Complainant files ‘affidavit of desistance’-A A +A
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
ONE of the complainants in the case filed before the office of Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (Darab) has executed affidavit of desistance for the declaration of nullify of sale and injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against Arao property owners.
Last Feb. 2, 2009, Allan Cuyos has executed an affidavit of desistance, claiming that he never consented to the act of his wife, Ma. Fe Cuyos, in pleading him as of the party-complainants of said case. “It was made to appear that I was a party to therein” he said.
It can be recalled that complainants Elsie Guanco, spouses Alan Cuyos and Ma. Fe Cuyos, Alteo Perez and Antonio Perez, Jr. filed a case before Darab for the declaration of nullify of sale and injunction with prayer against owners of Arao properties who include Nellie Antigua, Romanita Andal, Lynette Punzalan, Sonia Arao, Anelie Arao, Elisieta Arao, Aniano Arao Jr., Eugenio Arao, Sophie Nguyen, and Eva Gumtang.
The group also included in the case City Government, the PVB, and the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City.
Cuyos said he has not caused the filing of the complainant nor signed in the verification and certification in said documents.
“The same being instituted without my consent and in fact against my will” he said.
Secretary to the Mayor lawyer Vicente Petierre III meantime, said he believes that there’s someone behind the filing of a case against the Arao property.
Petierre cited that mayoralty candidate Vladimir Gonzalez went to the Abada-Escay relocation site in Barangay Vista Alegre and tried to convince the residents to file a case against the owners of Arao property.
Petierre noted that the case in Darab will be dismissed, stressing that the Arao property is already classified as a residential in 1976, which was approved in September 24, 1980 by the Ministry of Human Resettlement.
He said the Arao properties under Bacolod Council Resolution 5153-A, series of 1976, have been classified for residential use which the same was reiterated in City Ordinance 216 of 1998.
Further, Petierre said they had already refilled their motion to dismiss, which there's a lack of jurisdiction by the Darab in the instant case.
The complainants are not real parties in interest thus the instant case shall be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
“You don’t strictly apply the rules of court in administrative hearing,” he said.