Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD
Province of Tarlac
Barangay San Miguel, Tarlac City
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR

ELMER G. FACUN and ANALITA I.

FACUN,
Plaintiffs,

-versus- DARAB CASE NO. III-T-7462

to 7465-21

AIDA BUMANLAG, EDEN

BUMANLAG AND ALL OTHER OR
ANY PERSON/S DERIVING RIGHTS
UNDER THEM

X--------------------------------------------------X

ANSWER with AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

RESPONDENT, by herself, unto this Honorable Office, most

respectfully submit this Answer with Affirmative Defenses, to wit:

I. TIMELINESS

On 31 August 2022, Respondent received from this Honorable

Office, a Summons and Notice of Hearing in DARAB Case No. III-T-

7967-22 for Recovery of Possession filed by Complainants Elmer G.

Facun and Analita I. Facun dated 19 August 2022.

 Under Section 38 of Rule VII of the The 2021 Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Revised Rules of

Procedure, the respondent is given a non-extendible period of ten

(10) days upon receipt of summons within which to file the Answer

or Comment. Thus, herein respondent is given until 10 September

2022 to file her Answer. However, as 10 September 2022 falls in a

Saturday, she is allowed to file her Answer until 12 September 2022.

II. ADMISSIONS/DENIALS

1. Paragraph 1 of Complainants’ Complaint for Recovery of

Possession is admitted as these are reflective of their personal

circumstances as well as their residence;

2. Paragraph 2 is denied with qualification with regards to the

address of respondent Eden Bumanlag;

3. Paragraph 3 is specifically and vehemently denied with regards

to the complainants being the “instituted tenant tillers” of the

landholding formerly owned by our father, Aquilino

Bumanlag. The same would be discussed in my Affirmative

Allegations;

4. Paragraph 4 is specifically and vehemently denied for being

fictitious. Complainants are neither the tenant-tillers nor did

 they start possession of the subject landholding on 1998.

Likewise, no lease hold rentals were given to herein

respondent. This fact would be discussed in my Affirmative

Allegations;

5. Paragraph 5 is likewise specifically and vehemently denied as

Eden Bumanlag has been living and working in Dubai since the

early 1990s. She could not demand the fifty (50) cavans of palay

every cropping period as she is not there to receive it;

6. Paragraph 6 is specifically and vehemently denied. There are

no lease rental payments so respondent cannot issue any

receipts. While it is admitted that the complainants did possess

the property by virtue of the TOLERANCE and GOOD WILL of

herein respondent and her siblings as they are blood-relatives,

hence, the supposed trust and confidence between

complainants and respondents and their siblings. Such

relationship would be further discussed in my Affirmative

Allegations;

7. Paragraph 7 is specifically denied with qualifications.

Complainants could not have been surprised with the

 bulldozing as they were informed prior to such actions as oral

demands to vacate the same were given to them;

8. Paragraph 8 is categorically denied as no proof of the

confrontation with the BARC Chairman;

9. Paragraph 9 is categorically denied as these are conclusions of

law which have no factual and evidentiary support;

10.Paragraph 10 is admitted.

III. AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS

11. The landholding subject of this dispute is currently covered by

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 48446 / Emancipation

Patent (EP) No. 007116321, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)

No. 48447/ Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 007116332, Transfer

Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 48448/ Emancipation Patent (EP)

No. 007116343, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 48449/

Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 007116354, Transfer Certificate of

Title (TCT) No. 48450/ Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 00711636 5,

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 48451/ Emancipation

Patent (EP) No. 007116376 and Transfer Certificate of Title

1
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “1”
2
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “2”
3
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “3”
4
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “4”
5
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “5”
6
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “6”
 (TCT) No. 48452/ Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 00711636 7

(hereinafter referred to collectively as “Subject Property”),

registered in the name of Aida M. Bumanlag (herein

respondent), Eden M. Bumanlag (one of the respondents

herein), James Ian S. Bumanlag, Fe M. Bumanlag, Rubie Ann S.

Bumanlag, Maria Luisa M. Bumanlag and Carlos M. Bumanlag,

respectively, of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Tarlac.

12. On 28 May 2003, me and my siblings, Ma. Luisa B. Flores,

Ruben M. Bumanlag, and Fe B. Espinosa entered into a

“Katunayan8” before the Office of the Sangguniang Barangay of

Barangay Dolores, Tarlac City, Tarlac. In said “Katunayan”,

complainant Elmer Facun acknowledged that he will be

working in the Subject Property merely as a farm worker and

not a tenant. Likewise, he acknowledged that he has no say in

the coverage of the land of the late Aquilino I. Bumanlag. The

particular provision in the “Katunayan” is hereto quoted as

follows:

7
A photocopy of said title is hereto attached and marked as Annex “7”
8
A copy of said “Katunayan” is hereto attached and marked as Annex “8”
“Napagusapan namin na siya magtratrabaho bilang bayaran sa

simula hanggang sa pag-ani ng walang obligasyon sa reporma ng lupa

ng mga yumaong Aquilino I. Bumanlag.” (Emphasis supplied).

13. Complainants were allowed to till and cultivate the Subject

Property within one (1) year. However, upon the lapse of the

same, I, together with my siblings and registered owners still

allowed them to continuously occupy, possess and cultivate the

Subject Property owing to the fact that one of the Complainants

is our relative.

14. When me and the other registered owners needed the Subject

Property already, Complainants refused to return the same. I

and the other registered owners were aghast as they are now

claiming that they have rights over the Subject Property and

that we should compensate them. Worse, they went around

telling other people in the barangay that we should give them

5,000 square meters of the Subject Property.

15. Such unjust failure on the part of the Complainants to return

the Subject Property caused mental anguish, serious anxiety

and wounded feelings. Even their act of telling other people of

 the “family dispute” among us relatives besmirched our

reputation.

16. Adding salt to the wound, we even had a confrontation before

the Department of Agrarian Reform Bureau of Agrarian Legal

Assistance. However, while it is admitted that such

confrontation occurred, no settlement was reached as

Complainants are asking a staggering amount of Three Million

Pesos (P3,000,000.00) to compensate them for our kindness and

generosity in tolerating their occupation and possession of the

Subject Property long.

17. Subsequently, the summons of this Honorable Office were

received by herein respondent. Because of the inconvenience

caused by the Complainants, we were forced to engage the

services of a lawyer, furthering the damages that were done

against us, respondents and even the other registered owners.

IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

18. Under Section 13 Rule III of the 2021 DARAB Revised Rules of

Procedure, it states that this Honorable Office cannot take

cognizance of any agrarian case, dispute or controversy, unless

a certification is presented from the BARC of the barangay

 where the land involved is located or the Municipal Agrarian

Reform Officer (MARPO), to the effect that the dispute has been

submitted to it for mediation or conciliation without any

success or settlement.

19. Applying the above-cited proviso of this Honorable Office’s

Revised Rules of Procedure, it is apparent that the case is

DISMISSIBLE considering: a) No BARC Certification was

attached to the Complaint stating that Complainant and herein

respondent had undergone mediation proceedings before it

and no settlement was reached; and b) No MARPO

Certification was likewise attached to the Complaint stating

that Complainant and herein respondent had undergone

mediation proceedings before it and no settlement was reached.

20. Another infirmity that the herein respondent has observed is

the improper service of summons to respondent Eden

Bumanlag. As previously mentioned, as early as the 1990s, she

has continuously stayed and worked in Dubai. While it is true

that she comes home, albeit, rarely, jurisdiction over the person

of the respondent was not properly acquired as she is not

currently from Brgy. Dolores, Tarlac City.

 21. The fact of absence of respondent Eden Bumanlag is proven by

a Certificate of Employment9 issued by her employer in Dubai.

In said Certificate of Employment, it is stated that respondent

Eden Bumanlag her employment started as early as 16 October

1994.

22. Another procedural defect was the non-inclusion of the other

registered owners in the Complainants’ complaint for recovery

of possession. It is eye catching that Complainants allege that

they are the “instituted tenant tillers” in a landholding with an

area of Twenty Eight Thousand (28,000) square meters, more or

less. Even adding the two titles registered in my name and my

co-respondent Eden Bumanlag, the total area would only sum

up to Eight Thousand (8,000) square meters, more or less.

Therefore, the non-inclusion of the other registered owners in

the Complainants complaint is a fatal defect since no full relief

could be granted to him as he could not recover his full

possession of the 28,000 square meter-land he is claiming as

only two owners are impleaded.

9
A print out of the Certificate of Employment of Respondent Eden Bumanlag is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “9”
 23. Even without these procedural defects, the complaint must still

fail.

24.Complainants bank on their baseless allegations and insistence

that they are tenants of the Subject Property. However, such

allegations and insistence are, at best, self-serving and should

be taken with a grain of salt.

25. Jurisprudence has already stated the elements of agricultural

leasehold tenancy, to wit:

a. The parties are the landowner and tenant;

b. The subject matter is agricultural land;

c. There is consent between the parties;

d. The purpose is agricultural production;

e. There is personal cultivation by the tenant;

f. There is sharing of the harvests between the parties10.

26. As in this case, consent and sharing of harvest is undeniably

missing.

27. Respondents neither consented nor allowed Complainants to

become tenant in the Subject Property. Such intention could be

clearly seen in the Katunayan that was herein attached, where I,

together with my other siblings, called him a “magtratrabaho

10
Vicente Adriano v. Alice Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, July 5, 2010
 bilang bayaran” and treated him as a farmworker rather than a

tenant. What discombobulates me is Complainants insistence

that they are the “instituted tenant tillers” when the Katunayan

dated 2003 clearly shows that he knows that he is merely a

farmworker. Likewise, consent was not obtained from the other

registered owners of the Subject Property.

28. Sharing of the crops likewise is absent as no lease rental

payments, or in the vernacular, pabunga were given to me and

my co-respondent Eden Bumanlag. Even Complainants’ claim

that Eden Bumanlag claimed for a specific share in the

agricultural production (50 cavans of palay per cropping) is

negated by the fact that the latter is, most of her time, abroad.

29. It is elementary in agrarian laws that the existence of tenancy

relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a

tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure 11. All

requisites must first concur in order to establish the existence of

tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites

is fatal12.

11
Cornelio De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 153595, November 23, 2007
12
Rodolfo Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., G.R. No. 172146, July 30, 2008
 30. Finally, in Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme

Court had the opportunity to state that self-serving statements

regarding the existence of tenancy relations could not

establish the claimed relationship. The fact alone of working

on another’s landholding does not raise a presumption of the

existence of agricultural tenancy.

31. In here, it is apparent that aside from the tall allegations of

Complainants that they are tenants, they failed to adduce

evidence to support the same. Thus, warranting the outright

dismissal of their complaint against herein Respondents.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing premises, it is most

respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Office that a DECISION be

issued:

1. DISMISSING the instant complaint filed against the

respondents;

2. ORDERING the Complainants to pay the respondents the

amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as Moral

Damages; and,
 3. ORDERING the Complainants to pay the respondents TEN

THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as Exemplary Damages.

4. ORDERING the Complainants to pay the respondents THIRTY

THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as Attorney’s Fees.

Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable in the

premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted. 12 September 2022. Tarlac City.

AIDA M. BUMANLAG
Respondent
 VERIFICATION
I, AIDA M. BUMANLAG, of legal age, Filipino,
married/single and a resident of Barangay Dolores, Tarlac City, under
oath, do hereby depose and state:
1. That I am one of the private respondents in the instant
Complaint for Recovery of Possession filed by the
Complainants;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of this Answer
with Affirmative Defenses;
3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof and the
same are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and
belief and authentic documents;
4. That I attest to the authenticity of the annexes as attached
thereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands

this ___ day of ____________, 2022 at Tarlac City, Philippines.

AIDA M. BUMANLAG
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

______________________ at Tarlac City, Tarlac, Philippines.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2022

Cc:
Elmer G. Facun & Analita I. Facun