This form is not for sale.

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office ___________________

FPA-09-07-0008-A
Pedro San Juan,
Pagadian City, CENRO Case No. ____________
Protestant,

Recent
2x2 ID Photo

vs.

FPA-09-07-0008
Juan Dela Cruz,
Pagadian City
Respondent.

Recent
2x2 ID Photo

INVESTIGATION REPORT
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Sagun Street, Gatas District,
Pagadian City

Sir:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE:

This is a protest with counter application to the free patent application number FPA
097322-001 dated _December 19, 2016__ involving the following:

1. Lot Identity: Lot No.:_73_, Survey No.: Pls-61_, Lot Area: _21200__

(Standard Format for Land Claims and Conflict Cases)

This form is not for sale.

2. Location (Street: Burgos_, Sitio: __Bogo_, Barangay: ___Malumangi__,

City/Municipality: _Aurora_, Province: _ZDS__)

II. PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN Annex I

1. The protest dated ___December 19, 2106____ was filed on ___December 21, 2016___

with this CENRO.

2. The following Documentary Prerequisites were submitted:

2.1 LRA Certification (If Cadastral Lot): None

2.2 Barangay Certification to File Action from the Lupon ng Taga-Pamayapa

dated March 5, 2016 ( Annex H)

2.3 Receipt No. _142589___ as proof of payment of Protest Fee in the amount of

PhP 50.00 per DAO No. 38 s. 1993 (Manual for Land Dispute). No other

amount is required by DENR. ( Annex H-1)

3. The Order of Investigation with Notice of Ocular Inspection dated December 22,

2016 was posted at the Brgy. Hall and the property on December 22, 2016.

4. An ocular inspection was conducted on __December 27, 2016_, pursuant to order of

investigation with notice of ocular inspection dated ____December 23, 2016__ with

Travel Order No._12345____ dated_December 24, 2016_____, both issued by the

CENRO.

5. The following were present during the ocular inspection:

[ X ] Protestant

[ ] Counsel, if any

[ X ] Respondent

[X] Barangay Official

[ ] Disinterested person/s

6. Despite efforts, the parties were unable to settle the case amicably.

(Standard Format for Land Claims and Conflict Cases)

This form is not for sale.

III. FINDINGS:

1. Lot Identity: Lot No.:_73_, Survey No.: Pls-61_, Lot Area: _21200 sq. meters__

Annex A

Location (Street: Burgos_, Sitio: __Bogo_, Barangay: ___Malumangi__,

City/Municipality: _Aurora_, Province: _ZDS__)

2. Improvements found ________________

Annex B

Annex C

3. Identity of Protestant

Photo of Respondent (Geo-tagged, during ocular inspection)

Annex D
Name: Pedro San Juan_

Age: 45

(Standard Format for Land Claims and Conflict Cases)

This form is not for sale.

Gender: Male

Citizenship: [ X] Filipino [X ] Natural Born

Complete Address: (House No.: _____, Street: ___Burgos___, Sitio: ___Matalino__,

Barangay: Makugihon__, City/Municipality: _Molave_, Province: ZDS_)

Mobile Number : 0935 778 1051

E-mail Address: Pedro21@yahoo.com

4. Description of Protestant’s Interest

_ He is the surviving heirs of the survey claimant Ruben San Juan. His grandfather

had a tax declaration dated December 20, 1931. However, He is not the actual

occupant nor resided on the lot in question based on the claimed of his grandfather.

_____________________________________________________________________

5. Proof of Possession and Ownership of Protestant

5.1 Barangay Certification as Possessor dated December 21, 2016 (Annex F)

5.2 Affidavit(s) of two (2) disinterested persons ( Annex F-1)

i. Name: Maribel Dela Cruz

ii. Name: Joana Rodriguez

5.3 Tax Declaration No.________ dated December 31, 1931 (Annex F-2)

5.4 Deed of Conveyance: None

6. Identity of Respondent

Photo of Respondent (Geo-tagged, during ocular inspection)

Annex E

Name: Juan Dela Cruz

Age: 50

Gender: Male

Citizenship: [ X ] Filipino [X ] Natural Born

(Standard Format for Land Claims and Conflict Cases)

This form is not for sale.

Complete Address: (House No.: _________, Street: __Poblacion____, Sitio: __

Bogo___, Barangay: __, City/Municipality: _Aurora_, Province: ZDS_)

Mobile Number : __0951 665 8765__________

E-mail Address: _Jaun615@yahoo.com___________

7. Description of Respondent’s Interest

He is the actual occupant on the land question. The occupation of the respondent is

open continuous, exclusive, and notorious since 1950 up to present. Respondent has

presented tax payment from 1950 to present. Survey claimant Ruben San Juan had

waived his rights to respondent on December 1, 1950.

8. Proof of Possession and Ownership of Respondent

8.1 Barangay Certification _dated November 25, 2016__ (Annex G)

8.2 Affidavit(s) of two (2) disinterested persons (Annex G-1)

i. Name: _James San Juan__________

ii. Name: _Monica San Juan__________

8.3 Tax Declaration No.__7654321______ dated __December 1951 to present__(

Annex G-2)

8.4 Deed of Conveyance: Waiver of Rights (Annex G-3)

IV. ISSUES:
1. Who has the better proof of ownership?

2. Is it tantamount to substantial evidence?

V. CONCLUSIONS:
1. [ ] Claimant
[X] Repondent
[ ] Neither/State

2. [X] Substantial Evidence Exists

[ ] No Substantial Evidence Exists

(Standard Format for Land Claims and Conflict Cases)

This form is not for sale.

VI. DISCUSSION:
[X] Proof of ownership of respondent is better because the respondent had been in open,

continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land since 1950 based on the affidavits of

two disinterested persons and introduced improvements in the form of 60% planted with

coconuts trees, 20 % with various fruit trees, 20% devoted to rice field as seen during the ocular

inspection. Also, the respondent had tax declaration proving his ownership of the land since 1950

up to the present. This is in consonance with C.A. 141. Also, the waiver of rights from the survey

claimant to the respondent had given the right of possession to the land. On the other hand, the

protestant had only presented a tax declaration dated 1930 and had not been in possession of the

subject lot. Thus the respondent has a better proof of ownership.

[ ] Neither has shown proof of ownership because _________________________.

[ X] Proof of ownership is substantial because during the ocular inspection, it was found

out that the respondent was in the possession and introduced tangible improvements such

as 60% planted with coconuts trees aging 30 to 50 years based on the testimony of the

witnesses, 20 % with various fruit trees, 20% devoted to rice field. Moreover, the

adjoining property owner testified that indeed Juan Dela Cruz was the actual owner of

occupants and applicant.

Therefore, respondent/claimant has proven ownership through substantial evidence.

VI. RECOMMENDATION

Wherefore, it is respectfully recommended that the free patent application of protestant

be denied and respondent application be given due course.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Reviewed and approved by:

Land Management Inspector Chief LPDS CENR Officer

(Standard Format for Land Claims and Conflict Cases)