CIVIL CASES

For Protection Order under R.A. 9262

For Annulment of Marriage – Psychological Incapacity

For Legal Separation

For Rescission of Contract with Damages

For Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Complaint

-Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

and/or Responsive Pleading
-Motion for Bill of Particulars
-Motion for Judgment on the Pleading

Answer

-Answer with Affirmative Defenses

-Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim
-Answer with Specific Denial of Document Under oath
-Answer with Specific and Affirmative Defense
and Counterclaim
-Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim

Reply

Trial Brief

-Pre Trial Brief

-Arbitration – Compromise Agreement
-Position Paper

Trial Proper
-Judicial Affidavit
-Motion for Written Interrogatories
-Motion for Deposition of Witness
-Question and Answer for Principal Deponent

Motions

-Motion to Dismiss
-Motion for New Trial
-Motion for Postponement of Hearing
-Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel with
Substitution of Counsel
-Motion for Execution of Judgment
-Motion for the Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution
-Motion for Extension of Time cum Entry of Appearance
-Second Motion for Extension of Time
-Final Motion of Extension of Time
-Ex-Parte and Non-litigious Motions
-Motion to Declare Defendant in Default
-Motion to Lift Order of Default
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. Plaintiff is of legal age, and with residence at Doña Aurora St. South Poblacion,

Dipaculao, Aurora Province, while defendant is also of legal age and at present

residing at Rizal St. North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province;

2. Plaintiff is the only daughter of the defendant and is living with her mother and

two (2) minor brothers at the aforementioned address;

3. Defendant and his wife, Daisy Rebueno, the mother of plaintiff, are living

separately since 2001. Defendant is now living with his mistress at the

aforementioned address and since the day he left his family, failed and refused to

provide financial support and maintenance to them but he visits his family once

in a while;

4. Plaintiff, due to poverty and since her father had already stopped supporting

them, had to discontinue her schooling and helped her mother earn a living;

5. On or about June 2, 2010, defendant asked for some money from Plaintiff for his

birthday celebration and when Plaintiff refused to give Defendant what he

wanted, the latter harassed and threatened to inflict physical harm upon her.

When Defendant was finally able to obtain money from Plaintiff, he slapped her

on the face, threatened to inflict more injury upon her if she refused again the

next time he asked for some money and then left furiously;
 6. Plaintiff since then had developed fear and anxiety due to continuous harassment

of her father even when she is at work;

7. In support of Plaintiff’s complaint, enclosed herewith are Plaintiff’s affidavit, and

testimonies from her mother and two (2) co-workers who have witnessed the

incidents, which are attached as Annexes “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”, respectively.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for the issuance of Permanent Protection order and

for the grant of the following reliefs:

a. Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing,

personally or through another, physical harm upon the Plaintiff and her family

members.;

b. Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting

or otherwise communicating with the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly;

c. Directing the respondent to stay away from Plaintiff and designated family or

household member at a distance specified by the court, and to stay away from the

residence, school, place of employment, or any specified place frequented by the

petitioner and any designated family or household member;

d. Prohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of any firearm or

deadly weapon and order him to surrender the same to the court for appropriate

disposition by the court, including revocation of license and disqualification to

apply for any license to use or possess a firearm.

Aurora Philippines, September 17, 2010.

Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Clea Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Doña Aurora St., South Poblacion,

Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. that I am the plaintiff in the above titled complaint.

2. That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and

correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving

the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of

my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if I should

thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is

pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court

wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Witness my hand this 18th day of September 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora this

18th day of September 2010 by Clea Rebueno with Residence Certificate No. 011985

issued at Dipaculao, Aurora on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Baler,

Aurora on July 17, 2000.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 52
Page No. 17
Book No. 11
Series of 2010

Copy Furnished:
Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno by registered mail by

depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party

or counsel at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the

postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 25 th day of

September 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated September 17, 2010 of the post

office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this September 17, 2010 at

Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of September 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully states that:

1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on October 8,

2010;

2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on

September 30, 2010 and thus has until October 15, 2010 within which to

submit an Answer or Responsive Pleading;

3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and prior

commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said

deadline;

4. As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional

period of ten (10) days from today within which to submit Defendant's

Answer or Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow

the undersigned to interview the available witness and study this case further;

5. This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be

given an additional period of ten (10) days from today within which to submit an

Answer or other Responsive Pleading.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010.

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

NOTICE OF HEARING

Atty. Kristopher Vallejos

Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora

Sir:

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for

hearing on October 14, 2010. At 8:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or

soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
 That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno by registered mail by depositing

the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel

at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return

the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 8 th day of October 2010, as

shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3rd day of October

2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 rd day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 07
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Accused, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. The information did not show, with sufficient definiteness, the following allegations to

wit:

3. …….Defendant ……. since the day he left his family, failed and refused to

provide financial support and maintenance to them;

6. Plaintiff since then had developed fear and anxiety due to continuous

harassment of her father even when she is at work;

2. The foregoing allegations are conclusions of law, which plaintiff should clarify and

flesh them with facts and specific acts to enable defendant-movant to prepare and file a

responsive answer thereto which requires information as to the precise nature,

character, scope and extent of plaintiff’s cause of action.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff be ordered to file a bill of particulars of

the facts and acts constituting the conclusions alleged in the complaint.

Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010.

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

NOTICE OF HEARING

Atty. Kristopher Vallejos

Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora

Sir:

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for

hearing on October 14, 2010. At 8:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or

soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno by registered mail by depositing

the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel

at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return

the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 8 th day of October 2010, as

shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3rd day of October

2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 rd day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that judgment

on the pleadings be directed, on the following ground:

1. In his answer to the complaint for Permanent Protection Order, defendant

merely denied that he harassed and threatened to inflict physical harm upon

the plaintiff, which is tantamount to denial of any knowledge and information

as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint. This kind of denial, while

allowed in certain instances, does not apply when the facts as to which want of

knowledge is asserted are to the knowledge of the court are so plainly and

essentially within the defendant’s knowledge. It amounts to a general denial

that entitles the plaintiff to judgment on the pleadings.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that judgment on the pleading be rendered in favor of

plaintiff, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint.

Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

NOTICE OF HEARING

Atty. Arman Austria

Counsel for Defendant
Address: 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora

Sir:

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for

hearing on October 14, 2010. At 8:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or

soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno by registered mail by

depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party

or counsel at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the

postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 12 th day of

October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 9, 2010 of the post office of

Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this October 8, 2010 at

Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DEFENDANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, answering the complaint for

Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262, to this Honorable Court, respectfully

states:

1. Defendant admits the allegations under par. 1 and 2 of the complaint and the

portion of par. 3 regarding the fact that he now lives with his new wife but

denies the rest thereof, for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth thereof.

2. Defendant denies the allegation under par. 3 regarding the fact that plaintiff

had to stop from going to school because he failed to support them. As a

 matter of fact he was the one who spends for the education of all of his

children.

3. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff stopped from going to school, it was

voluntary on her part and was not premised on his failure to support them as

plaintiff claimed.

4. Defendant denies under oath that he harassed, slapped on the face and

threatened to inflict physical harm upon the plaintiff as alleged under par. 5,

6, and 7 of the complaint.

5. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant indeed asked for some money from the

plaintiff as birthday gift from her, in no case did he ever harassed, slapped on

the face or threatened her when she refused to give her money, the truth being

that it was his wife who reacted violently over the situation to the extent that

she even aimed a bolo upon him and angrily told him to leave.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack

of merit, with costs against plaintiff.

Defendant further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the

premises.

Aurora, Philippines, October 1, 2010

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520
 VERIFICATION

I, Eddie Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Rizal St. North Poblacion,

Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am the defendant in the above entitled answer;

2. That I have caused the preparation by my counsel of said answer;

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained, and that the same are

true and correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

Witness my hand this 1st day of October 2010 at Dipaculao, Aurora, Philippines.

Eddie Rebueno
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1879 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 00247518 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 17
Series of 2010

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno by registered mail by depositing

the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel

at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return

the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 8 th day of October 2010, as

shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3rd day of October 2010

at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 17
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states:

That as a consequence of plaintiff’s clearly unfounded claims, which forced

defendant to litigate and protect his interests and to secure the services of

counsel, defendant suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees in the amount

of P10,000 and expenses of litigation in the amount of no less than P5,000, all of

which should be assessed against plaintiff as penalty for filing such unfounded

and harassment complaint.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

Aurora, Philippines October 17, 2010

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Eddie Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Rizal St., North Poblacion,

Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am the defendant in the above titled complaint.

2. That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and

correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving

the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of

my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if I should

thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is

pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court

wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Witness my hand this 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora this

18th day of September 2010 by Eddie Rebueno with Residence Certificate No. 011985

issued at Dipaculao, Aurora on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Baler,

Aurora on July 17, 2000.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 52
Page No. 17
Book No. 11
Series of 2010
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno by registered mail by depositing

the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel

at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return

the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20 th day of October 2010, as

shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 17, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this day of October 17, 2010

at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 17
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states:

1. Defendant denies the allegation under par. 3 regarding the fact that plaintiff

had to stop from going to school because he failed to support them. As a

matter of fact he was the one who spends for the education of all of his

children.

2. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff stopped from going to school, it was

voluntary on her part and was not premised on his failure to support them as

plaintiff claimed.

3. That as a consequence of plaintiff’s clearly unfounded claims, which forced

defendant to litigate and protect his interests and to secure the services of

counsel, defendant suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees in the

amount of P10,000 and expenses of litigation in the amount of no less than

 P5,000, all of which should be assessed against plaintiff as penalty for filing

such unfounded and harassment complaint.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

Aurora, Philippines October 17, 2010

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Eddie Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Rizal St., North Poblacion,

Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am the defendant in the above titled complaint.

2. That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and

correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving

the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of

my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if I should

thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is

pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court

wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Witness my hand this 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

 Eddie Rebueno
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora this

18th day of September 2010 by Eddie Rebueno with Residence Certificate No. 011985

issued at Dipaculao, Aurora on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Baler,

Aurora on July 17, 2000.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 52
Page No. 17
Book No. 11
Series of 2010

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno by registered mail by depositing

the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel

at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return

the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20 th day of October 2010, as

shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 17, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this day of October 17, 2010

at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 17
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

REPLY

Clea Rebueno, after being duly sworn, deposes and say:

1. That I am the plaintiff in the Civil Case for seeking for Permanent

Protection Order under RA 9262;

2. That the allegations of Defendant in his answer under par. 2 are baseless,

the truth being that from June 2001 until September 2002 before she

stopped from going to school, it was her mother who paid for her

educational expenses as evidenced by Annex E, the Official Receipts issued

by Father John Karash Memorial High School and not Defendant as he so

claimed;
 3. That the allegations under par. 4 are not true, in fact attached herewith to

support my allegations against the accused is Annex F, the Medical

Certificate executed by Dr. Vladimir Enriquez, certifying that her face

swelled, had bruises, and she had a cut lip, as a result of the physical harm

inflicted upon her by defendant. Also attached herewith are the Affidavits

of the plaintiff, her mother, Daisy Rebueno and her two (2) co-workers,

Aizzan Sabatin and Rozel de Asis, who witnessed the harassment, as

Annexes A, B C and D, respectively.

4. That for the abovementioned evidences, accused cannot claim lack of

knowledge of the accusations against him.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that she be given leave of court to file this reply and for

such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.

Aurora, Philippines, October 16, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

Copy furnished:
Atty. Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
 That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno by registered mail by

depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party

or counsel at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the

postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 25 th day of

October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 20, 2010 of the post office of

Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this October 16, 2010 at

Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16th day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this pre-trial

brief containing the following:

1. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND

POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a

reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, accused is open to

the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.

b. Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,

accused respectfully submits that the desired terms of amicable

settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of

 any obligation due and owing to plaintiff inasmuch as there is nothing

to indicate the obligations of the accused to plaintiff and, second, a

schedule of payments.

2. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

a. The Plaintiff only admits to those facts stated in their counter affidavit,

etc., i.e. their personal circumstances.

b. Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from

plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, Plaintiff admits no other

facts stated in the Complaint.

3. ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED

a. Plaintiff submits that the following issues put forward by plaintiff are

subject to proof :

a.1 Whether or not the acts of harassment and threat to inflict physical

harm by defendant upon plaintiff may be prosecuted under RA 9262.

a.2 Whether or not defendant’s mere denial of the allegations against

him may acquit him from the coverage of RA 9262.

4. Plaintiff intends to present the following documents, in connection with which

plaintiff requests from defendant their admission of their execution and due

authenticity:

a. Official Receipt.

Purpose: To prove that defendant deliberately deprived plaintiff and her

mother of educational support since the day he left them.

b. Medical Certificate.

Purpose: To prove the physical harm inflicted upon plaintiff by defendant.

5. Plaintiff manifests his intention to resort to discovery procedures.

6. Plaintiff does not intend to amend his complaint.

7. Plaintiff intends to present the following witnesses:

 a. Plaintiff himself, who will testify on the true circumstances leading to the

filing of this suit.

b. Daisy Rebueno, her mother, who witnessed the commotion on June 2, 2010.

c. Aizzan Sabatin and Rozel de Asis, her two (2) co-workers who witnessed the

harassment at her working place.

RESPECTFULLY submitted.

Aurora, Philippines, October 20, 2010.

Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff
Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

Copy furnished:
Atty. Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno by registered mail by

depositing the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party

or counsel at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the

postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 25 th day of
October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 20, 2010 of the post office of

Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this October 16, 2010 at

Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

COMES NOW, the DEFENDANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

submits this pre-trial brief in compliance with the trial court’s order, containing the

following:

I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND

POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a

reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, accused is open to

the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.

b. Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,

accused respectfully submits that the desired terms of amicable

 settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of

any obligation due and owing to plaintiff inasmuch as there is nothing

to indicate the obligations of the accused to plaintiff and, second, a

schedule of payments.

II. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATION OF

FACTS

a. The Accused only admits to those facts stated in their counter affidavit,

etc., i.e. their personal circumstances.

b. Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from

plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, Accused admit no other

facts stated in the Complaint.

III. ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED

Accused submit that the following issues put forward by plaintiff are

subject to proof :

a. Whether or not the pieces of evidence presented by defendant

are admissible on the ground that they are relevant.

b. Whether or not defendant had deliberately deprived plaintiff and her

mother of the financial support they needed so that he may be indicted

under RA 9262.

c. Whether or not defendant’s acts are indictable under RA 9262.

IV. DOCUMENT/S, EXHIBIT/S, EVIDENCE, OR NUMBER AND NAMES OF

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED, STATING THE PURPOSE THEREOF

Accused or Defense intends to present the following witnesses:

a. Defendant himself, who will testify on the true circumstances

leading to the filing of this suit against him;

b. Analyn Lumahan, who will testify on the fact of defendant’s

continuous financial support to plaintiff.

 c. We reserve the right to present other evidence necessary,

material or relevant to the case.

V. A MANIFESTATION OF THEIR HAVING AVAILED OR THEIR

INTENTION TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

OR REFERAL TO COMMISSIONERS

a. Considering the relatively simple issues presented, accused does not

intend to avail of discovery at this time;

b. Subject however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery

from plaintiff, accused reserves the right to resort to discovery before

trial.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the foregoing be taken cognizance of.

Aurora, Philippines, October 22, 2010

Arman Austria
Counsel for Defendant
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

Copy furnished:
Atty. Kristopher Vallejos
Counsel for Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
 That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in

the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such

messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in

said case, as follows:

Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno by registered mail by depositing

the copy in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel

at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return

the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 30 th day of October 2010, as

shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 22, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 22 nd day of October

2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of October 2010 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2,

1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712
Doc. No. 07
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
 Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,
Complainant
Civil Case No. 1711
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno,
Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

This compromise and settlement agreement is made by and between Clea

Rebueno, who will be referred to as plaintiff, whose address is Doña Aurora St. South

Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, and Eddie Rebueno, who will be referred to as

defendant, whose address is Rizal St. North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province.

The parties stipulate to the following:

1. Plaintiff asserts a claim against defendant based on violation of RA 9262 or Anti-

Violence Against Women and their Children.

2. An action based on this claim is now pending in the Regional Trial Court of Aurora

Province, case number 1711, with plaintiff represented by attorney Kristopher Vallejos,

and defendant represented by attorney Arman Austria.

3. Defendant denies any liability in connection with the alleged claim.

4. The parties wish to reach a full and final settlement of the action and all matters

arising from the dispute described above.

Therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth, the parties agree to the

following:

a. Defendant will pay to plaintiff P150,000 on execution of this agreement or as the case

may be.

b. Plaintiff will execute a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the pending action with

prejudice, and deliver this to the defendant on execution of this agreement or as the case

may be.

c. Each party releases the other from all rights and claims that they may have against the

other arising from the dispute described above.

d. This agreement is a compromise of a disputed matter and may not be construed as an

admission of any party's liability.

e. This agreement was the result of a negotiated settlement and may not be construed as

having been prepared by any one party.

f. In the event any action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this agreement, the

prevailing party will be entitled to recover attorney fees.

g. This agreement is intended to bind and benefit the parties, their heirs, agents, legal

representatives, assigns, and successors in interest.

October 30, 2010 Clea Rebueno

Signature of Plaintiff

October 30, 2010 Kristopher Vallejos

Signature of Plaintiff's Atty.

October 30, 2010 Eddie Rebueno

Signature of Defendant

October 30, 2010 Arman Austria

Signature of Defendant's Atty.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch _____

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. ___________

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION

Petitioner, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states

that:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married under the circumstances

hereinafter stated and with residence located at No. 123 Narra St. Brgy.

Pamplona 3, Las Piñas City, where she may be served with notices, orders and

decision in this case. Petitioner is currently employed as Accounting Staff in

the SM Corporation;

2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married under the

circumstances herein stated and with residence at No. 101 Valentine St.

Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City. Summons, notices, and

decision in the instant case may be served to the Respondent at the above-

given addresses. Respondent is a Certified Public Accountant with business

office at Room 609 Malvar Building, Malate, Manila.

3. Petitioner and respondent exchanged marital vows on December 13, 1990, at

Malate Catholic Church, Malate, Manila. A copy of their Marriage Certificate

is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “A”. Having no pre-nuptial

 agreement, the existing property relation between the parties is absolute

community of property;

4. On October 19, 1997, petitioner and respondent begot their first child, Mark

Patrick G. Dela Cruz. A copy of his Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No.

97-60135 is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “B”;

5. On January 25, 1999, petitioner gave birth to their second child, Patricia

Marie G. Dela Cruz. A copy of the Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No.

99-52696 is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “C”;

6. On January 28, 2001, Petitioner and respondent acquired property located at

No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City. A copy

of the Deed of Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 is hereto

attached and marked as ANNEX “D” and “E”, respectively;

7. Sometime in June 2002, the Petitioner left their conjugal home with their

children and lived with her parents because of troubles between the

Respondent and herself. Petitioner and Respondent often quarrel about

money and the latter’s time for their family. Respondent seldom give

petitioner money to support their family and he also has more time to mingle

with friends rather than spend time with his wife and their children;

8. The Respondent herein committed an act of concubinage as defined in the

Revised Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal

case against the former;

9. On or about Ferbruary 2010, Petitioner let the children see and spend time

with the Respondent. When they arrived at their house in Golden Subdivision,

Las Pinas, they discovered that someone named Juanita Gutierrez living with

the Respondent. Mark Patrick told the Petitioner about what they saw.

Petitioner immediately confirmed it with the Respondent and he admitted

this fact.

10. On October 19, 2010, Mark Patrick’s Birthday, Petitioner went to their

conjugal home with the children and she saw Respondent and Juanita in the

act of caressing each other.

11. Dianne Francisco, a common friend of the Petitioner and Respondent and

also a neighbor of the parties, confided to Petitioner that Juanita is living with
 the Respondent since year 2005 and Respondent introduced Juanita to the

neighborhood as his new wife. Dianne showed to Petitioner pictures of

Respondent and Juanita together in the conjugal home of the parties. Copies

of the said pictures are attached hereto and marked as ANNEX “F”.

12. The Petitioner never condoned or committed such act of adultery on the part

of respondent;

13. The Petitioner became cognizant of the above cause on February 2010 or

within one year up to the filing of this petition and within five years from and

after the date when such occurred.

14. The facts of this case render the reconciliation of the parties highly

improbable.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due hearing, a decree of legal

separation be issued by this Honorable Court, ordering:

(a) That Petitioner be entitled to live separately from the respondent, without

dissolution, however, of the marriage bond;

(b) That the conjugal partnership be dissolved and liquidated, depriving the

Respondent of his share of the conjugal partnership profits and awarding the

same to the above-named children; and

(c) That the custody of the minor children, Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and

Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz, be awarded to the petitioner.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, November 01, 2010.

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St.,
Ermita, Manila, 1000
IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 47765
MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09
Tel. No. 765-4321

VERIFICATION
 I, MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with
residence located at No. 123 Narra St. Brgy. Pamplona 3, Las Piñas City, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state, that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
3. I have read and understood the contents thereof;
4. All the allegations therein are true and correct base on my personal
knowledge and belief;
5. All the annexes attached therein are faithful reproduction from
genuine and authentic documents and records;

CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

6. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body;
7. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body;
8. If I should learn of a similar action or proceeding that is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, I shall inform this Honorable Court of
such fact within five (5) days there from.

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ

Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 1st day of November, 2010
affiant exhibited to me her SSS I.D. No. 34-085739-0 issued on January 06, 2010 at Las
Pinas City, Philippines.

ATTY. DANILO R. ASUNCION

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until Dec. 31, 2010
PTR C.R. No. 7349322 – Mla. 01/02/09
IBM C.R. No. 823599 – Mla. 12/20/09
TIN 313-976-878
ROLL No. 29868-09
Doc. No. 52
Page No. 102
Book No. 10
Series of 2010
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

COMES NOW the Respondent by the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully avers:

15. That the Petitioner’s Petition for Legal Separation in its paragraph 8 alleges

that: “The Respondent committed an act of concubinage as defined in the

Revised Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal

case against the former.”;

16. That said allegation is insufficient and defective in that it fails to specify what

act committed by the Respondent which constitutes the crime of concubinage

that was used as a ground for the Legal Separation;

17. That a more definite statement on the matter as above indicated is necessary

in order to enable the respondent to prepare properly his responsive pleading.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued by this Honorable

Court requiring the Petitioner to make more definite and certain his complaint in the

particulars above indicated.

Las Pinas City, December 07, 2010.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515 Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St.,
Malate, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Tel. No. 987-9898

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 02, Las Piñas City
ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES
Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709 1010 Bldg. A. Mabini St.
Ermita, Manila

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for Bill of Particulars for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court on December 09, 2010 at 2:00 in the afternoon or as
soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x
 ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent Pedro S. Dela Cruz, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. Respondent admits paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Petition that he is married

to the herein Petitioner, that he is the father of Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and

Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz, and that he together with the Petitioner acquired

the Property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3,

Las Pinas City;

2. Respondent partially admits paragraph 7 of the Petition insofar as the fact

that on June 2002, Petitioner left their conjugal home with the children

because of the troubles between them, but specifically denies the allegations

of the Petitioner that they often quarrel because he seldom gives money to

support for their family and that he spend more time with friends rather than

his wife and his children. The truth is that Respondent seldom gave money to

the Petitioner because the latter usually used his money for her own pleasure

and not to support their family. Petitioner spent most of their money in

Casino or in playing “mahjong” with her friends. Petitioner is the one who

spent more of her time with friends rather than her family, and not the

Respondent;

3. Respondent partially admits paragraph 8 of the Petition insofar as the fact

that their children went to their conjugal home to visit the respondent and

spend time with him, but specifically denies the remaining allegations because

the truth is that Juanita Gutierrez is not living at the conjugal home but rather

she was only invited by the Respondent for a dinner and also to meet the

latter’s children;
4. Respondent admits paragraph 9 of the Petition that the Petitioner together

with the children went to their conjugal home to celebrate Mark Patrick’s

birthday where Juanita was also invited;

5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 10 because

Juanita never lived at the conjugal home and that he never introduced Juanita

to anyone as his new wife. In fact, no one in the neighborhood knew Juanita

because she seldom go out of the house when she visits the Respondent in the

conjugal home;

6. Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the averments made in paragraph 11;

7. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 12 because Petitioner knew about

Juanita since year 2005, and not only on February 2010.

8. As Affirmative Defenses, the Respondent repleads by reference all the

foregoing allegations as may be material and pertinent hereto and further

aver that:

a. Petitioner knew about the relationship of Respondent and Juanita

since year 2005 but she did nothing to interfere with such. She even

calls Juanita “Mare” and they sometimes see each other, together with

the children, to have lunch or dinner;

b. Assuming without admitting that Juanita is living with the Respondent

since year 2005, the Petition for Legal Separation is still dismissable

because of Condonation. Petitioner expressly forgiven the Respondent

when they live together at their conjugal home on September 2009

until January 2010. Pictures of the Respondent and Petitioner at their

conjugal home were taken during those period. Copies of those pictures

are attached herewith as ANNEX “1”;

 c. Petitioner left the conjugal home for the second time when they often

quarrel because Respondent suspected the Petitioner of being in love

with another man named Francis Gonzales;

d. On February 2010, Petitioner started to go out publicly with Francis.

She even introduced Francis to their children and to the Respondent as

well. Only then when Respondent started again to see and go out with

Juanita.

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that

the Petition for Legal Separation be DISMISSED.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, December 15, 2010

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515, Oriental Building M.H. Del Pilar
St.,
Malate, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Las Pinas City

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St.,
Ermita, Manila
 VERIFICATION

I, PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with residence
located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, after
having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state, that:

9. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;

10. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
11. I have read and understood the contents thereof;
12. All the allegations therein are true and correct base on my personal
knowledge and belief;
13. All the annexes attached therein are faithful reproduction from
genuine and authentic documents and records;

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ

Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 15 th day of December, 2010

affiant exhibited to me her SSS I.D. No. 28-067548-0 issued on January 19, 2001 at Las
Pinas City, Philippines.

ATTY. DANILO R. ASUNCION

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until Dec. 31, 2010
PTR C.R. No. 7349322 – Mla. 01/02/09
IBM C.R. No. 823599 – Mla. 12/20/09
TIN 313-976-878
ROLL No. 29868-09
Doc. No. 75
Page No. 113
Book No. 10
Series of 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x
 REPLY

Petitioner Mary Claire G. Dela Cruz, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

9. Petitioner denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 2 his

Answer that: “Respondent seldom gave money to the Petitioner because the

latter usually used his money for her own pleasure and not to support their

family. Petitioner spent most of their money in Casino or in playing

“mahjong” with her friends. Petitioner is the one who spent more of her time

with friends rather than her family, and not the Respondent”. The truth of

the matter is that Petitioner seldom goes to Casino and play “mahjong” with

her friends and every time she goes there, she use her own money which she

have earned from her employment and not of the Respondent’s. In fact,

Petitioner is the one who is always there for their children, the one who

attends there school programs, the one who sends them to the hospital when

they are sick and the one who regularly helps them with their school loads.

Those things were never done by the Respondent for their children because he

is always out with his friends;

10. Petitioner denies the allegation of the Respondent under paragraph 3 of his

Answer that “Juanita Gutierrez is not living at the conjugal home but rather

she was only invited by the Respondent for a dinner and also to meet the

latter’s children” because when Mark Patrick and Patricia Marie arrived at the

conjugal home, they saw Juanita came out from the bathroom and she was

only clad with a towel. If it is true that she was only invited for dinner, why

didn’t she take a bath on her own house rather than at the house of someone

else where she was only a guest?

11. Petitioner likewise denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph

5 of his Answer that “no one in the neighborhood knew Juanita because she
 seldom go out of the house when she visits the Respondent in the conjugal

home” because as confided to the Petitioner by Dianna Francisco, Juanita

even attended twice of the homeowners’ meetings of the subdivision where

the conjugal home is located;

12. Petitioner partially admits the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph

7 and 8(a) of his Answer insofar as the fact that Petitioner knew Juanita as a

friend of the Respondent but she never knew of their illicit relationship until

the incident on February 2010;

13. Petitioner specifically denies the allegations of the Respondent under

paragraph 8(b) of his Answer that: “the Petition for Legal Separation is still

dismissable because of Condonation. Petitioner expressly forgiven the

Respondent when they live together at their conjugal home on September

2009 until January 2010”. The truth of the matters is that from June 2002

when Petitioner left their conjugal home, Petitioner never talked to

Respondent until September 2009 when Petitioner decided to reconcile with

the Respondent but that time Petitioner has no knowledge about Juanita

previously living with the Respondent at the conjugal home. It is only on

February 2010 when the Petitioner knew about the illicit relationship of the

Respondent and Juanita;

14. Petitioner partially admits the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph

8(c) only insofar as to the fact that Petitioner left the conjugal home for the

second time when they often quarrel because Respondent suspected the

Petitioner of being in love with another man named Francis Gonzales; but it is

not true that Petitioner is in love with Francis. The truth is that Francis is only

a new officemate and friend of the Petitioner and nothing more than that;

15. Lastly, Petitioner denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph

8(d) of his Answer because Petitioner never gone out on a date with Francis.
 The truth is that a month after the separation of Petitioner and Respondent,

the Petitioner discovered that Juanita is living at the conjugal home.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that

the Petition for Legal Separation be GRANTED.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, January 3, 2011.

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St.,
Ermita, Manila, 1000
IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 47765
MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09
Tel. No. 765-4321

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Las Pinas City

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515, Oriental Building
M.H. Del Pilar St.,
Malate, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x
 PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
FOR THE PETITIONER

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Petitioner and the Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and

begotten with two (2) children, namely: Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and Patricia Marie G.

Dela Cruz. They were separated in fact for the first time on June 2002, reconciled on

September 2009, and separated again on January 2010.

Petitioner claims that the Respondent is living at the conjugal home with another

woman named Juanita Gutierrez since year 2005.

On the other hand, Respondent claims that he never lived with Juanita at the

conjugal home but he admits his illicit relationship with the latter.

II. POSSIBILTY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Petitioner is not willing to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution,

and/or to enter into a just and equitable amicable settlements in order to expedite and

put an end to the instant litigation.

III. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts:

1. Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and

begotten with two (2) children, Mark Patrick and Patricia Marie;
2. Petitioner and respondent acquired a property located at No. 101 Valentine St.

Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, as their conjugal home; and
3. Petitioner and Respondent are separated in fact since June 2002.

IV. ADMITTED FACTS

Petitioner’s allegations in her Complaint and Reply constitute her only

admissions and nothing more.

V. STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a Decree of

Legal Separation on the ground of sexual infidelity of the Respondent?

VI. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

 The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence:

1. Pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines;

2. Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
3. Pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Concubinage;
4. Other applicable laws and jurisprudence.

VII. DOCUMENTARY OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

In support of their claims, plaintiffs will present the following documentary

evidence:

1. Exhibit A – Marriage Contract dated December 13, 1990 to prove the

marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent;

2. Exhibit B – Certificate of Live Birth of Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz to prove that

he is a son of Petitioner and Respondent;

3. Exhibit C – Certificate of Live Birth of Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz to prove

that she is a daughter of Petitioner and Respondent;

4. Exhibit D – Deed of Sale to prove that Petitioner and Respondent acquire the

property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las

Pinas City;
5. Exhibit E - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 to prove that the said

property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent;

6. Exhibit F – Pictures of Respondent and Juanita inside the conjugal home to

prove that they were living there together;

7. Petitioner reserve the right to present additional documentary exhibits in the

course of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Pre-trial Brief be

admitted.

Las Pinas City, February 16, 2011.

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St.,
Ermita, Manila, 1000
IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 47765
MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09
Tel. No. 765-4321

Copy furnished:
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Las Pinas City

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515, Oriental Building
M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
FOR THE RESPONDENT

VIII. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Respondent were legally married to the Petitioner on December 13, 1990 and

have two (2) children, namely: Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and Patricia Marie G. Dela

Cruz. They were separated in fact since June 2002 but reconciled on September 2009

until January 2010 when they separated again for the second time.
 Petitioner alleges that the Respondent is living with Juanita Gutierrez at the

conjugal home since year 2005.

On the other hand, Respondent claims that he never lived with Juanita at the

conjugal home but admits the relationship with the latter.

IX. POSSIBILTY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Respondent is not willing to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution,

and/or to enter into just and equitable amicable settlements in order to expedite and put

an end to the instant litigation.

X. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts:

4. Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and

begotten with two (2) children, Mark Patrick and Patricia Marie;
5. Petitioner and respondent acquired a property located at No. 101 Valentine St.

Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, as their conjugal home; and
6. Petitioner and Respondent are separated in fact since June 2002.

XI. ADMITTED FACTS

Respondent’s allegations in his Answer constitute her only admissions and

nothing more.

XII. STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner has a sufficient cause of

action against the Respondent?

XIII. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence:

5. Pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines;

6. Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
7. Pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Concubinage;
8. Other applicable laws and jurisprudence.

XIV. DOCUMENTARY OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

 In support of their claims, plaintiffs will present the following documentary

evidence:

8. Exhibit 1 – Marriage Contract dated December 13, 1990 to prove the marriage

between the Petitioner and the Respondent;

9. Exhibit 2 – Certificate of Live Birth of Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz to prove that

he is a son of Petitioner and Respondent;

10. Exhibit 3 – Certificate of Live Birth of Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz to prove

that she is a daughter of Petitioner and Respondent;

11. Exhibit 4 – Deed of Sale to prove that Petitioner and Respondent acquire the

property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las

Pinas City;
12. Exhibit 5 - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 to prove that the said

property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent;

13. Exhibit 6 – Pictures of Petitioner and Respondent at the conjugal home to

prove that they lived again as husband and wife from September 2009 to

January 2010;
14. Respondent reserve the right to present additional documentary exhibits in

the course of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Pre-trial Brief be

admitted.

Las Pinas City, February 18, 2011.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515, Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St.,
Malate, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Tel. No. 987-9898

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Las Pinas City

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St.,
Ermita, Manila, 1000
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully state:

1. Plaintiff DEXTER CAGUI, Filipinos, of legal age, and resident of 6f Makati

Executive Center, 114 Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati City. Dexter is a
surgeon at Makati Medical Center;

2. Respondent ALMARIO JANDAYAN, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned,
was a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with
principal offices located at 12th Floor Pearlbank Center, 106 Valero St., Salcedo
Village, Makati;

3. On or about April 17, 2009, Plaintiff and Respondents entered into a written
contract by the terms of which plaintiff was to purchase five ABC Diesel Engines,
all of 16 horsepower, for 165,500 each from Respondent corporation (contract
attached as Exhibit 1-A);

4. The Respondent had warranted and assured the Plaintiff that all spare parts of
the above mentioned engines were kept in stock in its stores, enabling the latter
 to avoid loss due to long periods of waiting, and that Respondent would replace
any part of the engines that might break within twelve (12) months after delivery;

5. Plaintiff further charged that on June 28, 2009, the cam rocker arm of all the
five engines broke due to faulty material and workmanship and the engines
stopped functioning, that the Respondent was unable to send a replacement until
August 29, 2009 and that barely six days after replacement the new parts broke
again due to faulty casting and poor material;

6. Plaintiff, then on September 10, 2009, notified the Respondent and demanded
rescission of the contract of sale, sought for return for the price of the engines
and damages but Respondent did not pay (Notice and Demand correspondence
attached as Exhibit 1-B).

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays before this Honorable Court the
following:

1. A determination by the Court that the said contract of sale has been rescinded
and ordering restitution of the consideration paid by the Plaintiff with legal
interest from September 10, 2009.

2. That the Respondent be required to compensate the Plaintiff of actual, moral and
exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees and other litigation expenses incurred in
connection therewith;

Plaintiff, likewise pray for such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and
equitable under the premises.

Makati City, October 20, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, DEXTER CAGUI, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

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

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; I have read the
allegations therein and certify that the same are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge;

3. That I further certify that plaintiff have not commenced any action involving the
same issues, before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the different divisions
thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge,
no such other actions or proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, the different divisions thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or
agency; and

4. That in the event that any action involving the same should be made known, I
hereby bind myself to report the same within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 21, 2010 at
Makati City, Philippines.

DEXTER CAGUI

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of October, 2010, by the
affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at
Paranaque City, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that:

1. Respondent engage the services of the undersigned counsel only on December

10, 2010;

2. Respondent was served with Summons and copy of the complaint on November
26, 2010 and thus has until December 11, 2010 within which to submit an
Answer or Responsive Pleading;

3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and prior
commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the scheduled
deadline;

4. As such, the undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional

period of Five (5) days from today within which to submit Respondent’s Answer
or Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
undersigned to interview the available witness and study the case further;

5. This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be

given an additional period of Five (5) days from today within which to submit an Answer
or other Responsive Pleading.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, Philippines, December 13, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
S215 Makati Executive Center,
114 Leviste St., Salcedo Village,
Makati City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers that:

1. That the plaintiff’s complaint in paragraphs 5 alleges:

On September 10, 2009, plaintiff notified the Respondent and

demanded rescission of the contract of sale sought for the return of
the price of the engine x x x x (underscoring supplied);

2. The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and

particularity, specifically it does not mention the specific engine
subject of the sale under consideration and of the amount of the
consideration actually paid;

3. That a more definite statement on the matters as above indicated is

necessary in order to enable the Respondent to prepare its
responsive pleading because from the very onset of this
controversy, the main dispute was on what was actually and exactly
agreed upon by the parties with respect to instances as averred by
the palintiff;

4. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to

particulars of the said agreement which was signed by the parties
would definitely simplify the issues in this case and hopefully
uncomplicate the negotiations between the parties for amicable
settlement.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays that an order be issued by this

Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff to make more definite statement as to the
particulars of the Terms of Agreement entered by the contracting parties and the
particular breach which brought about the compalint.

Makati City, Philippines, December 13, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
S215 Makati Executive Center,
114 Leviste St., Salcedo Village,
Makati City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that judgment
on the pleadings must be directed, on the following grounds;

1. In its answer to the complaint for rescission of contract, the Respondent merely
alleged that he had no knowledge and information as to the allegations of the
complaint. This kind of denial, while allowed on certain instances does not apply
when the facts as to which want of knowledge is asserted are to the knowledge of
the court are so plainly and essentially within the Respondent’s knowledge. It
amounts to a general denial that would entitle the plaintiff to judgment on the
pleadings.

2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable document is the contract of

sales signed by the plaintiff and Respondent corporation. The corporation did not
question the authenticity of the agreement. Respondent merely denies knowledge
of the document, which is not sufficient to render factual issue and the same
impliedly admits the due execution and authenticity, as o entitle the plaintiff on
judgment on the pleadings.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that judgment on the pleadings be rendered in favor of

the plaintiff, ordering the rescission of the contract of sale and the restitution of the
consideration paid for by the plaintiff.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:

1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth

of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract
of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate
fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and
consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during

the period of the contract, the particular engine model and other
specifications which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

5. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show
that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff;

7. As consequence of plaintiff’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel,
Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation
expenses;

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack
of merit, with cost against the plaintiff.
Respondent further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the
premises.

Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;

2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses,
and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and/or based of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at

the City of Makati, Philippines.

JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the
affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City
of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:

1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth

of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract
of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate
fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and
consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during

the period of the contract, the particular engine model and other
specifications which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

5. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show
that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff;

7. As consequence of plaintiff’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel,
Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation
expenses;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 1. To the extent plaintiff’s lack standing with respect to any claim, that claim should
be dismissed;
To the extent of absence of any writing to support the rescission prayed for, the
claim should be dismissed;

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Based upon these answers and affirmative defenses, the Respondent respectfully
request that the Court enter a judgment as follo0ws:

a. Dismissing the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety, on the merits, and with
prejudice;
b. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may find just and
equitable.

Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;

2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say
that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based of
authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the City
of Makati, Philippines.

JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA

Affiant
SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of December, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to
his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
Doc. No.: 454;
Page No.: 24;
Book No. VII
Series of 2010.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
REMY MURALAGI and ALMARIO JANDAYAN
GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:

1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth

of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract
of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate
fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and
consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during

the period of the contract, the particular engine model and other
specifications which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

5. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show
that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff;

7. As consequence of plaintiff’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel,
Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation
expenses;
 COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges:

1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are hereby reproduced and
reiterated;

2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by the plaintiff against the
answering Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation
which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of
attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

CROSS CLAIM

And for this cross claim against co-Respondent REMY MURALAGI, answering
Respondent further alleges:

1. That Respondent hereby repleads, reiterates, and reproduces all material

allegations contained in the foregoing answer with counterclaim;

2. That Respondent MURALAGI should reimburse answering Respondent on any

and whatever amount the matter maybe held answerable or which it may be
ordered or suffered to pay under and by virtue of the present action in favor of
the plaintiff, answering Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the
transactions entered into between Respondent MURALAGI and the plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the

Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:

1. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent;

2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable under the premises.

Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;

2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses,
and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and/or based of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at

the City of Makati, Philippines.

JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the
affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City
of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

Doc. No.: 454;

Page No.: 24;
Book No. VII
Series of 2010.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
REMY MURALAGI and ALMARIO JANDAYAN
GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL OF DOCUMENT UNDER

OATH

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:

1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth

of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract
of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate
fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and
consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during

the period of the contract, the particular engine model and other
specifications which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

5. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show
that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff;

7. As consequence of plaintiff’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel,
 Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation
expenses;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges:

1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are hereby reproduced and
reiterated;

2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by the plaintiff against the
answering Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation
which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of
attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

CROSS CLAIM

And for this cross claim against co-Respondent REMY MURALAGI, answering
Respondent further alleges:

1. That Respondent hereby repleads, reiterates, and reproduces all material

allegations contained in the foregoing answer with counterclaim;

2. That Respondent MURALAGI should reimburse answering Respondent on any

and whatever amount the matter maybe held answerable or which it may be
ordered or suffered to pay under and by virtue of the present action in favor of
the plaintiff, answering Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the
transactions entered into between Respondent MURALAGI and the plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the

Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:

1. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent;

2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable under the premises.

Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;

2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses,
and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and/or based of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at

the City of Makati, Philippines.

JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the
affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City
of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

Doc. No.: 454;

Page No.: 24;
Book No. VII
Series of 2010.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
REMY MURALAGI and ALMARIO JANDAYAN
GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND

COUNTER CLAIM

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
plaintiff’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:

1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth

of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract
of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate
fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and
consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during

the period of the contract, the particular engine model and other
specifications which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

5. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show
that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff;

7. As consequence of plaintiff’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel,
Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation
expenses;
 SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

At the time the Contract of Sales was entered on April 17, 2009, Respondent made it
clear to the plaintiff that it officially transacts business only through direct sales duly
authorized by the Respondent corporation:

A. Respondent MURALAGI was not duly authorized direct sales agent of answering
Respondent

B. And that transactions entered into in behalf of the answering Respondent by

MURALAGI are unauthorized, plaintiff have no cause of action against answering
Respondent.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges:

1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are hereby reproduced and
reiterated;

2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by the plaintiff against the
answering Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation
which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of
attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the

Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:

3. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent;

4. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable under the premises.

Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

3. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;

4. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses,
 and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge
and/or based of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at

the City of Makati, Philippines.

JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the
affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City
of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

Doc. No.: 454;

Page No.: 24;
Book No. VII
Series of 2010.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

REPLY

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, reply to the affirmative defenses asserted by Respondent

in its answer and allege:

1. In its answer to the complaint for rescission of contract, the Respondent merely
alleged that he had no knowledge and information as to the allegations of the
complaint. This kind of denial, while allowed on certain instances does not apply
when the facts as to which want of knowledge is asserted are to the knowledge of
the court are so plainly and essentially within the Respondent’s knowledge. It
amounts to a general denial that would entitle the plaintiff to judgment on the
pleadings.

2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable document is the contract of

sales signed by the plaintiff and Respondent corporation. The corporation did not
question the authenticity of the agreement. Respondent merely denies knowledge
of the document, which is not sufficient to render factual issue and the same
impliedly admits the due execution and authenticity, as o entitle the plaintiff on
judgment on the pleadings.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, through counsel, reply to the affirmative defenses asserted by

the Respondent, move to strike certain affirmative defenses, and renew his prayer for
the relief contained in the Complait

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF’S PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the
following Pre-trial Brief in compliance with the order of the Court dated January 4,
2011.

A. Possibility of Amicable Settlement

Plaintiff hereby manifest that he is open to amicable settlement on matters other

than rescission of the contract of sale;

B. Brief Statement of Plaintiff

The complaint filed is founded on the basic legal maxim that no one shall be
enriched at the expense of another. The Respondent’s breach of contract has not
only caused monetary loss but likewise resulted to the plaintiffs mental anguish,
serious anxiety and embarrassment and has besmirched reputation for which he
should be compensated by way of moral damages.

C. Facts for Stipulation

- Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court on the person of the parties
- Authenticity and enforceability of the subject contract of sale.

D. Statement of Issue
Whether the contract entered into between the plaintiff and Respondent
corporation may be rescinded.

E. Documents for Markings

- Contract of Sale
- Invoices (delivery and official receipts)
- Receiving Papers

F. Witnesses
- Plaintiff himself
- Trucking Services representative (who made the delivery)

G. Trial Dates
- Subject to available dates of the Honorable Court
Respectfully submitted

Makati City, November 26, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED:
JOY MARIE R. Gabor
Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ARBITRATION – COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Plaintiff DEXTER CAGUI, filed this complaint against Respondent ALMARIO

JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. for rescission of the written contract of
sale entered into between them. Plaintiff prays for the restitution of the consideration
paid to the Respondent with damages.

The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and submitted to the court a
compromise agreement, the terms and conditions are as follows:

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Comes Now, the parties plaintiff DEXTER CAGUI and Respondent ALMARIO
JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. and unto this Honorable Court
respectfully submit this compromise agreement:

1. Respondent corporation acknowledges its obligation to the plaintiff for a total

amount of Php827,500 plus 6% PA interest from January 1, 2010;

2. Respondent promises and undertakes to pay the aforementioned amount to the

plaintiff in 3 monthly installments of equal amounts;

3. Said monthly installment payments shall commence on February 20, 2011 and
every end of the month thereafter until fully paid and shall be deposited to
plaintiff Baco De Oro Account (No. 138008888 BDO Valeoro,Makati) until full
payment and in accordance with the following schedule:
February 20, 2011 Php292,383.33

March 31, 2011 Php292,383.33

April 30, 2011 Php292,383.33

4. The if the Respondent fails to comply with one (1) installment, the obligation
shall become due and demandable;
 5. That the plaintiff shall return all the diesel engines purchased from the
Respondent after the 2nd installment has been cleared;

6. The parties agree that the approval of this agreement by the Court shall put an
end to this litigation, except for the purposes of execution in case of default.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties respectfully pray that the Honorable
Court approve this Compromise Agreement and render judgment on the basis therof.

Makati City, January 17, 2011

______________________

DEXTER CAGUI

Plaintiff

_____________________

JAIME POCIUNCULA

(ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.)

Respondent
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 100, Manila City

ALVIN G. MARASIGAN,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 556987

ROSEMARIE B. SANTOS,

Defendant.

x---------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

Defendant Rosemarie Santos through the undersigned counsel respectfully

submits the following position paper and states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This action for annulment filed by plaintiff Alvin Marasigan for his marriage with

defendant Rosemarie B. Reyes on April 19, 2005 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of

Manila Branch 100 on the following grounds:

1. Fraud on account of the defendant’s pregnancy with a child not of the plaintiff’s.

2. The plaintiff’s consent having been obtained by force and intimidation

3. Failure in obtaining consent of the plaintiff’s parents.

 The plaintiff also prays for support and moral damages on account of the

foregoing allegations.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Defendant Rosemarie B. Santos, daughter of Lawyer-Businessman Felipe Valdez

Santos, was eighteen (18) years old when she married herein plaintiff Alvin Marasigan

who was then twenty (20) years old and was about to enter the law school. The

ceremony was held on April 19, 2005 at the Manila City Hall officiated by Manila Mayor

Lito Atienza.

Prior to the said marriage, Santos and Marasigan were not even acquaintances.

They first met in a class party where everyone was having the most of the night. After a

few exchange of conversations while getting drunk amidst a loud environment, they

drove to a motel and spent the night together. That night has since started the malady of

their lives.

Defendant Santos found out her pregnancy a month before her graduation at the

St. Paul’s University – Manila as a Broadcast Journalism student. EXHIBIT A is the

original copy of the pregnancy test done by Dr. Erlinda Colayco, an OB-Gyne of Delos

Santos Hospital, on the defendant stating that as of March 20, 2005, the defendant is

carrying a four-week old baby in her womb. The plaintiff however questions his

paternity over the child.

In a cross examination with the plaintiff, (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 16), he alleged

that on February 22, 2005, he was approached by two bodyguards of the defendant’s

father, Atty. Felipe Santos, accordingly informing him of the ‘misfortune’ that he would

be in should he not marry the defendant. A revolver was accordingly shown to him when
the bodyguards sensed his hesitation. Two days after the incident, the plaintiff allegedly

approached personally the defendant’s father invoking his incapability to enter into

marriage. However, Atty. Santos accordingly told him to ‘expect to die’. The defendant

denies the accusations stating that her father, who is a church pastor, could not do such

a ‘horrible’ act. Further, Santos maintains that neither did her father intervene in her

personal choices including her personal life. The defendant added that her father only

knew of Marasigan when both of them already decided to get married, abandoning the

contention that Atty. Santos forced Marasigan to marry her.

Moreover, the plaintiff contends that he failed to obtain his parent’s consent

when he married defendant Santos as they were in the United States. Due to the fraud

referred to in the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff was forced to seek help from an

elderly couple by the name of Claudio Gunda and Rosita Ramirez-Gunda who operate a

gotohan near his residence to pretend to be his parents thus making it appear that their

marriage was valid. The court has established the correctness of the accusation through

the examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation on the thumb mark

made by the couple on the subject marriage contract compared to that of thumb marks

of the real parents of plaintiff Marasigan (EXHIBIT D). The court no longer required the

couple to testify in court as the evidence was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES

The court defined the following issues which the defendant prays to result in the

annulment of his marriage with defendant Santos:

1. Fraud on account of the defendant’s pregnancy with a child not of the plaintiff’s.

2. The plaintiff’s consent having been obtained by force, intimidation and undue

influence.

3. Failure in obtaining consent of the plaintiff’s parents.

 ARGUMENTS

The court has established the fact that defendant Santos was known in the same

university for her playfulness with her male buddies. The university’s Guidance

Counselor has testified the numerous instances when the defendant’s attention was

called due to her alleged obvious misconduct of consistently going out with various

male acquaintances as complained by the latter’s respective girlfriends (TSN, July 13,

2007, p.4). Said accusation was not denied by defendant Santos.

Defendant Santos also admitted in court that in her past experiences, some has

already confronted her affront regarding her playful deeds. In fact, defendant Santos

also admits the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegation that they were not even lovers

when they first had sex. However, it has to be pointed out that during the cross

examination with the plaintiff by the undersigned, the former admitted that he already

knew Santos by name and he has already heard so much about her playful reputation.

Alvin Marasigan on direct-examination (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 10 to 12).

ATTY. QUIRANTE:

Q Do you know Rosemarie Santos even before you met in the class party?

A No.

Q Can you tell this court how you approached her?

A She looked beautiful that night. When I got the chance of getting near her,
I immediately did.
 Q So you were attracted to her. Did you have the hint that she would not
decline your conversation with her?

A Yes. My friends assured me I wouldn’t get rejected.

Q So your friends knew her.

A Yes.

Q Did you not have any boy talk with your friends regarding Rosemarie?

A Yes we did but I did not know her personally.

It had long been held in Carris v. Carris, 24 N.J. Eq. 516 that where a man has

had sexual intercourse with his wife before the marriage, and she is pregnant at the time

of marriage, although he may not be the author of the pregnancy, the marriage will not

be annulled. It is only but proper to abandon the defense of fraud on the regard both the

husband and the wife were parties to premarital immortality. Clearly, the issue of

paternity over the couple’s child is not up to resolve the allegation of fraud as cited in

Art. 46, Family Code. Whether or not the child is that of Alvin Marsigan could not be a

valid ground to annul his marriage with herein defendant. The defendant however

insists the paternity of Marasigan. Nonetheless, the petitioner failed to satisfactorily

prove his denial on his paternity over the child for not presenting a more technical,

accurate and reliable evidence despite the wide array of scientific avenues of proving or

disproving paternity.

II

Plaintiff Marasigan alleged that if it were not for the force and intimidation

applied to him compelling him to marry Rosemarie Santos, the marriage would not have

occurred. This issue is clearly of no moment because the petitioner dismally proved with
sufficient bases that indeed he was forced or intimidated prejudicing his consent over

the marriage.

Marasigan brought to the court Allan Colandog, his friend who was accordingly

with him when the guards approached him and as witness Colandog put it, “forced” him

to marry Rosemarie. Further, Colandog testified that the guards showed Marasigan their

respective revolvers when the latter manifested his refusal to the marriage. Marasigan

was too affected, avers Colandog, that he shivered in fear when the guards disappeared.

He further recapped that Marasigan got affected to the point that he missed one of his

series of interviews at the University of Santo Tomas as an applicant for admission at

the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law (TSN, July 13, 2007, p. 17).

The defendant, despite his denial to the aforementioned facts, first chose not to

present any further evidence to contradict the allegations that have affected her family

to the point of separating herself voluntarily under the guardianship of her parents by

living alone in a condominium unit in Quezon City. Santos was evidently too emotional

in her cross examination.

Rosemarie Santos on cross-examination (id, at p. 24).

ATTY AFABLE

Q Did your father force or intimidate Alvin to marry you?

A No

Q Then what can you say about the petitioner’s allegation that he was forced

and intimidated prior to the marriage ceremony?

 A I’m so tired of his allegations. These things destroyed my family that I no

longer know how to restore our broken ties. Go on, tell this court every

single lie and I will not negate them. You can even incarcerate me right

now.

Q Calm down Ms. Santos. So you are not presenting any evidence to

contradict the allegations?

A No.

Vitiated consent by force and intimidation is a valid ground for annulment as

stated in Art. 45, Family Code. The present family code limits the cases which would

constitute fraud sufficient for annulment of marriage to those enumerated in Article 46

(Anaya v. Palaroan, 36 SCRA 97).

However, the petitioner failed to prove in this court the existence of such force

and intimidation when he failed to negate the single evidence that herein defendant

later presented. EXHIBIT G and E submitting Atty. Santos’ passport and Certificate of

Appearance respectively, indicating that he was in a business conference at Istanbul,

Turkey on February 19 to 25, 2005, making it impossible for him to meet the petitioner

on February 22, 2005. Marasigan also failed to establish the viability of his allegation

that the guards showed him their guns when the said guards were on leave due to their

employer’s absence (see copy of employees’ logbook EXHIBIT F).

Given that these allegations are true, the most that the court can discern over the

actions of the plaintiff prior to the marriage is his reluctance to the marriage. In which

case, as interestingly held in Vales v. Villa, 35 Phil 789 that there must, then, be a

distinction to be made between a case where a person gives his consent reluctantly and

even against his good sense and judgment, and where he, in reality, gives no consent at

all, as where he executes a contract or performs an act against his will under a pressure

which he cannot resist. It is clear that one acts as voluntarily and independently in the
eye of the law when he acts reluctantly and with hesitation as when he acts

spontaneously and joyously. Legally speaking he acts as voluntarily and freely when he

acts wholly against his better sense and judgment as when he acts in conformity with

them. Between the two acts there is no difference in law.

Very clearly, the petitioner is just shopping for grounds to annul his marriage

with the plaintiff.

III

It is also stated in Art. 45, Family Code

Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following

causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the

marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below
twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the
consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after
attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited
with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
(emphasis supplied).

xxx xxx xxx

True enough, the petitioner was above 18 but below 21 during the marriage. The

court very well established that the petitioner seek help from the Gunda couple for the

consummation of the marriage ceremony. The defendant herself knew that the Gunda

couple was not Marasigan’s parents because she knew that the former’s parents have

been in the United States for so long and that they cared so much for Alvin that they

would not miss their son’s marriage without first knowing her would-be wife. The
defendant is definitely of the same stand that they were both not in legal age when they

contracted the marriage and that only her father consented.

The issue now turns out to be whether they were still cohabiting at the time when

Alvin turned 21, in squaring off with the qualification in paragraph 1 of Art. 45, Family

Code.

As the defense easily established, the couple were still cohabiting as the plaintiff

told the court.

Alvin Marasigan on direct-examination (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 21).

ATTY QUIRANTE

Q By the way Alvin, when did Rosemarie live your home to live alone in a

condominium?

A A month ago or so?

Q Are you sure?

A Well we lived in the same house but we were not at peace with each other.

Marasigan turned 22 on January 1, 2007. At the time of the interrogation he was

already 22 and seven months. Clearly, if Rosemarie left their home a month before said

interrogation, they were still cohabiting when petitioner Marasigan turned 21.

Therefore, Art. 45 of the Family Code could not be invoked by the petitioner in annulling

their marriage.
 This malady has gone through a weary race. Contrary to what the law provides

that the husband and the wife are obliged to live to observe mutual love, respect and

fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code). The sanction therefore is the “spontaneous, mutual

affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order” to

enforce consortium (Tsoi v. Lao-Tsoi, 334 Phil 294, citing Cuaderno v. Cuaderno, 120

Phil. 1298)

At any rate, it is being implored that this journey of diametrically opposed

marriage be settled in its most peaceful way. That what damage this has caused to the

emotions of the parties be repaired and their affection restored.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE premises considered, Defendant respectfully prays that plaintiff’s

action for annulment de denied for the grounds he presented are bereft of merit.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises is also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Manila City, March 10, 2008.

GLEN ARROYO QUIRANTE

Counsel for Defendant
P. Burgos St., Manila
PTR No. 6347124, 2/24/2008, Manila City
IBP No. 812332, 4/13/2008, Pasig City
Roll of Attorney No. 43789
Copy Furnished:

Atty. Florie Gama Afable

Garcia Macalintal and Associates
Counsel for Plaintiff
3rd Floor, Orcel Bldg.,
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 85
Lipa City

MARTONI F. REYES, SP. PROC NO. 09-0281

Petitioner,
For: Declaration of Nullity
Of Marriage

-versus-

SUSAN L. REYES
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

OFFER OF TESTIMONY. The testimony of petitioner, MARTONI F. REYES is being

offered to prove the material allegations in the petition regarding his marriage to
SUSAN L. REYES, and the circumstances before, during and after their marriage and
the subsequent separation of the parties. To prove that petitioner, Guido F. Reyes failed
to comply with his marital obligation to live together, observe mutual love and respect
and render mutual help and support. To prove that petitioner consulted a clinical
psychologist to help him in determining whether he has psychological incapacity to
assume the essential marital obligation. To identify some documents necessary in the
prosecution of this petition.

How are you related to the petitioner?

A. I am the petitioner sir.

Where are you residing?

A. I am a resident of Blk 4, Lot 10 Adelina Homes Subd., Lipa City, Batangas.

Do you know Susann Reyes?

A.Yes sir.

Why do you know her?

A.She is my wife sir.

When and where were you married to Susan L. Reyes?

A.The report of marriage sir.

When and where did you meet Susa L. Reyes?

A.I met her sometime in 1993 in the State of Bahrain, we were both Overseas Filipino
Contract Workers.
How would you describe your first meeting with Susa L. Reyes?
A.I saw her as one I could be with to while away from the boredom of working in
Bahrain.

What did you do if any?

A.After a few days i courted her, but i wasn’t actually serious with her.

How did you court her?

A.I personally visited her or i would call her on the phone to profess my love.

So what happened next?

A.We started dating and soon we began to engage in premarital sex. However, I treated
her as a playmate only, i was not serious with her, all I wanted was her body.

What else happened?

A.Every time we have concluded our trysts, I would distance myself and not call her for
days, and when I feel the urge again I would call her and we will have sex. That was my
routine and to me, Susan L. Reyes was only one of my conquests and when I grew tired,
I would have to discard her like an old toy, and for no reason I began dreading the times
she called.

After having sex with the respondent, what happened, if any?

A.Susan L. Reyes became pregnant.

What was your reaction?

A.I got mad about it so without any further words I hung up the phone.

What happened next if any?

A.I just decided to marry Susan.

Do you love Susan by that time?

A.No sir.

So why did you marry Susan?

A.Because I don’t want to inconvenience the parties concerned.

After the marriage ceremony, what happened next?

A.After the marriage ceremony, we each went on our own ways.

What happened after that?

A.When my contract ended in mid 1994, I went back to the Philippines without Susan’s
knowledge. Susan was already six months pregnant.

While in the Philippines, did you meet Susan?

A.Yes sir, but only once.

Will you please tell us the incident?

A.In 1996, Susan, our child and Susan’s family were able to trace my whereabouts and
came to our house in Batangas. For the first time i saw my child.

What was your reaction?

A.I did not feel anything special.

So you were not happy to see Susan and your Son.

A.I was not happy sir.
What else happened?
A.Susan tried to extend her hand in reconciliation but I refused it.

Why did you refuse?

A.Because I had already made a decision not to live with her, because it would be unfair
both to me and Susan as we would be living a lie.

What happened next?

A.They left without any further conversation.

Before filing this case, did you consult anyone?

A.Yes sir.

Whom did you consult?

A.Besides my lawyer, I consulted a clinical psychologist.

Who was that clinical psychologist?

A.Dr. Nedy Tayag.

What did Dr. Tayag do if any?

A.She performed various psychological tests.

After those psychological tests, what happened?

A.Dr. Tayag prepared a written report.

What is that written report?

A.It is a report on the psychological condition of Guido Reyes.

What does it contain?

A.My background data and brief marital history.

What else?
A.The tests results and evaluation and remarks.

A.You mentioned remarks, what were her remarks?

She mentioned that after a thorough analysis of the facts and other relevant date, Dr.
Tayag is of the strong opinion that the eventual failure of our relationship was after all,
brought about by my own misguided notions and apparent unpreparedness as well as
immaturity towards assuming the shoes of a married man. I apparently lacked
appropriate insight on my behaviour and deemed to be psychologically incapacitated to
properly perform, or even come close to being the husband that i was supposed to be.

On the clinical point of view, I am deemed suffering from a distant form of personality
flaw, which have deterred me both from appropriately living up to my marital vows and
fulfilling my paternal obligations. My behavioural manifestations suggest the presence
of Personality Disorder, Narcissistic type, as characterized by the reckless disregard for
the feelings and needs of another person.

That I executed this Affidavit to confirm the truth of all facts herein stated and to serve
this Judicial Affidavit as my direct testimony and further, for such other legal intents
and purposes this may serve.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of February 2009 at
Batangas City.

MARTONI F. REYES
Affiant
Driver’s License No.:DO1-05-006787

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of June 2007 in Lipa City,
Batangas.

JAYSON BARRETO CAGTAHAN

Counsel for the Accused
Camia Street, City Park Subdivision
Sabang 4217 Lipa City
Roll of Attorneys 67167
PTR No. 9828287/LIpa City/1-5-2009
IBP No. 25633/1-05-2009
MCLE Compliance No. II-0008371

Doc No. ________

Page No.________
Book No._______
Series of 2007.
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 85
Lipa City

CLAIRE REPADAS CUNANAN, CIVIL CASE NO. 09-0281

Petitioner,

-versus-

324 CONTRACTORS, INC.,

Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES

NOW COMES the plaintiff in the above entitled case, moves for a rule on the
defendant, 324 Contractors, Inc., to answer under oath the following interrogatories:

1. Did 324 Corporation prior to 1st day of October, 2008, enter into a contract with
Habaji Coporation for the servicing, repairing, or inspecting of all or any of the
bar fixtures sold to its customers, any or all parts of which were purchased from
the defendant, 324 Contractors, Inc?

2. Was such contract, if any, in writing?

3. Was the said contract in force on the 1st day of October, 2008?

4. Did Habaji Corporation at any time prior to the 1st day of October, 2008 purchase
from 324 Contractors, Inc any of the bar fixtures with which the restaurant and
tavern operated by Lito Garcia at 336 Camo Street, was equipped prior to the day
aforesaid, including a cooler for the purpose of keeping beef cold and fresh for
consumption?
5. Did Habaji Corporation operate its inspection, service and repair department
under the name of the Corporation?

6. What was the relationship, if any, between the aforesaid Habaji Corporation and
Huson Corporation?

7. Did Habaji Corporation by any of its employees, inspect, service, and made
repairs on a certain cooler machine in the tavern aforesaid on the 1st day of
October 2008, and at any other time between that date and the 2nd day of
November, 2008?
 8. Were Habaji Corporation and Huson Corporation both located at 224 Street on
the 2nd day of November, 2008?

AFFIDAVIT

WILBUR IAN Q. BABULA, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says that he is
one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause; that said cause of action
arises out of the escape of certain dangers gases from certain bar fixtures sold to the
plaintiff by the defendant, 324 Contractors, Inc.

Affiant is informed and believes that the said bar fictures were inspected, altered, and
repairs attempted to be made by one of the servants and agents of the defendant, Habaji
Corporation, and that said work was done by said Habaji Corporation, by virtue of a
certain contract with 324 Corporation; that the said defendant in its answer has denied
that it had any such contract with the defendant, the Habaji Corporation, and that the
said fixtures were inspected, altered, or repaired by its servant or agent, that a same
denial has also been made in the answer of the defendant, Habaji Corporation.

Affiant further says that the evidence required by the answers of the interrogatories
herewith presented, and the list of wsorn documents, are necessary and material in the
trial of said cause.

WILBUR IAN BABULA & Associates

2nd Flr. JR Business Complex, Ayala Highway
Mataas na Lupa, Lipa City, Batangas 4217

By :

WILBUR IAN BABULA

PRT # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Lipa City
IBO # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Batangas City
ROLL No. 43990
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
Prosecutor’s Office
Lipa City

ROSARIO B. CHAVER, SP. PROC CASE NO.2007-009

Petitioner, FOR: Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage

-versus-

Alejandro Guevarra,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR THE TAKING OF DEPOSITION OF WITNESS

PETITIONER ROSARIO B. CHAVER, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully manifests:

1. That last November 11, 2009, MARIETA GLOBO ECACA, witness for the herein
plaintiff, arrived for a one-month vacation from Qatar where she is currently
working;

2. That, her testimony is of utmost importance for the judicial determination of the
instant case.

3. That however, herein witness is constrained, by reason of her work, to go back to

Qatar on December 13, 2007, and, is uncertain as to when departure on
December 13, 2009.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honourable

Court that an Order be taken before the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court preferably
on December 12, 2009 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

Other relief and remedies, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for.

City of Tanauan for Lipa City, December 7, 2009.

JAYSON BARRETO CAGTAHAN

Counsel for the Accused
Camia Street, City Park
Subdivision
Sabang 4217 Lipa City
Roll of Attorneys 67167
PTR No. 9828287/LIpa City/1-5-
2009
IBP No. 25633/1-05-2009
MCLE Compliance No. II-
0008371
The Clerk of Court
This Court

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the HOnorable Court immediately upon receipt
hereof for its consideration and approval.

JASON BARRETO CAGTAHAN

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

DEXTER CAGUI,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for Rescission
of Contract with Damages
ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL
ENGINEERING, CO.
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING,

CO., through the undersigned counsel, appearing especially and solely for this purpose,
and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint
on the following ground that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING PARTY.

DISCUSSION

A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service would readily show that the
copies of the Summons dated December 8, 2010 and the Complaint and its corresponding
annexes were allegedly delivered and tendered upon the Movant ALMARIO JANDAYAN
GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. through a certain Maria Clara alleged to be the
authorized personnel of ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.,
Makati City on December 11, 2010. Copies of the said Summons and Return of Service
that form part of the records on the case are hereto pleaded as integral part of this
Motion;

Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper service of summons

amounting to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the herein Movant Corporation
since the summons was improperly served upon a person who is not one of those
persons named or enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
upon whom service of summons shall be made;

The material provision on the service of summons provided for in Section 11 of Rule 14
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

"Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity.- When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with
a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel" (underscoring ours)

It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons was done on a person who
is not included in the exclusive enumeration provided for under the said Section, as
service was done only on an alleged authorized personnel of the Movant Corporation;

This new revision of the Rules of Court for the service of summon is a clear departure
from the old rule as stated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provided
that:
"SECTION 13.Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If the
defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership
duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier,
agent, or any of its directors."

It must be equally noted that the changes in the new rules are substantial and not just
general semantics as the new rules restricted the service of summons on persons clearly
enumerated therein. In effect, the new provision makes it more specific and clear such
that in the case of the word "manager", it was made more precise and changed to
"general manager", "secretary" to "corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent
and director;

The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a
domestic corporation or partnership is under the new rules, limited and more clearly
specified, departure from which is fatal to the validity of the service of the summons and
resulting in the failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent corporation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint with respect to the Movant
Corporation be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED:
JOY MARIE R. Gabor
Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12

IRISH DELA CRUZ-CAGUI,

Petitioner,

- versus - Civil Case No. 01

Petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage
DEXTER CAGUI
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

PETITIONER Irish Dela Cruz, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges:

1. Petitioner is of legal age and with residence at 6933 Washington St., Pio Del Pilar,
Makati City, while her husband, respondent Dexter Cagui, is also of legal age and
at present is residing in 6f Makati Executive Center, 114 Leviste St. Salcedo
Village, Makati.

2. On October 20, 2008, petitioner and respondent got married at the Lourdes
Church Retiro, Quezon City.

3. They lived at 6933 Washington St., Pio Del Pilar, Makati City and petitioner
noticed that he gave so many excuses why he would not have sex with her. At one
time, while she and her husband were sleeping, petitioner held his penis to
determine whether he would have an erection, but he resisted. For about one year
since their marriage, he never had any sex with her, which was the reason for
many of their quarrels. Such quarrels led him to frequently leave the conjugal
home, and when he would return at an unholy hour at night, he was drunk and
would immediately go to sleep.

4. Petitioner had been convincing her husband to go to a physician for consultation

and, if required, for treatment, but he refused. Petitioner instead went to see and
consult a psychiatrist about the problems of her husband, and the doctor
psychiatrist informed her that respondent was suffering from psychological
incapacity.

5. In the more than one year of their marriage, respondent did not have any sex
with her, nor would he even allow petitioner to touch his private parts, nor to kiss
him, to such an extent that their lives became so unbearable that constrained her
to file the instant petition for declaration of nullity to void marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

6. It has been held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse
with the other spouse is a sign of psychological incapacity.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that judgment be rendered, declaring petitioner’s
marriage to respondent as null and void, and for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable in the premises.

Makati City September 19, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, IRISH DELA CRUZ-CAGUI, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

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

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition; I have read the
allegations therein and certify that the same are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge;

3. That I further certify that Petitioner have not commenced any action involving
the same issues, before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the different
divisions thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or agency. To the best of my
knowledge, no such other actions or proceedings are pending before the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, the different divisions thereof, or in any other court,
tribunal or agency; and

4. That in the event that any action involving the same should be made known, I
hereby bind myself to report the same within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 21, 2010 at
Makati City, Philippines.

IRISH DELA CRUZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of September, 2010, by the
affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at
Paranaque City, Philippines on January 6, 2010.
 IRISH TOM TOLENTINO
Counsel for the Petitioner
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED:
JOY MARIE R. Gabor
Counsel for the Respondent
VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010
 AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE

I, Nelson Villena, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Irish Tom Tolentino, counsel for petitioner in
the case Civil Case No.01 (Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage), and that such
messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the petition
filed in said case, as follows:

Atty. Joy Marie Gabor, counsel for respondent Dexter Cagui, by personal service
by delivering personally copy of said petition upon said lawyer who acknowledge
receipt thereof as shown by her signature or initial on the said pleading, this 27 th
of September 2010.

IN WITNESS WHEROF, I have signed this affidavit this 28 th day of September

2010 at Makati City, Philippines.

NELSON VILLENA

Affiant
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully moves to set aside its judgment rendered therein, and to grant a new trial

on the following grounds:

16. A decision was rendered by this Honorable Court which plaintiff received on

June 12, 2011, dismissing her petition;

17. Petitioner has discovered new evidence to prove that Respondent committed

sexual infidelity by living with Juanita Gutierrez at the conjugal home of the

parties herein. Mark Patrick, while playing around the room of the

Respondent, found the Company ID of Juanita in San Gabriel Corporation

where she is currently working as a Marketing Assistant. Mark Patrick showed

the said ID to the Petitioner and the latter found out that Juanita is using the

address of the conjugal home as her residence. A copy of the Company ID of

Juanita is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment rendered be set aside

and a new trial be granted.

 Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, June 24, 2011

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St.,
Ermita, Manila, 1000
IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 47765
MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09
Tel. No. 765-4321

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 02, Las Piñas City

ATTY. DEIZRELLE SAN JOSE

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 143 McArthur Building
Ayala Avenue, Makati City

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for New trial for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on June 30, 2011 at 2:00 in the afternoon or as soon thereafter
as counsel may be heard.

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. ZAMORA

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING

COMES NOW the Respondent by the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

18. The continuation of the trial of this case was set by this Honorable Court on

April 15, 2011 at 8:30 am, as agreed upon by the parties;

19. However, while the undersigned counsel agreed to such setting, he

inadvertently overlooked that he has already committed to appear before in

Criminal Case No. 10-1042 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Jessie

Gomez, et. al.” pending Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court, Manila City,

which is also set on April 15, 2011 at the same time;

20.The undersigned humbly apologizes to this Honorable Court and to adverse

counsel for the mixed up in his schedule.

WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that the hearing on April 15, 2011 be re

scheduled to another date convenient to this Honorable Court, preferably on April 22 or

29, 2011 at the same time.

Las Pinas City, April 08, 2011.

 ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY
Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515, Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St.,
Malate, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Tel. No. 987-9898

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 02, Las Piñas City

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709 1010 Bldg. A. Mabini St.
Ermita, Manila

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
 LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITH SUBSTITUTION OF

COUNSEL

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully

states that:

1. As of this date, the undersigned counsel has withdraw as counsel of the

Respondent in the above-entitled case for all legal purpose;

2. The undersigned counsel will be substituted by Atty. Deizrelle San Jose with

office address at Room 143 McArthur Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati City;

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court that all notices,

orders, and decision in the instant case be furnished to Atty. Deizrelle San Jose at her

above-given office address.

Las Pinas City, April 15, 2011.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515, Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St.,
Malate, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Tel. No. 987-9898

With the consent of:

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ

Respondent
 NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 02, Las Piñas City

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 709 1010 Bldg. A. Mabini St.
Ermita, Manila

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA
BRANCH 98
DONABEL P. RAMA
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 954768
FOR: SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE
PILAR B. PILAPIL
Defendant.

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. The decision in favour of the plaintiff has become final and executor since more
than fifteen (15) days from defendant’s receipt thereof on September 15, 2009
had already lapsed without a defendant’s appealing therefrom.
2. After a decision has become final, execution is a matter of right on the part of the
prevailing party and ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of execution.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that a writ of execution be issued for the satisfaction of
the judgment date September 30, 2009.

Muntinlupa, September 30, 2009.

ATTY. RAQUEL DEJARME

Counsel for the Plaintiff

The Clerk of Court

Municipal Trial Court
Muntinlupa

Sir:

Please submit the foregoing for the approval of the Court upon receipt thereof,
notice and hearing not being required.

ATTY. RAQUEL DEJARME

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 10, PASAY CITY
NITA V. CRUZ
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 01-2345

-versus- For: Damages

VINCENT S. CASTRO
Defendants.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF

ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION

COMES NOW, the petitioner in the above captioned case by and through counsel,
and to this Honorable Court most respectfully states that:

1. On October 21, 2003, this Honorable Court rendered its decision granting the
petitioner’s petition for the issuance of writ of execution;
2. To implement the Decision, this Honorable Court cause the issuance of the
writ of execution dated October 28, 2003;
3. As the date however, the said writ of execution/possession has not been
implemented yet making the same functus officio. Thus necessitating the
issuance of an alias writ of possession for the sheriff to implement the
Decision dated October 21, 2003;
4. This motion is filed due to the foregoing reasons only and for the purpose of
delaying the early disposition of this case,

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court an alias writ of execution be issued.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Pasay City, Philippines, March 5, 2005

OLIVER C. LOZANO, JR.

Counsel for Defendant
13 Leveriza St., Pasay City
IBP No. 37468598
PTR No. 8373613

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, NCJR, Branch 10
Pasay City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court immediately upon
receipt hereof, for its consideration and approval without further oral arguments.

OLIVER C. LOZANO
Counsel

Copy Furnished:

Tolentino Gonzales & Villanueva Law Offices

Suite 705 Don Santiago Building
2345 Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion is being served to the counsel of the defendant by

registered mail instead of personal delivery due to unavailability of personnel to effect
personal delivery.

OLIVER C. LOZANO
Counsel

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

 Regional Office No. 3
Capitol Compound, City of San Fernando 2000, Pampanga

ABAD, EDUARDO P.
Guagua Water District
San Nicolas, Guagua, Pampanga

RE: Administrative Complaint

x---------------------------------x

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND

URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TIME

UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, respectfully states that:

1. He is entering his appearance for the cause of the General Manager, Eduardo P.
Abad of the Guagua Water District;

2. The order dated November 11, 2009 was received on November 19, 2009 by the
office of the said General Manager directing him to comment within five (5) days
from receipt thereof ending November 24, 2009 why he should not be
administratively charged;

3. Due to the preoccupation of the undersigned counsel with other prior

commitments of equal import, he would earnestly seek for time within which to
prepare and submit said comment;

4. The needed time is not intended to delay the soonest administration of justice;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the undersigned

counsel be granted time of another five (5) days from November 24, 2009 up to
November 28, 2009 within which to prepare and submit subject comment.

Guagua for City of San Fernando, Pampanga, November 23, 2009.

Respectfully submitted
With my conformity: Ex parte:

RIC M. CRUZ
Assisting Counsel
EDUARDO P. ABAD Guagua, Pampanga
General Manager PTR O/R No. 2167795 01-28-
2009
IBP O/R No. 75776 01-28-2009
Pampanga Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. III-529

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

 National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila

GINA PARENO
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL Case No.1

For Sum of Money

TITO SOTTO
Defendant.

x-------------------------------------------------x

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that:

1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on November 17,

2009;

2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of Complaint on November 3,

2009 and thus has until November 18, 2009 within which to submit an Answer
or Responsive Pleading;

3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and prior
commitments, the undersigned counsel would not be able to meet the said
decline;

4. As such, undersigned counsel, through an urgent motion for extension of time

was constrained to request for an additional period of five days from November
19, 2009 to November 24, 2009 within which to submit Defendant’s Answer or
Responsive Pleading. Such motion was granted though a resolution by the court;

5. However, defendant failed to submit the said motion on time for honestly failing
to foresee their inability to prepare and file the intended petition within the
reglamentary period due to prepare due to voluminous and pressing work load on
equally important cases of the undersigned counsel, not to mention his daily
court appearances;

6. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the
available witness and study this case further;

7. This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing
reasons.
WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be
given an additional period of five days from today within which to submit an answer or
other Responsive Pleading.

Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.

Manila, November 24, 2009

Atty. Jun Yee
Counsel for Defendant
ABC Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila
PTR No. 3395523
IBP No.: 34482
Roll No. 3495430

Copy furnished:
Atty. Wenceslao Gonzales
Counsel for Complainant
XYZ Bldg. Juan Luna St.
Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

 National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila

GINA PARENO
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL Case No. 1
For Sum of money

TITO SOTTO
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------x

FINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, mostly respectfully states that:

1. He is the counsel for the Defendant in the above captioned case for sum of
money;

2. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on November 17,

2009;

3. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on November 3,
2009 and thus has until November 18, 2009 within which to submit an Answer
or Responsive Pleading;

4. Defendant was twice given extension of time to prepare and answer the
complaint. The first time extension of five days was given on November 19, 2009
to end on November 24, 2009.

5. However, defendant failed to submit the said motion on time for honestly failing
to foresee their inability to prepare and file the intended petition within the
reglamentary period due to voluminous and pressing work load on equally
important cases of the undersigned counsel, additional time of five days was also
allowed by the Court with no opposition form the opposing party. Said extension
was from November 25, 2009 to November 30, 2009;

6. Good cause exist to justify the additional requested extension of three more days
as counsel for the defendant had to undergo a minor dental surgery during the
previously requested extension;

WHEREFORE, with indulgence form the Court, counsel for the defendant most humbly
request that a final extension of three days to prepare the answer be granted.

Manila, November 30, 2009

Atty. Jun Yee

Counsel for Defendant
ABC Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila
PTR No. 3395223
IBP No. 34482
Roll No. 3495430
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 01, Manila

Francis Magalona,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 00001

Doris Begornia,
Defendant

x---------------------------x

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT DEFAULT

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states

1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant was served with copy of
the summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on March 20,
2009;
2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant Doris Begornia has
failed to file her Answer within the reglamentary period specified by the Rules of
Court despite the service of summons and the complaint;
3. As such. It is respectfully prayed that Defendant Doris Begornia be declared in
default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to
render judgment as the complaint may warrant.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant Doris Begornia be

declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed
to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, Phlippines, April 15, 2009.

Al C. Batonghinog
Counsel for Plaintiff
Roll No. 123
IBP No. 4567, issued on
October 31, 2008
PTR No. 00001, issued at
Makati City

Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Count
Branch 01, Manila

Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on April 30,
2009 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning or at any time convenient to the calendar of the
Honorable Court.

Thank You.

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Rolando Balasabas

Counsel for Defendant
No. 13, UN Avenue
Manila City

Republic of the Philippines

 REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 01, Manila

Francis Magalona,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 00001

Doris Begornia,
Defendant

x---------------------------x

MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT

Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges that:

1. Ten (10) days after the summons of the complaint was received by this defendant,
she filed a motion to dismiss;

2. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to said motion and no hearing was held on
said motion to dismiss;

3. While the said motion to dismiss was still pending, this Honorable Court declared
defendant in default;

4. Said order declaring defendant in default is premature and without legal basis
since there is still a pending motion to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the order declaring the defendant in

default be lifted and that this Honorable Court rule on the aforesaid pending
motion to dismiss.

City of Manila; March 20, 2009

Rolando Balasabas
Counsel for Defendant
Roll No. 321
IBP No. 7654 issued on
October 31, 2005
PTR No. 000001, issued at
Manila City

Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Court
Branch 01, Manila

Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on April 30,
2009 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning or at any time convenient to the calendar of the
Honorable Court.

Thank you.

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Al C. Batonghinog
Counsel for Plaintiff
Cubao, Quezon City