Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Region Office III
B&S Technology Bldg., Sta. Lucia, City of San
Fernando, Pampanga
RE: PETITION FOR
DISQUALIFCATION OF
FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
OVER PORTIONS OF A
LOT COVERED BY OCT
NO. 18813/CLOA NO.
00194100, LOCATED AT
BRGY. PAG-ASA,
BAMBAN, TARLAC,
CONTAINING AN AREA
OF MORE OR LESS 2,471
SQUARE METERES FILED DARRO-III-SPLIT-071024-00384
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
PROVINCIAL OFFICE OF
TARLAC, BY ITS
INSTRUMENTALITY,
CHIEF AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM
OFFICER (CARPO)
MIGUEL S. ACOSTA
AGAINST ANGELINA
MENDOZA, FRANCISCO
CANLAS, AND REJIE
MENDOZA.
x----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ON THE DECISION DATED JANUARY 16, 2025)
Respondents comes now unto this Honorable Office
most respectfully states and averred that:
PURPOSE
1. The reason of this Motion for Reconsideration is the
Decision of the Honorable Office dated January 15, 2024
the dispositive portion of which read:
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered,
Order is hereby issued:
1
1. ORDERING the disqualification of herein respondent
Angelina Mendoza, Francisco Canlas, and Regie
Mendoza as agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB) over
portions of a landholding covered and embraces by
OCT No. 18813/CLOA No. 00194100, containing an
area of 2,471 square meters, located at Barangay
Pag-Asa, Bamban, Tarlac;
2. DECLARING further the subject property awarded to
the aforenamed respondent, located at Pag-asa;
Bamban, Tarlac VACANT and OPEN for disposition
to deserving and qualified beneficiary/ies in
accordance with law;
3. DIRECTING the concerned Provicial Agrarian Reform
Program Officer II and Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer to conduct the necessary screening and
selection of deserving and qualified beneficiary/ies
covering the subject landholding, in accordance with
law
The DAR reserves the right to withdraw or cancel this
Order in case of misrepresentation of facts material to
its issuance and/or violation of agrarian laws, rules, and
implementation.
SO ORDERED.”
MATERIAL DATES
2. The Decision of this Honorable Office dated January
16, 2025, was received by the respondent on
___________. The Respondent has fifteen (15) days or
until February 19, 2025 within which to move for
reconsideration of the said Decision, Thus, this Motion
for Reconsideration is timely filed.
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
3. The absence of proper notification and failure to furnish
the respondents the copy of the petition giving them no
chance to answer or to defend their right violates their
right to due process of law.
2
4. The On-site Inspection and Investigation (OSII) of the
Field Validation Team was inaccurately and improperly
construed leading to unjust disqualification of the
respondent.
VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS
5. Respondents respectfully pray that the Honorable
Office re-consider the former’s right to due process. In
the notice of meeting pertaining to the Revised
Guidelines and Procedure on the Landholdings with
Collective Certificates of Land Ownership Award it
appears that:
ANGELINA S. MENDOZA La Paz Bamban, Tarlac
REJIE S. MENDOZA Pag-asa, Bamban, Tarlac
FRANCISCO Y. CANLAS Sta. Cruz, Porac,
Pampanga
A copy of the notice of meeting stating the
incorrect address of the ARBs is hereto attached
and marked as ANNEX “D” and made an integral
part hereof;
The abovementioned description of address of the
respondents does not match to their present resident
as provided below, to wit:
ANGELINA S. Nueva Victoria, Mexico,
MENDOZA - Pampanga
REJIE S. MENDOZA - 1388 Rina St., Mt. View
Balibago, Angeles City,
Pampanga
FRANCISCO Y. La Paz, Bamban, Tarlac
CANLAS -
A copy of the ARBs Identification Card is
hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “A”
and accompanying series and made an
integral part hereof.
3
6. Case law dictates that procedural due process is met
when one is given notice and the opportunity to be
heard and explain their side. It gives a party the
chance to seek reconsideration of an action or ruling
unfavorable to them. A party is denied the
opportunity to avail of the reliefs available to them if
they are not notified of a decision involving them,
especially one where they stand to lose their life,
liberty, or property. Such is a violation of their due
process.1
7. It is unequivocally evident that the respondents were
deprived of their fundamental right to due process, as
guaranteed by law, due to the failure to provide them
with notice and to have the chance to submit their
corresponding answer. Due process mandates that an
individual be properly informed of any actions or
proceedings that may affect their rights, and that they
be granted a reasonable opportunity to respond, defend,
and explain their position.
8. In this case, the respondents were neither duly notified
nor given any meaningful chance to present their side of
the matter or contest the allegations made against
them. The absence of such critical procedural
safeguards renders the process fundamentally flawed
and in violation of the respondents' constitutional and
legal rights. This denial of opportunity to be heard
undermines the very principles of fairness and justice
that are the cornerstone of due process protections.
INACCURATE ON-SITE
INVESTIGATION OF
THE FIELD
VALIDATION TEAM
9. Respondents humbly and respectfully calls the
attention of the Honorable Office that the findings of
the Field Validation Team (FVT) that the subject
landholding was bare of any agricultural activity was
maliciously untrue. It is manifestly clear that the
1
RAOUL C. VILLARETE vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. No. 243818. April 26, 2022)
4
validation team has failed to properly ascertain and
evaluate the landholding, thereby neglecting to
recognize the presence of fruit-bearing Mango trees
that were introduced and cultivated by the Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) on the subject property.
10. This oversight constitutes a failure to account for all
relevant factors affecting the landholding and
disregards the material contribution of the ARBs to the
property in question. As such, the failure to incorporate
these critical elements into the validation process
renders the determination inaccurate and incomplete,
thereby warranting a thorough review and rectification
of the findings in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations. A copy of the photograph showing the
mango trees is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX
“B” and made an integral part hereof;
11. The Supreme Court has ruled that a title issued under
the Torrens System enjoy the conclusiveness
presumption of validity. Hence, a registered owner
thereof cannot be unjustly deprived of the same. 2
Moreover, under the doctrine of presumption of
regularity in the performance of official functions, the
identification of FBs is presumed to have been made in
accordance with law absent convincing evidence to the
contrary.
12. It is an established legal principle that actions taken by
public officers or government agencies in the discharge
of their duties are presumed to have been performed in
accordance with the law, established procedures, and
applicable regulations. Specifically, in the context of
the identification of Farmer Beneficiaries, such
identification is presumed to have been carried out in
strict compliance with relevant legal requirements,
regulations, and due process, absent the presentation
of clear, convincing, and incontrovertible evidence to
the contrary.
PRAYER
2
FELICIANO RAMOS vs. RODRIGUEZ (G.R. No. 94033, May 29, 1995)
5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Office that the
Decision dated January 16, 2025 be reconsidered and a
new Decision be issued dismissing the instant petition for
lack of sufficient factual and legal basis.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
6 February 2025. Tarlac City, Tarlac
