REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 134
Tagaytay City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Represented by the Department
of Public Works and Highways SCA CASE NO. 19-042
(DPWH),
Plaintiff, For: Expropriation
- versus -
HEIRS OF CIRILA BORJA, namely
MAGDALENA AMODENTE and
ELENA I. BAYBAY, represented by
MARTIN I. BAYBAY, and LEO
BAYBAY
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(of Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan)
PURPOSE
Your Honor, the testimony of witness Engr. Cyrus Cesar A.
Pasicolan is being offered to prove the following:
a) He is an officer of DPWH for three (3) years and is
concurrently holding the position of Engineer III with the DPWH
Public Private Partnership Service (PPPS) for two (2) years now;
b) He monitors the progress of the expropriation
proceedings of lands affected by the CALAX project on lands
located from Kawit, Cavite to Biñan, Laguna;
c) He is responsible for the investigation of affected lots
and any existing improvements and the service of letters-offer to
the owners thereof; and
d) He prepared, secured and/or caused the preparation of
relevant documents for filing of the instant expropriation case
which he will identify and authenticate in support of the same.
Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan answered the questions
asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and
that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.
I, Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan, of legal age, married,
Filipino, residing at 19 Guzman St., Villa Maria, Enrile, Cagayan
Valley, an engineer holding the position of Engineer III with the
Public Private Partnership Service (PPPS) of the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), after having been duly
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
I am executing this Judicial Affidavit before Associate
Solicitor I Jonathan A. Pabillore, who conducted and supervised
my examination as a witness at the Office of the Solicitor General
with office address at AMPC Bldg., Amorsolo Street, Legaspi
Village, Makati City;
I am answering the following questions asked of me, fully
conscious that I do so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liability for false testimony or perjury:
1. Question: Mr. Witness, will you please state your name and
other personal circumstances for the record?
Answer: I am Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan, 36 years old,
married, Filipino, residing at 19 Guzman St., Villa Maria,
Enrile, Cagayan Valley. I am an engineer holding the
position of Engineer III with the Public Private Partnership
Service (PPPS) of the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH).
2. Question: You mentioned you are holding the position of
Engineer III with the PPPS of the DPWH. How long have you
been holding this position?
Answer: I have been an officer of the DPWH for three (3)
years, and concurrently I am holding the position of
Engineer III with the PPPS for two (2) years now.
3. Question: What are your duties and responsibilities as
Engineer III with the of the DPWH.
Answer: My Personal Data Sheet will show that I am an
Engineer III for the DPWH PPPS, which includes the
following, among others:
a. Assist in expropriation proceedings of lots affected by the
CALAX Project, specifically in Kawit, Cavite up to Biñan,
Laguna;
b. Conduct road right of way activities of the CALAX Project;
c. Serve letter-offers on the owners of the affected
properties in Kawit, Cavite up to Binan, Laguna;
d. Follow-up and secure necessary documentation for the
filing of expropriation cases in court;
e. Review the documents of claimant/s and the parcellary
plan;
f. Research as to the details or whereabouts of the owners of
the affected lots.
4. Question: I am showing you a copy of the PDS, which is
attached as Annex “Q” of the Amended Complaint, with an
attached DBM-CSC Form No. 1, attached as Annex “Q-1” of
the Amended Complaint, of one Engr. Cyrus Cesar A.
Pasicolan dated 30 June 2020 and 28 September 2018,
respectively,. What is the relation of this PDS and the DBM-
CSC Form No. 1 to the one you mentioned”
Answer: This is my PDS and DBM-CSC Form No. 1.
Your Honor, may we respectfully request that this PDS be
marked as our Exhibit “Q” and the attached DBM-CSC Form
No. 1 as our Exhibit “Q-1.”
5. Question: Engr. Pasicolan, there is a signature on this PDS
above the printed name “Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan,”
whose signature is this?
Answer: That is my signature.
Your Honor, may we respectfully request that the signature
of Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan appearing in this PDS be
sub-marked as Exhibit “Q-1”.
6. Question: You mentioned that you are assigned to the
CALAX Project. When were you assigned to this Project?
Answer: I have been assigned to the CALAX Project since
January 2016.
7. Question: What is the CALAX Project?
Answer: The Cavite-Laguna Expressway or CALAX involves
the financing, design and construction, operation and
maintenance of the entire 4-lane, 45-km closed-system
tolled expressway connecting CAVITEX and SLEX. The
Project starts from the CAVITEX in Kawit, Cavite and ends at
the SLEX-Mamplasan Interchange in Biñan, Laguna.
8. Question: What is the purpose of the CALAX Project?
Answer: The growing industrial and commercial centers in
the provinces of Cavite and Laguna is causing traffic
congestion in major road networks in the area particularly
the Governor’s Drive, Aguinaldo Highway, and Sta. Rosa-
Tagaytay Road. The CALAX Project aims to provide an
efficient, fast, and safe road network and to spur national
economic development, particularly in the provinces of
Cavite and Laguna.
9. Question: How would this project be able to provide an
efficient, fast and safe road network?
Answer: This project will reduce the travel time to about 45
minutes from Manila to Laguna/Cavite and vice versa, and
decongest national highways such as Aguinaldo and
Governor’s Drive.
10. Question: As an Engineer III assigned to implement the
CALAX Project, what did you do?
Answer: We at the DPWH conducted a survey of all the lots
that are affected by the CALAX Project. We then made
written offers to the owners, claimants, or possessors of
these affected lots and improvements to compensate them
for their properties that would be affected by the CALAX
Project. If they did not accept the offer, failed to submit the
required documents, conflicting claims arose, or the owners
were unknown, we then file expropriation proceedings with
the proper courts.
11. Question: What is the procedure you underwent before filing
this case in court?
Answer: As soon as we determined that the subject lot
would be affected by the CALAX Project, our team at the
DPWH conducted further research on the same. Having
found no Torrens title for the lot at the Registry of Deeds,
we resorted to placing an inquiry at the Assessor's Office
and found out the subject lot is claimed by one deceased
Cirila Borja per Tax Declaration No. 18-0051-00124. We also
found a one-story structure on it, owned by one Leo Baybay.
12. Question: What did you do next, if any?
Answer: Our team then served the letter-offer to the
representative of the defendant’s heirs to compensate them
for the government’s use of their property for the CALAX
Project. We also served a letter-offer to Leo Baybay, the
owner of the standing structure.
13. Question: Who are the heirs of Cirila Borja?
Answer: Based on an Extrajudicial Partition dated 26
September 2015, Magdalena Amodente and Elena I. Baybay.
14. Question: I am showing you a copy of a document entitled
“EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF THE LATE
CIRILA BORJA,” attached to the Amended Complaint as
Annex “O” dated 26 September 2015. What relation does
this document have to the one you just mentioned?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may we respectfully request that the document
just identified by the witness be marked as our Exhibit “O.”
15. Question: Who represented the heirs of Cirila Borja?
Answer: Martin I. Baybay, as evidenced by a Special Power
of Attorney dated 26 September 2015.
16. Question: I am showing you a document entitled Special
Power of Attorney which authorizes a certain Martin I.
Baybay as the attorney-in-fact for Magdalena Amodente and
Elena I. Baybay and attached to the complaint as Annex “I.”
What relation does this Special Power of Attorney have to
the one you just mentioned?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may we respectfully request that the document
just identified by the witness be marked as our Exhibit “I.”
17. Question: When were the defendants or their representative
given a copy of the letter offer?
Answer: February 26, 2020.
18. Question: Who received this letter offer?
Answer: It was received by the defendants’ representative,
Martin I. Baybay.
19. Question: What was the response of the representative, if
any?
Answer: He rejected the letter-offer because he thought
the offer too low.
20. Question: I am showing you a copy of a letter-offer attached
as Annex “H” of the Complaint and addressed to Cirila Borja.
It was received by one Martin I. Baybay. What is the
relevance of this letter-offer for the subject lot to the one
you previously mentioned?
Answer: It is the same one.
Your Honor, may we respectfully request that this Letter
Offer be marked as our Exhibit “H.”
21. Question: What about the letter-offer to Leo Baybay?
Answer: He accepted the letter-offer, but failed to submit
the required documents within the allotted thirty (30) days
from date of receipt.
29. Question: I am showing you a copy of a Letter-Offer for a
One-Story Residential House (Concrete) dated 06 December
2016, addressed to one Leo Baybay, and attached to the
Amended Complaint as Annex “J.” What relation does this
document have to the Letter-Offer for the structure that you
mentioned?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as
Exhibit “J.”
21. Question: And due to this rejection of the offer from the
heirs of Cirila Borja and the failure of Leo Baybay to submit
the required documents, what did DPWH do?
Answer: Our team started to prepare the necessary
documents needed for the filing of the appropriate
expropriation case in court.
22. Question: What are these documents?
Answer: Our team secured copies of the following
documents:
a. Tax Declaration of the subject lot;
b. BIR Zonal Valuation of the lot;
c. Photographs of the Structure on the lot;
d. Replacement Cost Summary
e. Structure Sketch Plan;
f. Structural Mapping;
g. Tax Declaration of the Structure;
h. Letter-Offer for the subject lot;
i. MARTIN I. BAYBAY’s Special Power of Attorney;
j. Letter-Offer for the structure;
k. Parcellary Plan;
l. Subdivision Plan;
m. Environmental Compliance Certificate;
n. Special Allotment Release Order (SARO);
o. Extrajudicial Settlement dated 26 September 2015;
p. Personal Data Sheet (Engr. Cyrus A. Pasicolan);
q. Department Order No. 65, s. 2017; and
r. DPWH Secretary’s Special Order No. 38, s. 2017.
23. Question: I am showing you a copy of Tax Declaration No.
18-0051-00124 covering Lot 2608 and attached as Annex
“A” of the Complaint. Are you familiar with this document?
Answer: Yes.
24. Question: How are you familiar with this document?
Answer: Our team secured the same from the Assessor’s
Office.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “A.”
25. Question: Based on the Tax Declaration No. 18-0051-00124,
that you just identified, what is the current land
classification of the subject property?
Answer: It is agricultural.
26. Question: Based on the Tax Declaration No. 18-0051-00124,
that you just identified, what is the current land
classification of the subject property?
Answer: It is agricultural.
27. Question: I am showing you a certified true copy of a BIR
Zonal Valuation for lots in the Municipality of Silang, dated
13 August 2017, and attached as Annex “B” of the
Complaint. Are you familiar with the same?
Answer: Yes.
28. Question: How can you say that you recognize this
document?
Answer: Because our team personally secured this copy
from the BIR Office.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as
Exhibit “B.”
30. Question: I am showing you a copy of a document with
photographs covering a one-story residential building made
of concrete, attached to the Amended Complaint as Annex
“C” and signed by Engineer II Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan,
Engineer II Adones L. Abrinica, and Engineer III Vincent C.
Pagdatoon. What relation does this document have to the
Photographs of the affected structure you mentioned earlier?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “C.”
31. Question: Why are you familiar with this document?
Answer: I recognize this document because we took pictures
of the existing structure on the lot to document the existing
improvement to be expropriated along with the subject lot.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan as the Parcellary Plan be
marked in evidence as our Exhibit “C.”
32. Question: What else did you do, if any, in relation to
expropriating the said improvement?
Answer: We also prepared the Replacement Cost Summary
for the structure to use as basis for compensation to the
owner Leo Baybay.
33. Question: I am showing you a copy of the Replacement Cost
Summary, attached to the Amended Complaint as Annex
“D,” what relation does this document have to the one you
just mentioned?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “D.”
34. Question: I am showing you a copy of a document entitled
“SKETCH PLAN,” for a One-Story Residential House-
Concrete, with Index No. 424 and a total area of 103.28
square meters, attached to the Amended Complaint as
Annex “E,” what relation does this document have to the
Structure Sketch Plan you mentioned?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “E.”
35. Question: I am showing you a copy of a document, listing
the structures on the subject lot to be expropriated, signed
by Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan (Engineer II), Adones L.
Abrinica (Engineer III), and Vincent C. Pagdatoon (Engineer
III), and attached to the complaint as Annex “F.” What
relation does this document have to the Structural Mapping
document you mentioned?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “F.”
36. Question: On this document, the row with Structure No. 6 is
highlighted, showing the type of structure and that it is
owned by one Leo Baybay. What does this signify?
Answer: It signifies that it is the structure owned by Leo
Baybay which is the subject of the Amended Complaint for
expropriation.
37. Question: There is a highlighted portion on the Parcellary
Plan, what does the highlighted portion signify?
Answer: It signifies the portion affected by the CALAX
PROJECT and is now the subject of this expropriation case.
38. Question: I am showing you a copy of Tax Declaration No.
18-0051-03599 covering a building on Lot No. 2608, CAD-
452-D, and attached as Annex “G” of the Complaint. Are
you familiar with this document?
Answer: Yes.
39. Question: How are you familiar with this document?
Answer: Our team secured the same from the Assessor’s
Office.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “G.”
40. Question: Based on the Tax Declaration No. 18-0051-00124,
that you just identified, what is the current classification of
the building?
Answer: It is residential.
41. Question: I am showing you a copy of the Parcellary Plan for
the subject lot and attached as Annex “K” of the Amended
Complaint. Do you recognize this document?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “K.”
42. Question: I am showing you a copy of the Subdivision Plan
for the subject lot which is attached to the Amended
Complaint as Annex “L.” What relation does this document
have to the Subdivision Plan you prepared for this Amended
Complaint?
Answer: It is one and the same.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “L.”
43. Question: There is a highlighted portion on the Parcellary
Plan and Subdivision Plan, what does this signify?
Answer: The highlighted portion is the lot subject of this
Amended Complaint for expropriation.
44. Question: I am showing you a copy of an Environmental
Compliance Certificate labeled as ECC-CO-1301-0002 and
attached as Annex “M” of the Complaint. Do you recognize
the same?
Answer: Yes.
45. Question: How do you recognize this document?
Answer: Our team is responsible for securing a copy of this
ECC from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Main Office to support our implementation of the
CALAX Project.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan be marked in evidence as our
Exhibit “M.”
46. Question: Based on the Parcellary Plan and Subdivision plan
you mentioned and identified, how much of the subject lot is
affected by the CALAX Project?
Answer: The government needs TWO THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE (2185) square meters of the
affected lot for the CALAX Project.
47. Question: How much is being deposited by the government
for the affected area of the subject lot?
Answer: The Plaintiff is ready to deposit THREE MILLION
TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (Php3,277,500.00) representing one
hundred percent (100%) of the BIR zonal value of the
affected area of the subject lot, as well as the total amount
of SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND TWENTY-NINE
PESOS AND FORTY-TWO CENTAVOS (PHP711,029.42) for
the affected structure, representing the Replacement Cost,
both pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 10752.
48. Question: What is the mode of payment and source of
funding for the just compensation that you have mentioned?
Answer: The corresponding check, payable to the rightful
owner, is being prepared and will be deposited with this
Honorable Court as a requisite for the issuance of the Writ of
Possession. We already have the Special Allotment Release
Order (SARO) indicating the total funds earmarked for the
CALAX Project from the Department of Budget and
Management.
49. Question: You mentioned a certain “Special Allotment
Release Order” (SARO) indicating the total funds available
for the implementation of the CALAX Project. I am showing
you this document entitled “Special Allotment Release
Order,” and attached as Annex “N” of the Complaint, that
covers the payment of ROW acquisition for the CALAX
Project. Do you recognize this document?
Answer: Yes, this is the SARO I was talking about that
shows the readily available funds for the payment of just
compensation to the owners of the lots affected by the
CALAX Project.
Your Honor, may I respectfully request that this document
identified by Engr. Pasicolan as the SARO be marked in
evidence as Exhibit “N.”
This Judicial Affidavit is being made to attest to the
truthfulness of the facts contained therein, and to serve as
evidence in favor of plaintiff Republic of the Philippines as
represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Affiant further sayeth naught.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
on this 21st day of December 2020, Makati City, Philippines.
Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 21st day of
December 2020, in Makati City, affiant who is personally known
to me, exhibiting to me his government ID with No. 0108227
issued by the Professional Regulation Commission on 30 May
2007. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the Affiant
and I am fully satisfied that he has voluntarily executed the
foregoing Judicial Affidavit, and that he has read and understood
its contents, and that all the allegations therein are true and
correct of his own personal knowledge and based on the
documents and records made available to him.
___________________________
KAREN A. ONG
Senior State Solicitor
SWORN ATTESTATION
I, JONATHAN A. PABILLORE, of legal age, Filipino and
with office address at 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,
Makati City, Philippines, 1229, after having been sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:
1. I am an Associate Solicitor at the Office of the Solicitor
General, the legal counsel of the Republic of the Philippines as
represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways,
the plaintiff in the instant case;
2. I supervised the conduct of the examination for the
Judicial Affidavit of Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan, which was
held at the Office of the Solicitor General with office address at
APMC Bldg, Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City,
Philippines, 1229 on 16 October 2020;
3. I faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the
questions asked and the corresponding answers that Engr. Cyrus
Cesar A. Pasicolan gave; and
4. Neither I nor any other person then present coached
Engr. Cyrus Cesar A. Pasicolan regarding the latter's answers.
This Attestation is done this 21st day of December 2020 in
Makati City.
JONATHAN A. PABILLORE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of
December 2020, Attestee exhibiting to me his IBP Membership ID
with Roll No. 70323, issued by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Main Office, Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
___________________________
KAREN A. ONG
Senior State Solicitor
