• GILBERT P. BAYORAN
The Department of Agrarian Reform – Regional Office VI (DARRO-6) has denied, for “lack of merit,” the instant petition of 15 agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) for the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against businessman Paul Chang, supposedly to stop the hacienda management from tilling and cultivating a property located in San Antonio Dos, Barangay Dos Hermanas, Talisay City, Negros Occidental.
A nine-page order dated April 4, 2025 signed by Regional Director Leomides Villareal, DARRO-6 said that the petitioners “failed to substantially and satisfactorily establish that a petition for issuance of [a CDO] against [Chang] on the subject landholding should be granted.”
The 15 ARBs who filed the petition on January 24, 2025 are Margarita Morillo, Lorna Morillo, Elizabeth Povadora, Rolando Ebanez, Elena Baylin, Nestor Tolosa, Remia Lamig, Gonzalo Lamig, Joemar Gonzales, Generoso Abangin Jr., Bernaldo Quiben, Federico Quiben Jr., Jison Junsay, Arufo Arminol, and Christian Dorimon.
DARRO 6 noted that petitioners’ sole contention for the issuance of a cease and desist order was on the grounds that they and their families are continuously being harassed by security guards, armed goons, and hired workers by setting up barracks nearby and continuously showing threats and intimidation.
It said that a cease and desist order may be issued while awaiting resolution in cases where any party may suffer grave or irreparable damage, or where the doing, or continuance of certain acts will render the case moot and academic, or where there is a need to maintain peace and order and prevent injury or loss of life, or property. Clearly, it is a provisional remedy and ancillary to a main case, Stated otherwise, a cease and desist order cannot be availed unless proper action is filed before this Office, the DARRO 6 office said.
To reiterate, there is no Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case filed before this Office, upon which the herein petition for issuance of cease and desist order may be premised. In this regard, petitioners failed to substantially and satisfactorily establish that a petition for issuance of cease and desist order against respondents on the subject landholding should be granted, DARRO 6 further said.
Records show that the disputed 22.95-hectare property was part of the 50-hectare landholding formerly registered under Chang, and was later placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage through a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme.
In 2001, the 50-hectare property was awarded to 26 ARBs of Hacienda San Antonio Dos. From the 26 ARBs, 15 entered into a series of “lease agreements” with Chang.
However, between November 2013 and November 2016, the ARBs individually approached Chang and sold back to him a total of 22.9500 hectares through separate notarized Sales of Rights.
It should be noted that lands acquired by ARBs under CARP may be sold after 10 years from the date of their installation on said land.
Conflicts started to arise in 2024 when the 15 ARBs argued that what they entered into with Chang were “leaseback agreements” and not a Sale of Rights, and claimed further that they had recovered possession of the said property in that same year, by tilling and cultivating the property.
To counter the claims of the 15 ARBs, Chang submitted to DARRO-6 the notarized Sales of Rights for the disputed landholdings.
As the ARBs “instigated drastic actions which caused disturbance in the area,” management said it was constrained to protect its personnel and property by taking the necessary legal action and filing the proper cases against the instigators.*
