REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Community Environment and Natural Resources
Cabagan, Isabela

IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF FREE PATENT

APPLICATION NO. 023134-1176-A INVOLVING LOT NO. 280, PLS 537
STA. MARIA, ISABELA

LUPO GUZMAN,
Protestant,

-versus-

HEIRS OF LUCERO CABAUATAN;

ROGELIO CABAUATAN
FRANKLIN CABAUATAN
FRANCISCO CABAUATAN
Defendants,
x---------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendants through the undersigned counsel and in answer to
the herein protest, respectfully aver:

1. Defendants refute Paragraph 1 of the Protest as the legal representative of the

herein protestant in the person of ROSEMARIE BAQUIRAN because she has
no legal standing to file the instant petition. In the Special Power of Authority
(SPA) of Ms. Baquiran, nowhere in the SPA does it provide that she was
authorized by Mr. Lupo R. Guzman to file this petition. In fact, her authority was
only with respect to the selling, negotiating, transacting, signing, executing of
documents pertaining to the real estate properties of Mr. Guzman’s
grandparents. Hence, it is a basic principle in Law on Agency that in the
absence of express authority coming from the principal ( Mr. Guzman), the
agent ( Ms. Baquiran) has no locus standi to file this instant case;

2. Under Section 4 of Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Administrative Order No. 2016-31 issued December 09, 2016 which sets out
the Procedure in the Investigation and Resolution of Land Claims and Conflicts
Cases, it it expressly requires the following Formal Requirements of a Protest:

xxx

The protest must be accompanied by the following documents:

(a). Certificate to file action from the Barangay concerned, if

applicable;
(b) Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping;
(c) Proof of Payment of the Protest Fee; and
(d) A recent 2x2 picture of the protestant and his or her duly
authorized representative and the subject lot/s (Emphasis Supplied)

xxx

Page 1 of 3
 In this case, the Protestant failed to allege in his protest a proof of the
payment of the Protest Fee. Hence, the same is a blatant non-compliance with a
formal requirement under the aforementioned rules;

3. Defendants admit Paragraph 2 of the Protest as these are the defendants’

personal circumstances;

4. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of the averments made in Paragraph 3 of the Protest. The truth of the matter is
that the defendants are in possession of the subject property for a period of
almost forty (40) years already. A copy of the certification coming from the
Community Environment and Natural Resources- CAbagan, Isabela is hereto
attached as Annex “A”;

5. Defendants claim that the allegations by the protestant in Paragraph 3 are false
and misleading considering that the Tax Declaration was made only in two
recent dates on August 16, 2016 and on July 20, 2017. If indeed the protestant
is ‘religiously’ paying his taxes as he precipitously claim, records would have
revealed that he is paying the real property taxes years before the attached
Tax Declarations;

6. Defendants are of the position that as between the Tax Declarations made by
the protestant and the open, notorious, continuous and exclusive possession
of the defendants, the latter has a better title as compared with the former;

7. If indeed the protestant has been assertive of his right, he should have acquired
possession and ownership of the said lot at the earliest possible opportunity;

8. Defendants deny Paragraphs 5 and 6 as these are false and self-serving

allegations. The truth of which is that the origin of the said property cannot be
legally established as part of the estate of the deceased Soledad Guzman. In
fact, Soledad Guzman never executed a Last Will and Testament giving such
properties to her legal heirs; therefore, it cannot be said that it is a paraphernal
property of Mrs. Soledad Guzman;

9. As such, considering that there is no proof of ownership on the part of the

protestant and the subject property is not titled under the name of Soledad
Guzman, there can be no basis on the part of the protestant to claim ownership
over the property;

10. Defendants likewise deny Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Protest considering that
Mr. Lucero Cabauatan is not just a mere administrator of the property but a
possessor in good faith. In order to prove the matter, a copy of the affidavit of
Mr. Francisco Cabautan III, a son of Francisco Cabauatan is hereto attached
as Annex “B”; and

11. Defendants finally deny Paragraph 9 and 10 of the Protest as these are
preposterous statements made by the protestant. Assuming arguendo that the
alleged Deed of Sale was not genuine and cannot be validly use as an
instrument to claim ownership over the property, still the rights of the
defendants over the property cannot be removed considering that the said
Deed of Sale is not a requirement for the Free Patent Application of the subject
lot.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable Office to:

Page 2 of 3
1. ORDER a decision in favor of the defendants and to dismiss the herein protest;

2. ORDER the competent authorities of the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources to ; and

3. GRANT other reliefs consistent with law and equity, and for costs.

Sto. Domingo, Piat Cagayan, November 17, 2017.

ATTY. MARIA PILAR JOY C. ILARDE, CPA

Roll of Attorneys No. 68968
IBP Receipt No. 002457 issued 05/10/2017
Professional Tax Receipt No. 7819844
MCLE Compliance Cert. (Not Yet Required)
Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 2017
#29 Sto. Domingo, Piat, Cagayan
Counsel for the Defendants

Page 3 of 3