Motion For Reconsideration

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Davao City, Branch 55
LAKI ASSET COMPANY

Plaintiff,
- versus -
Civil Case No. 11111
DAMI UTANG CORPORATION For: Sum of Money
Defendants.
x-----------------------
x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
APPELLANTS, for and on their own behalf, unto this

Honorable Office, hereby file this Motion for Reconsideration from the
06 September 2011 Decision of the OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal
Services, ATTY. ANSELMO C. ABUNGAN, of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and respectfully states that:
THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION
1. The OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services, ATTY. ANSELMO

C. ABUNGAN, of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources promulgated a Decision on 06 September 2011, the
decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, the instant Appeal is

hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Order
dated December 16, 2008 of the Regional Executive Director,
DENR-Region IV-B, MIMAROPA, 1515 L & S Building, Roxas
Boulevard, Ermita, Manila, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ATTY. ANSELMO C. ABUNGAN
OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services”
THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE OIC, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR LEGAL SERVICES OF THE DENR COMMITTED
PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LACK
OF MERIT AND AFFIRMED ERRONEOUS DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DENR-REGION IV-B,
MIMAROPA.
ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS
1. The unnumbered Free Patent Application of Analee M. David

shall not be given further due course on the grounds that:
1.1. The Free Patent Application was not verified by the

Records Unit of the DENR as to whether the said property is
covered or not covered by Public Land Application;
1.2. The said property, Lot 2846, Cad. 323-D, San Agustin
Cadastre was surveyed for Clemente Manato (father of the
Protestants) and no longer covered by any public land
application. (Please see Certification issued by the OIC, CENRO
Officer, Gerardo Sabigan attached in the Motion for
Reconsideration marked as ANNEX “A”);
1.3. There is a pending claim case filed by the Protestants;
1.4. The Free Patent Application was not received by the

Records Unit of the DENR;
1.5. There was No Application Number on the Application for

Free Patent filed by the applicant;
1.6. The Free Patent Application was a falsified document

because it does not bear the signature of the Applicant .
1.7. A scrutiny of the Free Patent Application of Analee M.

David would readily show that the said application bears the
signature of her father Eduardo S. David who is not duly
authorized by the Applicant.
2. That the applicant committed PERJURY by way of alleging in

Par. 9, 10 and 11 in her application for free patent. Under paragraph
9 she declared that she and her ancestor occupied, cultivated the
land since the date of entry thereon on a date that the Applicant
cannot and did not even identify.
3. The statement in paragraph no. 10 was false as she never

possessed nor cultivates the land in question.
4. Under Par. 11 of her application for free patent, she agreed to
abide by the rule that she will demarcate and preserve as permanent
timberland to be planted exclusively to trees of known economic
value but she violated said provision by constructing a concrete
fence beside the creek or stream. The proof of the construction can
be easily identified by an ocular inspection.
5. “Making untruthful statement in a narration of facts” in a

document, the applicant Analee M. David and her father Eduardo S.
David are guilty of falsification of public documents and perjury.
6. Falsification is a felony penalized under Article 172 of the

Revised Penal Code, which, inter alia, provides: “The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of
not more than P5,000 shall be imposed upon any person who to the
damage of a third party, or with intent to cause such damage, shall
in any private document enumerated x x x “ in Art. 171. Among other
things, Article 171 provides that an act of falsification is committed by
“making untruthful statement in a narration of facts” in a document.
The elements, therefore, of such felony are: (a.) the document is
false; and (b.) there is damage or intent to cause such damage. Such
falsification affects the truth and integrity of the document. The act
need not cause any actual prejudice—intent to prejudice is enough.
(US v. Paraiso, 1 Phil. 127). The Spanish text employs the word
“perjuicio,” which is interpreted by the Court of Appeals as
synonymous to “dano” (People v. Marasigan [CA] G.R. No. 6040,
October 18, 1940).
7. That the Affidavit of the Applicant in the Free Patent Application
was signed by her father Eduardo S. David and notarized by the
Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA,
JR. , who is not duly authorized to administer oath. Moreover the said
affidavit was notarized in the absence of the affiant/applicant, Analee
M. David.
8. The failure of the Special Investigator Land Management

Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR., to examine carefully the falsified
documents draws a conclusion that he consented the falsification of
the documents specially when he administered oath in the absence of
the Applicant, Analee M. David. He is likewise guilty of perjury.
9. The actuation of Special Investigator Land Management

Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR., of notarizing the aforestated
Application for Free Patent is not in connection with the exercise of
his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of his
authority.
10. The Special Investigator Land Management Inspector, FIDEL G.
MEDINA, JR., committed grave abuse of discretion when he
recommended that the (Unnumbered) Free Patent Application filed
by Analee M. David be given further due course and the protest filed
by the Protestant be dismissed for lack of merit without conducting
through investigation.
11. The Honorable Regional Executive Director of the DENR

committed serious and palpable errors of facts when he concurs with
the recommendation of Special Investigator Land Management
Inspector, FIDEL G. MEDINA, JR., If not corrected, would cause
grave or irreparable injury or damages to the Protestants.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the Decision or Order dated 16 December 2008 of this Honorable
Regional Executive Director of the DENR be RECONSIDERED and SET
ASIDE AND A NEW ONE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF the Protestants.
Further, Protestants prays that a copy the FORMAL/FINAL

INVESTIGATION REPORT be released or made available to them in
the interest of fair play and due process, and
Protestants are praying that for purposes of mailing, they are

submitting No. 7 Cotabato Street, Barangay Ramon Magsaysay, Bago
Bantay, Quezon City as their mailing address and that processes and
notices be served to the new mailing address.
Protestants-Movant further prays for such other reliefs just and

equitable under the premises.
Davao City, Philippines; 24th February 2020.
ROMEO M. MANATO
Protestant
PETRA M. MERES
Protestant
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. PETRONI F. FRADEJAS

Counsel for the Protestee-Applicant
No. 001 Bonifacio Street corner Magsaysay Street
Barangay Liwayway, Odiongan
Romblon
ATTY. VIRGILIO B. TIONGSON

DENR - PENRO
Odiongan, Romblon
GERARDO B. SABIGAN
DENR-CENRO
Odiongan, Romblon
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ombudsman Building
Agham Road, North Triangle
Diliman, Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Malacañang Palace
Malacañang, Manila
Honorable Secretary Joselito Atienza

OFFICE OF THE DENR SECRETARY
Central Office, Visayas Avenue
Diliman, 1100 Quezon City
OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT

Supreme Court of the Philippines
Taft Avenue, Manila
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copy of the Manifestation and Supplement to Motion for
Reconsideration is being served to the parties in the above-entitled
case through registered mail, personal service not being practicable
due to distance and time constraints.
ROMEO M. MANATO
PETRA M. MERES
VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION
I, EDUARDO ARANETA, Filipino, of legal age, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion

for Reconsideration and I have read the contents thereof and affirm
that the same are true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge and authentic documents;
3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. To the
best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn
that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to inform this
Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof.
Done this 27th day of February 2020, at Davao City.
EDUARDO ARANETA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of July

2011, in Quezon City, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Driver
License No. C07-08-012579.
Doc. No. ______; NOTARY PUBLIC

Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2011.
BAI SURHAYAH A. PENDATUN
Counsel for Defendant
Davao City, Philippines
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OFHEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 39, Davao City
Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its

consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and
kindly include the same in the court's calendar for hearing on Friday,
27 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.
ATTICUS FINCH
1 MockingBirdStreet
Timog Avenue, Quezon City
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on

Friday, 27 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.
HALILA SUDAGAR
Counsel for Defendant
SUDAGAR LAW FIRM
Laguna Street, Davao City
PLUS: [5] Proof of Service

Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

LAKI ASSET COMPANY

APPELLANTS, for and on their own behalf, unto this

THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION

1. The OIC, Assistant Secretary for Legal Services, ATTY. ANSELMO

“WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, the instant Appeal is

THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE OIC, ASSISTANT

1. The unnumbered Free Patent Application of Analee M. David

1.1. The Free Patent Application was not verified by the

1.3. There is a pending claim case filed by the Protestants;

1.4. The Free Patent Application was not received by the

1.5. There was No Application Number on the Application for

1.6. The Free Patent Application was a falsified document

1.7. A scrutiny of the Free Patent Application of Analee M.

2. That the applicant committed PERJURY by way of alleging in

3. The statement in paragraph no. 10 was false as she never

5. “Making untruthful statement in a narration of facts” in a

6. Falsification is a felony penalized under Article 172 of the

8. The failure of the Special Investigator Land Management

9. The actuation of Special Investigator Land Management

11. The Honorable Regional Executive Director of the DENR

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

Further, Protestants prays that a copy the FORMAL/FINAL

Protestants are praying that for purposes of mailing, they are

Protestants-Movant further prays for such other reliefs just and

Davao City, Philippines; 24th February 2020.

ATTY. PETRONI F. FRADEJAS

ATTY. VIRGILIO B. TIONGSON

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Honorable Secretary Joselito Atienza

OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT

(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

I, EDUARDO ARANETA, Filipino, of legal age, after having been

1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion

3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding

Done this 27th day of February 2020, at Davao City.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of July

Doc. No. ______; NOTARY PUBLIC

REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OFHEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its

Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on

PLUS: [5] Proof of Service

You might also like