REPUBLIC

OF THE

PHILIPPINES

Municipal Trial Court

BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY
7TH JUDICIAL REGION

PRIMARY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION

CORPORATION,
Plaintif,

CIVIL CASE NO.

______________________
-versusFOR: UNLAWFUL DETAINER
ARTURO CHOI,
WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
and all persons claiming rights under him,
DAMAGES
Defendants.

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

REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT
(RE: 24 March 2014 Reply-Affidavit
of Primary Structures Corporation)
I, ARTURO CHOI, Filipino, of legal age, married, with
address at Blk. 288, Lot 6, Somerset Tower BII, Osmena Blvd,
Cebu City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law do hereby depose and state that:
1. On 24 March 2014, I have gone through the ReplyAffidavit
filed
by
complainant,
PRIMARY
STRUCTURES CORPORATION, hence I hereby make
and submit this affidavit in rejoinder thereto;
2. Unless specifically admitted by me hereunder, each and
every allegation made therein is denied as false;
3. I say and submit that, contrary to the averments in
PARAGRAPH 1 of the Reply, the complainant is
muddling up details by fallaciously claiming that they
received a letter written by me asking for an extension
of the grace period of payments. There is no
Kasunduan or contract to begin with, as evidenced by
Notice of Termination of Contract, hereto attached as
Annex 1;
4. The attached Notice of Termination contained the
signature of the owner of the disputed property, Mr.
1

Clarito Lim, and not of herein complainant, PRIMARY

STRUCTURES CORPORATION, indicating that the claims
of an existent contract were fictitious and void of
authenticity;
5. I further say and submit that Complainant is
misrepresenting facts in PARAGRAPH 1, as the rental
receipts acquired bear the name of Mr. Clarito Lim, of
whom I have a contractual agreement with. Moreover,
there were no notices to vacate received, and his
inactions had no inference of the discontinuance of the
contract of lease.
An implied new lease was therefore created pursuant to
Article 1670 of the Civil Code, which expressly provides:
Article 1670. If at the end of the contract
the lessee should continue enjoying the thing
leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence
of the lessor, and unless a notice to the
contrary by either party has previously been
given, it is understood that there is an
implied new lease, not for the period of the
original contract, but for the time established
in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of
the original contract shall be revived.
Furthermore, the Notice of Termination above-stated,
were furnished when the implied new lease or tacita
reconduccion already took effect. The requisites have
all been fulfilled, to wit:
a) the term of the original contract of lease has
expired;
b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice
to vacate; and
c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing
leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of
the lessor.
6. There were no notices and whatsoever implicating that
the ownership of the property have been transmitted to
PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORP., therefore, possession
over the property has been retained, in the absence of
notices to vacate or eject, or did we receive any

information that the original and/or revived contract

have been rescinded;
7. The allegation of herein Complainant of a deposited
amount with the Lupon Tagapamayapa were flawed, the
amount constituting the payment of the period covered
by the newly reconstituted contract with the owner,
evidenced by the new Kasunduan, attached hereto as
Annex 2;
8. We hereby acknowledge Paragraph 3 of the Reply, that
we received notices to vacate by herein Complainant,
even so, there is an absence of any contractual
agreement or any obligation arising wherefrom to
comply with, so long as when the original contract with
Mr. Clarito Lim exists;
9. Complainant therefore has no cause of action against
me. It failed to discharge the burden of proving or
substantiating valid facts as a ground for ejectment in
its Complaint-Affidavit and Reply-Affidavit,
consequently, PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORP. is therefore
not entitled to any relief whatsoever;
10.
In view of the above facts, it is unambiguous
and crystal that despite all the repeated attempts by
the Complainant to falsify facts and stretch the truth, I
am actually and factually the victim of harassment and
extortion from the squatting syndicate led by the
Complainant;

ARTURO C. CHOI
Affiant for the Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN, to before me on 11 April

2014, affiant declaring under oath that all the allegations in
the foregoing Rejoinder-Affidavit are all true and correct. I
hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant
and I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and
understood all the contents hereof

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

ATTY. ALEJANDRA
BALBUENA
NOTARY PUBLIC
UNTIL SEP. 13, 2016
ATTYS ROLL NO 87980
IBP NO. 345654 JANUARY
2013
ISSUED AT CEBU CITY

Page 4 of 5

SANTOS-LEE-LIM LAW OFFICE

Unit 404, 4th Floor, The Gregorian Bldg.
2178 Osmena Blvd, Cebu City
Tel. No.: (02) 353 8269
E-mail: info@atlabrang-lawoffice.net
BY:
ATTY. MICHAEL B. SANTOS
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 65543
IBP Lifetime No. 015543
PTR No. 2526571; 01/07/14; Cebu
MCLE Compliance No. N/A (signed roll 4/26/13)
Doc. No. : 30
Page No.: 6
Book
: I
Series of 2013

Copy furnished:
ATTY. WELLA JANE D. ATA
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Address: #12 Dr. Su Drive, Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City
Contact Nos.: (032) 874-1478 to 90

Explanation: A Copy of this document was served through

registered mail due to lack of material time and personnel.