boord ond poyment of oppeol tee sholl be filed. within the
reglementory peiod, with the Adjudicolor o quo ond sholl form pod
of fhe records of fhe cose. "

Moreover, Section 4 of lhe some rule provides thol on oppeol is deemed


perfected upon complionce of Section I thereof.
ln the instonl cose, more thon one ond o holf yeors hod elopsed from his
receipt of the decision doted July 28.2012 on August 12,2010 when he filed the
Notice of Appeol on Moy 30, 2012. Cleorly, woy beyond lhe reglemenlory
period of fifteen (15) doys from receipi lo oppeol lhe soid decision.

Even gronting thol defendonl hos nol received lhe decision from Felicitos
Cordovero on Augusl 12, 2010, slill the Notice of Appeol is filed out of time. After
Defendont wos inlormed of the soid decision by the MARO on lhe first week of
April 2012, he immediotely checked ond confirmed lhe some with the DARAB
office. Defendont ond his ottorney-in-focl even checked lhe records fconlrory
to lheir loler ollegoiion in their Answer to the supplemenlol opposition thot they
ottempled to hove the decision pholocopied to no ovoil "becouse lhe records
ore misploced qnd could nowhere to be found"). At the very leost, defendqnt
hod notice of the decision on lhe lost working doy of the firsl week of April 2012
which is April 6, 2012, giving him until Aprit 23, 2ot2 to file his oppeol considering
thol the supposed lost doy of the fifleen (.l5) doy reglementory period is April 21,
2012 which folls on soiurdoy ond the next working doy is Mondoy, Apnl 23,2012.
The Notice of Appeol filed on April 30, 2Ol2 wos seven (7) doys lole.

Bending bockwords even more by ossuming rhot defendont hod notice


of fhe decision only on April 30,2012 when he filed the Nolice of Appeol, the
oppeol is nol perfecled. Section I (o) of Rule XIV requires lhol t he Notice
of
Appeol sholl be filed wilh lhe Appelionl' s Memorondum. As per
records,
defendonl fil l5 "Appeolont Memorondum"
only on June 20, 2012. Evidenfly,
ar rRUE COPY 8

M LOf{ a" AI,'BF os, .l


:i'vfBO[F0 D/in i '*.r rF.t z l.
I
"t{

] lndeed, on the scheduled heoring losl September 19. 2012, Felicit


Cordovero oppeored before lhis Adjudicotor ofter she wos subpoen
Iherein, this Adjudicolor preliminorily osked her if she could recoll receiving
copy of the decision doted July 28, 2012 ond giving lhe some to defendo
Jose Delo Cruz ond she onswered thol she could not recoll. However, Felic
Cordovero wos nol pul on o wiiness stond becouse the soid heoring
postponed ofter the monifestotion of deceosed plointiff 's wife Teresito Be
lr, lhot their newly reloined cotrnsel Atly. Disluro will not be o
Su bseq uen tly, Felicilos Cordovero executed on offidovit whi ch wos sub
by ihe ploinliff in support of her Supplementol Opposition to the Nolice
Appeol.
Felicitos Cordovero's offidovit moy be inconsistent with her eodi
stotement mode on September 19, 2012 heoring, however. the defendon
through his otlorney-in-focl, never moved for o clorificolory heoring in order t
cross-exomine Felicitos Cordovero to offord her o chonce lo exploin th
inconsislencies between her offidovil ond the slotement she mode
September 19, 2012. Hence, the stoiements in her offidovit stond.

Also, defendont's contention thot ploinliff's supplementol opposilion


the Notice of Appeol is "out of bounds" is obsurd. According lo him, in on ord
doled Moy 9,2012, ploinliff wos given o period of fifleen doys from receipt
lhe order to file his comment/opposition lo the Notice of Appeol or hos u
Moy 24, 2012 to comply with the soid order; ond, lhol plointiff foiled to file
comment/opposilion within the prescribed period, thus. the supplement
opposition could not prosper. Records show thol the order doted Moy 9, 20
wos received by Atty. Alfonso Debugue, the counsel lhen of lhe plointiff,
Moy 22,2012, hence, he hos until June 6,2012 io file o comment/opposiiio
Alty. Debuque even filed plointiff 's "Opposition lo the Notice of Appeol wi
Motion for lssuonce Order of Finolity ond Writ of Execution" on on eorlier dqte
Moy 16,2012. Moreover, during the heoring on September27,2012, defendon s
otlorney-in-foct did not oblect to lhe motion of Atly. Disluro to file o suppleme t
lo ploinliff's opposition to the nolice of oppeol, therefore the some wos gront
ond defendont wos olso given lime to file his comment therelo.
On the Second lssue.

The governing provisions on oppeol with regords to coses filed before t ts


forum is found on Rule XtV of the 2009 DARAB Rules of procedure. section I
the soid rule provides, lo wit:

"Appeol to the Board. - An oppeol moy be loken lo lhe


Boord from o resorution, decr'sion or finol order of the Adjudicotor
thot completely disposes of lhe cose by either or both of lhe porties
within o of fifteen (t5) doys from receipl of the
period
resolution/decision/finor order oppeored from or of the denior of
the i
s motion for reconsiderolion b Y:
OER TRUE COPY
7

M LOf{ A, Af,{ BP0sto


L- '1.1 T[f B0IR0 D 4P{B-n0prz
ft
t I
Thus, the vilol issues thot ore to be resolved on this occosion ore th e
following:

l. Whether or nol lhe Deelslon doted July 28, 2O1O wos duly served
lhe defendqnt ond,

2. Whelher or nol lhe Nollce of Appeol wos ieosonqbly flled by


defendonl.

On lhe Firsl lsrue.

Records reveol thot lhe Decision doted July 28, 2010 wos senl t
defendont Jose Delo Cruz through registered moil to his oddress ol Brgy. S
Jose, Roxos City. As indicoted in the Regisiry Return Receipl, the soid decision
wos received by o certoin Felicitos Cordovero on August 12, 2010. ln her
offidovii execuled on October 1,2012, Felicitos Cordovero stoled thol she wos
oble to give to defendonl Jose Delo Cruz the leller, which she come lo know
loler on os fhe decision, of oround 4:@ o'clock in the oflernoon of the some
doy when Jose Delo Cruz possed by her slore. According to her. lhe moil conier
would normqlly leove some letters 10 her slore becouse he know for o focl lhol
ihe oddressee hove to poss by her store every time he goes out of lhe
borongoy ond olso when he returns home.
However, defendont denied receiving lhe soid decision from Felicitos
Cordovero nor lhe lqtter informed him of the some. He cloims thot the offidovil
executed by Mrs. Felicitos Cordovero is highly disputoble becouse il wos signed
one week ofler the heoring on September 19, 2012 wherein, ofter being
queslioned by this Adjudicotor, she onswered thol she wos nol sure ond could
nol recoll whelher she give il or not to Jose Delo Cruz.

Adjudicotor connot give credence lo lhe ollegolion of lhe defendont


This
a
a
thot he wos nol oble to receive o copy of lhe decision doled July 28, 2010.
Records showed ihot the summons ond lhe notice of initiol heoring oddressed
to the defendont wos olso received by Felicitos Cordovero ond defendonl
oppeored during the initiol heoring lost April 8. 2010 occomponied by his
ollorney-in{oct Edgordo Edwin Segoyo. His oppeoronce during the initiol
heoring only indicoles lhol defendont indeed received the summons ond the
notice of heoring from Felicitos cordovero. lt musl be observed thot during the
soid heoring defendqnl never monifested thot service of notices, orders ond
olher processes of this office should be served upon him direclly ond not
through Felicitos cordovero. Thus. subsequenily. the decision doted July 2g,2olo
wos ogoin delivered by ihe moil corrier through Felicitos cordovero. ln o similor
siluolion. in the cose of pClB vs. Ortiz, el. ol., L-49223. Moy 29, l9gl , where
counsel who hod thek office on lhe third floor of lhe building hod virtuolly
ocquiesced lo service of preodings on them through o corporotion on the
ground floor of the buirding by not objecting ro previous service
lhrough the
lotler, the supreme courl rured thot subsequenl service in such monner
is volid.

CERII RUE GOPY


6

L
MA of{
"fl llf
A AMBposto
80ARD D.4iqB.rrF I r
0
/
records ore misploced ond nowhere to be found" by the DARAB stoff. T I
plointiff olso olleges thot since defendont ottended the initiol heoring beco
of the tirst subpoeno sent by this Office which wos received by Mrs. Felici 5
Cordovero, he olso generolizes ond concludes thot the decision sent d
.l2,20,l0
received by Mrs. Felicilos Cordovero on August wos olso received
the defendont when in foct he never received o copy of such decision
DARAB or Mrs. Felicilos Cordovero; thot the offidovit executed by Mrs. S

Cordovero is highly disputoble becouse it wos signed one week ofter e


heoring on September 19, 2012 wherein, ofler being questioned by ts
Adiudicolor, she onswered thot she wos not sure ond could nol recoll whe r
she give it or nol lo Jose Delo Cruz; Thol it is well estoblished proctice in
conespondence thot the porties be senl courl notices, motions, decisions d
documenls through registered moil, some wilh return cord in order to esto sh
ihe foct thot the receiving porty hos indeed received such documents; t ol
defendonl's reoson for lhe Notice of Appeol is not flimsy but is bosed n
procedurol due process ond justice ond on the focis ond on the eo er
teslimony of Mrs. Felicilos Cordovero herself lhot she wos not sure ond could oi
recoll whether she gove the decision to .Jose Delo Cruz or nol; thol, defend nt
never received the decision from Mrs. Felicilos Cordovero nor the defend ts
were informed by Mrs. Felicilos Cordovero of such copy of lhe decision; I t.
there is still no officiol Order of Finolity by this Office on this cose. Fin llv.
defendonl posited lhol the Supplemenlol Opposilion 1o the Notice of Ap
filed on September 28, 2012 is out of bounds becouse occording to him ploi iiff
hos only until Moy 24, 2012 lo file his commenl opposition to the notic of
oppeol pursuoht to lhe Order doted Moy 9,2012.
ln resolving the pending incidents, it musl be emphosized lhol the iss ES
roised by the defendont touching upon lhe merils cose will not be consi d
onymore becouse he is precluded from roising lhem ol lhis luncture consi ng
l._ lhot, by foiling to file his onswer io the comploinl despile being given odditi ol
opportunity lo do the some, he is deemed lo hove okeody woived his righf to
file on onswer. Records would indicote lhol defendont ond his ottorney-in- fpct
ollended the initiol heoring on April 8, 2010 ond he wos given on oddiliqnol
period of twenty doys lo file his onswer, bul he foiled to file his onswer. Ukev$e,
defendont olso foiled to otlend lhe pre liminory conference scheduled on litoy
18. 2010 despite notice. Hence, o decis ion wos rendered on July 28,2010
plointiff formolly offered his evidenc es. Procedurol due process wos eler
observed when defendonl wos given opporlunity lo file his onswer in line {uly yith
lhe ruling in Mufuc cose ciied. lhough nol fully comprehended ond misop pl ed
by the defendont in his cose.
I
Likewise, it is worth mentioning
thol thi s Adjudicolor hod. for severol tirnes.
odvised the defendont to secure o servic es of o lowyer or of the
DAR-Cgpiz
Legol Assistonce Division. However, for reosons unknown to this Adjudic
lor,
defendont opted to be defended by his ollorney-in-focl

tz
t
{
/
,
olreody included in the Lond Voluotion Summory ond Former's Underloking on
{
August 1992 but wos deliberotely ond moliciously erosed by MARO Delio
Romuoldo during her term for reoson ihol ihere wos on olleged prolest; th
occording to Delio Romuoldo such comploinl orose from Edilberlo Binibini wh
olleged thot o portion of his lot wos included in the surveyed Lot No. 4071-H-l o
the 1989 DAR survey; thol to resolve the issue of boundories between Jose
Cruz ond Mr. Binibini, the DAR once ogoin conducled o survey on Februory 201
I ii I r , ond brought with them slone morkings to this effecl; thot the Lond Bonk of
Philippines ond the DAR exploined to lhe defendont thol occording to
lond poymenl wos olreody subsumed by the poyment of rentols lrom 1972-1994
thot Anlonio Delo Cruz hos been cullivoling the lond since 1953 olong with hi
son Jose Delo Cruz who is now lhe ocluol tenonl ond hos been religiousl
poying the renlols os slipuloled in lhe Agriculturol Leosehold Controct dot
Apnl 22, 1974; thdl'there is no deliberote refusol to poy the leose rentol os
defendonl hos been religiously poying the owner for more thon twenty (20)
yeors olreody
I

Defendont proys for the revenol of the decision ond for the reinsloiement
of the defendont os tenont beneficiory of lhe mentioned lot under PD 27. Hq
likewise proys lhol the DAR officiols be summoned ond lo bring documenls w irh
them lo shed light ond provide more informotion on the olleged comploinl
Mr. Binibini.

On September 12,2012. on order wos issued direcling the issuonce of


subpoeno for Felicitos Cordovero lo oppeor ond for her to leslify o
defendont's ollegotion thol he hos not received o copy of the decision dote
Jvly 28,2010. A subpoeno wos subsequently isued pursuont to lhe soid ord
directing Felicilos Cordovero to oppeor before this Office on September I
nt2. ?

On the scheduled heoring on Seplember 19,2Q12, present were Teresi


Becores, the wife of deceosed plointiff Froncisco Becores, Jr., defendonl Joqe
l
Delo Cruz, his ottorney-in-focl Edgordo Edwin Segoyo ond Felicitos Cordoverg.
The heoring did nol push lhrough due to the unovoilobility of the counsel 6l
Teresito Becores ond wos reset to September 27,n12. I

I
ln o heorihg on Sepiember 21 ,2012, Atty. Disluro monifested thot t
plointiff died on June 16, 201I ond thot he is survived by his wife leresito rc(
ond thqt he is intending lo file o moiion for substitulion of the porty-plointiff o
o supplementol opposition to the opposilion to defendonl's notice of op
within tive doys. ln the inlerest of justice soid molions were gronted d i
defendonl wos likewise given the some period of time from receipl lo file ts
commenl thereto.

On Oclober l, 2An, simultoneously filed o motion for substilution, proyt


thot plointiff Froncisco Becores be substituted by hi s surviving wife T s
o
Becore nd o supplementol opposition to defendonl,s notice of oppeol.

TRUE.COPY 3

c
M ,/, N A. AMBROSIO
CLERKOF ItIE BOARD DAR{B.C4FIZ

--_-._._----
;il

I
/

,""
residing since ol Brgy. Son Jose, Roxos City uniil lhe present iime; thol ,rnr. fl
Jose is one (l) kilometer more or less distonce from DARAB, Roxos City; thot
defendont, thru his ottorney-in-foct, hos olleged thot he never received the
decision doted July 28, 20120; thot the soid ollegotion is withoul meril in fqct,
ond controry to low ond jurisprudence, os it is impossible for the defendqht
I
never to receive the soid decision considering lhot Brgy. Son Jose is one (l)
kilometer more or less from the Adjudicotion Boord, Roxos City; Thot, with th
finolity of the decision, on order wri'l 6f execution of the decision on July 28,
be issued for its execution; thot defendonl moy oppeol ihe decision of
Provinciol Adjudicotor on ony of the following grounds: o.) thot there is grove.
obuse of discretion on the port of the Provinciol Adludicotor; b.) thot the order
or decision is obloined through froud or coercion. or groft ond conuplion; c.)
lhot enors in the findings of foct or conclusion of low were committed which, if
not conected, woukj couse grove ond ineporoble domoge or injury to lhe
oppellont; ond. d.) the oppeol moy be token from on order or decision of lhe
Provinciol Adjudicotor to the BOARD wilhin ihe period of frfteen (15) doys from
receipl of the decision oppeoled, ond serving o copy to the opposite or
odverse porty. Plointiff prqys thot lhe notice of oppeol be sel oside, on Order of
Fnolity of the decision be issued; o wril of execulion be issued ond for the DAR
Sheriff to enforce the some ogoinst defendont ond other persons octing in his
beholf ond residing in the subject lond.
On June 2O.,2012.defendont. thru his Attorney-ln-Foct Edgordo Edwin A.
Segoyo. filed on l'Appeolont Memorondum" doted June 13. 2012 which
substontiolly stoies thot defendont never received the soid decision; thot he
found out thot o, cerloin Felicitos Cordovero of Brgy. Son Jose. Roxos City
received the some; thot he wos never informed by nor received o copy the soid
decision from Felicitos Cordovero.

Defendonl further sloied lhot he wos o residenl of Brgy. Son Jose from
birth, o former Borongoy Kogowod ond presenlly o Borongoy Treosurer ond the
cunenl BARC choirmon; thol ploinliff Froncisco Becores, jr. while he is one of lhe
living heirs of the lote Esler cordovero, from the storl of lhe courl proceedings,
did nol presenl ony documents confirming ond esloblishing his penonolity for
ond in beholf of lhe living heirs of lhe lote Ester cordovero; lhot he is not the
estoblished odministrotor for he hos no outhorizolion nor o holder of o speciol
Power of Attorney to represent oll the living heirs of Ester Cordovero; thot
while
indeed there wos on Agniculturol leosehold conlrocl execuled on Apdl 22, 1971
between the lote Ester cordovero ond Anlonio Delo cruz covering Lot No. 4071-
H-l conloining on oreo of 1.25 hectores, more or less, lhere is no kulh to the
siqlement of the plointiff lhol Antonio Delo cruz wos olreody deod but is
v ery
much olive ond slill lives of Brgy. Son Jose, Roxos Ci ty ond is now 102 yeors
old;
thot on opproved survey plon doted December 12, 1989 wos issued by
the
Deporlment of Agrorion Reform (DAR) showing ond indicoling omong
olhers
lhe lol pre y'ond legolly possessed, developed ond tilled by Antonio Delo
Cruz reo of 1.9369 hectores; ihol defendonl's nome wos
$EftJIF UE,GOPY
1
.1 2

r::
MAI?
.ERXOF
f{ A, AMBROSIO
h E BOAND D/IRAB.CAP':
r
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARIAAENT Of AGRARIAN REFORil
Odfufuann fioaU
?rolinre/ of Co+t y
z/f fuaayBW,
Fue;tey Svn>d,, Roxa* C4Cy

FRANCISCO C. BECARES, oAnAB CASE No.5736


Substlluled by Teresllo Becores, (capLf2oto)
?14i,1frtr,

-ve(ttk -
For : Elect me nt and, D am4e,y
JOSE DETA CRUZ,
Oe*nd,urtt
X

ORDER
For resolutlon is the "Notice of Appeol" doled April 25. 2012, filed b
Edgordo Edwin A. Segoyo, the ottorney-in{oct of defendont Jose Delo Cruz, o
April 30. 2012.

Defendont olleged lherein lhol lhere wos olreody o decision doted Ju


28,2010 ejecting defendont kom the subject londholding identified os Lot N
4O7l-H-1, wilh on oreo of 19,369 squore meters. locoted ot Brgy.Son Jo
Roxos Cily; thol defendqnt never knew of such decision until first week of
2012 when the Municipol Agrorion Reform Officer (MARO) of lhe Deportment
Lond Reform informed the former of such decision; thot defendont immediot
checked with the office of the DARAB ond confirmed such decision; thot th
never received o copy of such decision; thol ihey checked with the DAR
I records ond found out thol o cerloin Felicitos Cordovero of Brgy. Son Josq,
Roxos City received o copy of the decision; lhot they never received such
decision from Felicilos Cordovero nor lhey were informed by Felicitos Cordovero
of such decision; thol lhere is siill no Order of Finolity on this cose. Henc
defendonl proys thot he be provided with o copy of the decision ond thot
be given thirty (30) working doys ofter receipl ol the decision lo onswer i
issues roised by the plointiff.

An order doted Moy I , 2012 wos issued giving ploinliff fifleen (I 5) doys
file o commenl/opposition lo the soid "Notice of Appeol".

Atty. Alfonso D. Debuque, counsel for the plointiff Froncisco Cordov


Eecores, filed on "Opposilion to Notice of Appeol ond Motion for lssuon
Order of Finolity ond Writ of Execution" on Moy 18. 2012 wherein he olleged th t
the olleged ottorney-in-foct Edwin A. Segoyo hos no legol personolity to ftle t
notice of oppeol; lhot records show lhe decision in lhe obove DARAB cose S

rendered on July 28, 2Ol0 ond wos duly received on Augusf 12, 2012 by A
.De donl Jose Delo Cruz hos been octuolly ond continu
CERTIFJ UE GOPY I
f,
MAPL N A. AMBROSIO
cLgnK0 E BOARO DTFAB.CAFIZ r
of ABr arian Retor$
DeP:rrt ment Boa rd (D ARAT
on
Ad I u dicati
."#k,
NOTICE
'I tl
{n:Hl,":mdil'
( r1)-
t'silvs$:l'llTrJ taro, llollo i'
..:.,, I

t/ j
,i- { L\. - ill
i", .,' r'
li.-
--i"j
,
2
It B I I ttttu

I.,{
GREL,TINGS

Per Order olthe Adjudicator granting the Appeal, and upon receipt by this Office
of the complete case records of Regional (lase No. 0,,t69(Capiz-201.1) now docketed on
appeal as DARAB Case No. 18820 entitled "'l'erecita B. Becares rep. by her AIF,
Donnie S, Cordovero vs. Jose Dela Crrrz", Appellees are hereby required to file their
Appellee's lVlenrorandum within lifteen ( l5) days from receipt hereof, to the Offrce ol
the Secretariat, DAR Adjudication Board, Anner Bldg., Department of Agrarian Refbrm
Central Offtce Compound, Elliptical Road. Diliman, Quezon City, furnishing a copv
thereofto the appellant/s and the latrer's counsel, pursrrant to Sec.4 Rule XIV ofthe 2009
DARAB Rules of Procedure.
Failure to comply with the above requirement or upon the expiration ofthe period
lor its filing shall be deemed a waiver 1o submit the same ard the Board shall proceed to
render judgment thereon based on the records of the case.

January 27,2016 Quezon City, I'hilippines

.{'r"t'Y. ltE S U. I,IUP.{S


Attornel; VI
B Secretariat

Concurled by t
tTT'\',. tto NDC YSAY
xecu trt-e
DAkAts Semtm

tt:
P.111, 'lD .[u/ia: I u d S. lluestn
D,{l<Ats, Ojice ol rhe PAlL,ll)
21 l;, l'irtnte.s BLlg., l'wntes .fubdii.siat,
l\uus Lily

You might also like