Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION

BOARD
Central Office
Eliptical Rd., Diliman, Quezon City

ERNESTO LUANZON JR., JIMMY T.

LUANZON AND JOEY T.
LUANZON,
Petitioners,

DARAB CASE NO. III-T-7462 to

- versus - 7465-21

HEIRS OF AGUEDA L. BAUTISTA,

HEIRS OF CESARIO C. LUANZON,
HEAIRS OF ALEJANDRO C.
LUANZON, LUSITA C. LUANZON,
HEIRS OF AURORA L. NUCUP
AND VIRGINIA L. ALONZO,
Respondents.

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

VERIFIED APPEAL MEMORANDUM

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, by counsel, unto this

Honorable Board, most respectfully submit this Memorandum, to

wit:

PARTIES

1. Respondents-appellants ERNESTO T. LUANZON, JR.,

JIMMY T. LUANZON and JOEY T. LUANZON are of legal

ages, Filipinos, married and with residence at Sitio Bhuto,

 Barangay Tibag, Tarlac City where they may be served with

summons, notices, orders and other legal processes of this

Honorable Board;

2. Petitioners-appellees HEIRS OF AGUEDA L. BAUTISTA,

HEIRS OF CESARIO C. LUANSON, HEIRS OF CESARIO C.

LUANZON, HEIRS ALEJANDRO C. LUANZON, LUISITA

C. LUANZON, HEIRS OF AURORA L. NUCUP and

VIRGINIA L. ALONZO are all of legal age, Filipinos, and

residents of Sitio Barbon, Barangay Tibag, Tarlac City, Tarlac

where they may be served with summons, notices, orders and

other legal processes of this Honorable Board;

3. This Verified Appeal Memorandum stemmed from the

Decision of the Honorable Atty. Vicente Aselo S. Sicat III,

Provincial Adjudicator for the Province of Tarlac dated 27

December 2021, the dispositive portion of which, are as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered:

1. RECOGNIZING the rights of the petitioners as legal and

compulsory Heirs of Celerino Luanzon over the subject

landholdings previously covered by Emancipation Patents;

2. REFERRING this case to the DAR, through the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Program Officer (PARPO) of Tarlac City to

cause the investigation of the transfer of the landholdings to

 respondent Ernesto Luanzon and to file the necessary and

appropriate action before the proper forum;

3. ORDERING the petitioners jointly and severally to deposit to

the Board the reasonable rentals for the use of the subject

landholdings, due to the exclusion of the petitioners as legal

heirs in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS

(Php10,000.00) per month commencing January 2021 until a

final accounting of the actual produce of the land has been

submitted by the respondents and pending the determination

of the respective rights of the heirs;

4. DISMISSING all other claims for want of evidence.

SO ORDERED.”

and Resolution dated 10 March 2022 issued by the Honorable

Provincial Adjudicator, the dispositive portion is read as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration

and/or Amendment/Correction is hereby granted.

The third paragraph of the dispositive portion of this Office’s

Decision dated 27 December 2021 is hereby to read as follows:

3. ORDERING the respondents jointly and severally to deposit to

the Board the reasonable rentals for the use of the subject

landholdings, due to the execution of the plaintiffs as legal heirs in

the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php10,000.00) per month

commencing January 2021 until a final accounting of the actual

produce of the land has been submitted by the respondents and

pending determination of the respective rights of the heirs.

SO ORDERED.”
 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. This appealed case stemmed from a Petition filed by petitioners

Heirs of Agueda L. Bautista, Heirs of Cesario C. Luanzon, Heirs

of Alejandro C. Luanzon, Lusita C. Luanzon, Heirs of Aurora L.

Nucup and Virginia L. Alonzo for the recognition of the

Petitioners-Appellees as among the farmer-beneficiaries of the

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47501, Transfer Certificate of

Title No. 47502 (now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title

No. 043-2016014523), Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47503 and

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47504 (now Transfer Certificate

of Title No. 2016014522);

5. On 27 December 2021, the Office of the Provincial Adjudication

Board rendered a Decision in favor of the Petitioners-Appellees

and on 10 March 2022, a Resolution, likewise in favor of the

Petitioners-Appellees was likewise issued.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

In a verified Petition dated 03 May 2021, petitioners-appellees

filed a petition for recognition of their status as farmer-beneficiaries

of the parcels of agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of

Title No. 47501, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47502 (now covered

by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 043-2016014523), Transfer

Certificate of Title No. 47503 and Transfer Certificate of Title No.

47504 (now Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2016014522) before the

Honorable Office of the Provincial Adjudicator alleging, among

others, as follows:

“x x x

1. The subject properties are covered by Transfer Certificate of

Title No. 47501, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47502 (now

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 043-2016014523),

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47503 and Transfer Certificate

of Title No. 47504 (now Transfer Certificate of Title No.

2016014522) are all registered under the name of Heirs of

Celerino Luanzon and are all located at Sitio Bhuto, Barangay

Tibag, Tarlac City;

2. The said properties were originally possessed and tenanted by

the late Celerino Luanzon and as such, he became a potential

farmer-beneficiary.

3. When Celerino Luanzon died, he was survived by his children

namely: (1) Agueda L. Bautista; (2) Cesario G. Luanzon; (3)

Alejandro C. Luanzon; (4) Ernesto C. Luanzon; (5) Rosita C.

Luanzon; (6) Juanito C. Luanzon; (7) Aurora L. Nucup; (8)

Orlando C. Luanzon; and, (9) Virginia L. Luanzon.

4. When the Department of Agrarian Reform conducted

identification of qualified farmer-beneficiary, all the above-cited

children of the late Celerino Luanzon became awardees over

the subject agricultural land. This is the reason why the

 aforementioned titles were all issued in the name of “HRS. OF

CELERINO LUANZON”, as evidenced by the issued titles in

their favor. x x x

5. Since the subject landholding is properly awarded to the HRS.

OF CELERINO LUANZON, it means that all the rights and

privileges bestowed by existing and applicable laws upon the

awardee/s must be equally shared by all the Heirs of Celerino

Luanzon.

Petitioners-appellees then prayed unto the Office of the Provincial

Adjudicator the following:

“WHEREFORE, considering the surrounding circumstances

as narrated above, it is respectfully prayed, unto this Honorable

Board that an ORDER be issued:

1. DIRECTING the respondents including any an all persons

claiming rights under them, to recognize the herein

petitioners as among the farmer-beneficiaries of the subject

agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.

47501, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47502 (now covered

by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 043-2016014523), Transfer

Certificate of Title No. 47503 and Transfer Certificate of Title

No. 47504 (now Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2016014522),

being the HEIRS OF CELERINO LUANZON;

2. DIRECTING the respondents including any and all persons

claiming rights under them, to freely allow without

restrictions, the herein petitioners to exercise their rights of

management, cultivation and use over the subject

agricultural land and/or to immediately vacate and

surrender peacefully the material possession of the property

owned by the petitioners;

3. DIRECTING the respondents including any and all persons

claiming rights under them, to maintain herein petitioners in

peaceful possession, management and cultivation over the

portion of the agricultural land which rightfully belongs to

them, based on agrarian laws, rules and regulations.

4. ORDERING the respondents to pay the petitioners the

amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) per month

as rentals from the date of extra-judicial demand and

thereafter, until respondents actually and fully vacate the

premises.

5. ORDERING the respondents to pay expenses for Attorney’s

Fees in the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS

(P60,000.00) and THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00)

per appearance fee and other expenses of litigation.

6. ORDERING the respondents to pay moral damages in the

amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and

 exemplary damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND

(P50,000.00); and,

7. ORDERING the respondents to pay the costs of suit.

Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and/or

equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.”

On 15 June 2021, private respondents-appellants filed their

Answer denying all the material allegations of the Petition and set

forth Affirmative Defenses, raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction

over the subject matter of the instant petition.

On 16 August 2021, the Honorable Office of the Provincial

Adjudicator issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss

incorporated in the private respondents-appellants Answer, ruling

that it has jurisdiction over the instant petition and ordered the

parties to file their respective Position Paper within fifteen (15) days

from the issuance of the Order.

On 06 September 2021, the petitioners-appellees submitted their

Position Paper. In said Position Paper, they reiterated that they are

entitled to their share in the subject properties as heirs and therefore

co-owners of the same. They likewise argued that the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has jurisdiction over the instant

petition.

On 04 October 2021, the private respondents-appellants likewise

submitted their Position Paper. The private respondents-appellants

argued that since they are already the legal owners of the subject
properties by virtue of the titling of the same in their favor, it is

within their rights as absolute owner to prevent any other persons

from the enjoyment of their property. It was likewise argued that the

Honorable Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has

no jurisdiction over the instant case as the relief prayed for by the

petitioners-appellees are within the jurisdiction of regular courts, as

this was essentially an action for the settlement of the estate of a

deceased person.

On 27 December 2021, the Honorable Office of the Provincial

Adjudicator rendered the assailed Decision granting the Petition. The

dispositive portion of the said Decision states as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered:

1. RECOGNIZING the rights of the petitioners as legal and

compulsory Heirs of Celerino Luanzon over the subject

landholdings previously covered by Emancipation Patents;

2. REFERRING this case to the DAR, through the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Program Officer (PARPO) of Tarlac City to

cause the investigation of the transfer of the landholdings to

respondent Ernesto Luanzon and to file the necessary and

appropriate action before the proper forum;

3. ORDERING the petitioners jointly and severally to deposit to

the Board the reasonable rentals for the use of the subject

landholdings, due to the exclusion of the petitioners as legal

heirs in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS

(Php10,000.00) per month commencing January 2021 until a

 final accounting of the actual produce of the land has been

submitted by the respondents and pending the determination

of the respective rights of the heirs;

4. DISMISSING all other claims for want of evidence.

SO ORDERED.”

Subsequently, on 25 March 2022, herein respondents-appellants

received a Resolution dated 10 March 2022, the dispositive portion is

as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for

Reconsideration and/or Amendment/Correction is hereby granted.

The third paragraph of the dispositive portion of this Office’s

Decision dated 27 December 2021 is hereby to read as follows:

3. ORDERING the respondents jointly and severally to deposit to

the Board the reasonable rentals for the use of the subject

landholdings, due to the execution of the plaintiffs as legal heirs in

the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php10,000.00) per month

commencing January 2021 until a final accounting of the actual

produce of the land has been submitted by the respondents and

pending determination of the respective rights of the heirs.”

On 11 April 2022, private respondents-appellants, through the

undersigned counsel, filed their Notice of Appeal with the Office of

the Provincial Adjudicator with the payment of the corresponding

appeal fee with the DAR cashier, the official receipt is hereto attached

and marked as “Annex A”.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE

PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR HAVE JURISDICTION

OVER THE SUBJECT PETITION;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS HAVE RIGHTS

OVER THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF LAND

III. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

A. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL

ADJUDICATOR HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE

SUBJECT OF THE PETITION

It bears stressing that in the pleadings filed by the petitioners-

appellees, it was provided therein that their petition involves the

distribution of shares as heirs of the late Celerino Luanzon by the

private respondents and their recognition as farmer-beneficiaries on

the subject properties.

Basic is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a

quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and

subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the

material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for

irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to

any or such all reliefs.1

The petitioners, in the pleadings they submitted, are essentially

asking that they be recognized as heirs and therefore be allowed to

possess and use the subject properties. The subject matter therefore,

of the petition filed by the petitioners before the Honorable Provincial

Adjudicator is for the settlement of the estate of the deceased, an

1
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Paramount Holdings Equity, G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013
action which is cognizable by regular courts. Regular courts are given

exclusive and original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate

proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional

remedies in proper cases2.

Likewise, Rule II of the 2021 Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) Revised Rules of Procedure provides

that the PARAD shall have primary, exclusive and original

jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes3.

Agrarian disputes are defined as any controversy relating to tenurial

arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise,

over lands devoted to agriculture, involving disputes concerning

farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating,

fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms and

conditions of such tenurial arrangements 4. This means that the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Office when it comes to agrarian

disputes are limited only when there exists any type of tenurial

arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise.

As in this case, there is no tenurial arrangement involved, hence, the

Honorable Office has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

petition.

Second, if the reliefs the petitioners-appellees prayed for were to

be followed, the recognition of their status as farmer-beneficiaries

over the subject landholdings are not within the jurisdiction of the

quasi-judicial body Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board but rather with the administrative arm of the Department of

2
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 as amended
3
Section 8 Rule II of the 2021 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure
4
Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657
Agrarian Reform. The Department of Agrarian Reform – Municipal

Office and the Department of Agrarian Reform – Provincial Office are

the ones who makes the determination of who are qualified farmer

beneficiaries. Being heirs of the late Celerino Luanzon does not

automatically grant them the status of a farmer-beneficiary.

Even the provision relied upon by the Honorable Provincial

Adjudicator does not vest it jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

petitioners-appellees’ cause of action. Rule II Section 1 (a) of the 2009

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board provides that:

“SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate

Jurisdiction. xxx

a. The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or

juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of

all agricultural lands covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known

as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), as

amended, and other related agrarian laws.xxx”

While it is granted that the Honorable Provincial Adjudicator

has jurisdiction over cases involving rights and obligations of

persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management,

cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands covered by R.A. 6657,

petitioners-appellees had never managed, cultivated, and used the

properties subject of their petition. In fact, it is only respondents-

appellants who manage, cultivate and use the properties subject of

the petition. There could be no proper adjudication of petitioners-

appellees rights and obligations by virtue of the above-mentioned

proviso as they are not engaged in the management, cultivation and

use of the agricultural lands subject of their petition.

Finally, one of the prayers in the petitioners-appellees’ petition is

to be recognized as a farmer-beneficiary of the properties subject of

the petition. The grant of the status as farmer-beneficiaries are not

within the powers and functions of the Honorable Provincial

Adjudicator. Under Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2011, the

Department of Agrarian Reform, through its Provincial Agrarian

Reform Office and Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, have the

power to identify, screen and select farmer beneficiaries. Hence, from

the outset, the Honorable Provincial Adjudicator should have

outrightly dismissed the petitioner-appellees petition.

B. PETITIONERS HAVE NO RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT

PARCELS OF LAND

Petitioners do not have rights over the subject parcels of land.

This is owing to the fact that the subject parcels of land are currently

covered by TCT Nos. 043-2021002179, 043-2021002180, 043-

2021002181 and 043-2021002182 and are registered in the names of

the private respondents Jimmy T. Luanzon and Joey T. Luanzon.

It is a fundamental rule that a certificate of title serves as

evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property

in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The title holder is

entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property.5

The private respondents, being the registered and absolute

owners and title holders over the subject parcels of land, can

5
Spouses Lolita Orencia and Pedro D. Orencia vs. Felisa Crus Vda. De. Ranin, G.R. No. 190143, August 10,
2016
therefore enjoy6, possess, dispose7, enclose8 and even exclude9 the

property from others. This is within their rights as an owner and their

acts of excluding the petitioners from the possession and enjoyment

of the property are justified.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Board that the Decision of the Honorable

Office of the Provincial Adjudicator dated 27 December 2021 be

REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the same be DISMISSED.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Tarlac City for Tarlac City. 11 February 2022

LADISLAO & BRIONES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Block 12, Champaca St., Brgy. San Vicente
Tarlac City

By:

ATTY. ___________________________
Roll of Attorney’s No. _____
IBP No. _________; __________________________
PTR No. ________; __________________________
MCLE Compliance No. _________________; _______________
___________________________

6
Article 428 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
7
Ibid.
8
Article 430 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
9
Article 429 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
Copy furnished by personal service:

ATTY. CHRISTIAN RHEE DELFIN B. ORENCIA

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
No. 2 Champaca St., San Vicente,
 VERIFICATION

We, JIMMY T. LUANZON and JOEY T. LUANZON, of legal

age, Filipinos, married and residents of Barangay Tibag, Tarlac City,
under oath, do hereby depose and state:

1. That we are the private respondents in the instant Petition filed

by the Petitioners;

2. That we have caused the preparation and filing of this Position

Paper;

3. That we have read and understood the contents thereof and the
same are true and correct based on our personal knowledge
and belief and authentic documents;

4. That we attest to the authenticity of the annexes as attached

thereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands

this ___ day of ____________, 2021 at Tarlac City, Philippines.

JIMMY T. LUANZON JOEY T. LUANZON

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

______________________ at Tarlac City, Tarlac, Philippines.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2021