Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 44

Legal Forms

Atty. Poncevic Ceballos

Submitted by:
Atty. Nikki Magdalene Bellosillo
Atty. Michael Corralles
Atty. Peter dela Fuente
Atty. Victor Panlilio
Atty. Idesa Roxas

March 7, 2012

Table of Contents
Pleading
I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE


A. Answer..
B. Pre- Trial
Brief..
C. Motions
1.
Motion to
Dismiss...
2.
Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Comment...
PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
A. Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit
1.
ComplaintAffidavit.
2.
CounterAffidavit.
PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS COMMON TO CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A. Formal Offer of
Evidence...
DEEDS, CONTRACTS AND OTHER CORPORATE LEGAL DOCUMENTS
A. Special Power of
Attorney
B. General Power of
Attorney...
C. Donation Inter
Vivos
D. Deed of Absolute
Sale...
E. Pledge of
Shares...
NOTARIAL LAW
A. Acknowledgement
.
B. Jurat...
SAMPLE TRIAL
MEMORANDUM..

VII.SAMPLE

LEGAL OPINION.

Pag
e
3
6
10
12

15
17

19

21
22
23
25
27

30
31
32
34

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Manila, Branch __

A,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. ___
For: Unlawful Detainer
Damages

- versus -

and

B,
Defendant.
x ----------------------------------- x
ANSWER
(with Negative, Special and Affirmative Defenses and Counter Claim)
Comes now defendant B, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully
represents that:
ADMISSIONS
Defendant admits the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of
the Complaint:
1. Paragraph 1, with respect to the personal circumstances of the parties.
2. Paragraph 2, only with respect to the allegation that the parties entered into
a lease contract over the building located at 123 Sampaloc, Manila (the
Subject Property), which expired on January 1, 2012.
3. Paragraph 3, only with respect to the allegation that Defendant was liable to
pay rent at the rate of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) under the lease
contract which expired on January 1, 2012.
4. Paragraph 5, only with respect to the allegation that the lease contract
already expired, and that Defendant received the demand letter dated
January 10, 2012.
DENIALS AND DEFENSES
Defendant specifically denies the allegations contained in the following
paragraphs of the Complaint:
1. Paragraph 2, particularly with respect to the allegations that Plaintiff is the
owner and/or possessor of the Subject Property, that the Subject Property is
currently the subject of a lease contract, that Defendant is the lessee of the
Subject Property, and that Defendant is in possession of the Subject Property
in his capacity as lessee thereof, the truth being that there is presently no
valid and subsisting Contract of Lease since, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the
contract of lease between the parties over the Subject Property expired on
January 1, 2012. Meanwhile, on January 12, 2012, Defendant purchased the
Subject Property from Plaintiff and is presently the absolute owner and
lawful possessor thereof in the concept of an owner. A copy of the Receipt
duly issued by Plaintiff evidencing his receipt of the entire purchase price in
the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) on January 12, 2012 is
attached as ANNEX A and made an integral part hereof.

2. Paragraph 3, insofar as it is made to appear that Defendant continues to be


obliged to pay rent to Plaintiff, the truth being that there is presently no
valid and subsisting Contract of Lease since, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the
contract of lease between the parties over the Subject Property expired on
January 1, 2012.
3. Paragraph 4, with respect to the allegations that Defendant failed to pay
rentals due to Plaintiff, that Defendant failed to pay rent corresponding to
the period October 2010 up to March 2011, and that Defendant owes
Plaintiff back rentals, and that such back rentals amount to Sixty Thousand
Pesos (P60,000.00), the truth being that Defendant has fully paid all
amounts due under the lease contract with Plaintiff, and that Defendant is
no longer liable to pay rent to Plaintiff starting on January 1, 2012.
4. Paragraph 5, insofar as it is alleged or made to appear that Defendant is
liable to Plaintiff for unpaid rent, that there is basis for the claim/demand of
Plaintiff for Defendant to vacate the Subject Property, that Plaintiff is still
the owner of the Subject Property, and that there is basis for the
claim/demand for unpaid rent, the truth being that Defendant does not owe
Plaintiff any amount, whether by way of unpaid rent or otherwise, and that
Defendant served on Plaintiff a demand letter dated February 1, 2012
demanding Plaintiff to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the Subject
Property on account of full payment of the purchase price on January 12,
2012 [see Receipt dated January 12, 2012 (Annex A hereof)]. A copy of the
demand letter dated February 1, 2012 as personally received by Plaintiff on
February 1, 2012 is attached as ANNEX B and made an integral part hereof.
5. Paragraph 6, insofar as it is alleged or made to appear that Defendant owes
Plaintiff an amount of money, that Defendant owes Plaintiff unpaid rent, that
there is basis for the claim/demand for Defendant to vacate and to pay back
rentals, and that Defendant does not have legal justification to refuse the
demand of Plaintiff, the truth being that Defendant has fully paid all amounts
due under the lease contract with Plaintiff, that Defendant is no longer liable
to pay rent to Plaintiff starting on January 1, 2012, that Plaintiff has no
cause of action against Defendant, and that it is Defendant who has a cause
of action against Plaintiff for the latter to execute the corresponding Deed of
Absolute Sale over the Subject Property.
6. Paragraph 7, insofar as it is alleged that Defendant refused to appear before
the Lupon Tagapamayapa for Barangay conciliation, the truth being that
Defendant never received any notice therefor.
7. Paragraph 8, with respect to the allegations that Defendant is liable to pay
Plaintiff, that Defendant is liable to pay Plaintiff the amount of Sixty
Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00), that Defendants possession of the Subject
Property is unlawful, that Plaintiff suffered damages by way of lost profits,
the truth being that Defendant has fully paid all his obligations to pay rent
under the lease contract, that Defendants possession of the Subject
Property is valid, lawful, and in the concept of an owner, and that there is no
basis for Plaintiff to earn income from the use of the Subject Property
commencing January 12, 2012 by virtue of a prior sale thereof to Defendant.
8. Paragraph 8, with respect to the allegations covering arrangements for the
payment of legal expenses, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof.
COUNTERCLAIM
By way of counterclaims, Defendant seeks the following:

1. Specific performance for Plaintiff to execute the corresponding Deed of


Absolute Sale over the Subject Property, pursuant to the agreement of the
Parties, as evidenced by the full payment of the purchase price on January
12, 2012 [see ANNEX A hereof].
2. Payment of attorneys fees by virtue of this unwarranted and malicious act
initiated by the plaintiff, which forced Defendant to engage the services of
counsel for a fee in amount not less than Twenty Thousand pesos
(P20,000.00).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the case be
DISMISSED for being frivolous and unfounded, and that Plaintiffs counterclaims
be granted, directing Plaintiff to execute the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale
over the Subject Property, and for Plaintiff to pay Defendant the sum of Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way of attorneys fees.
Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
Makati City , Philippines, Feb 12 2012.
(Sgd.) ATTY. AAA
Counsel for Defendant
Address: Rockwell Drive,
Makati City
Attorneys Roll No. : 12345
IBP No. : 876543 issued on
January 8, 2012 at Makati City
PTR No. 98653 issued on
January 8, 2012 at Makati City
MCLE Compliance Certificate
No. II-86484
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, B, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby
depose and state:
1.

I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2.
I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Answer, the
contents/factual allegations of which are true and correct based on my own
personal knowledge and authentic records; and
3.
No other action or proceeding involving the same issues raised in
the counterclaims above has been commenced and/or pending with the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any Division thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency, and that to be best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a
similar action of proceeding has been filed or is pending in the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal
or agency, I shall notify or cause to notify this Honorable Court with five (5)
days from such notice.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ February 2012 in Makati


City, Metro Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his/her Community Tax Certificate No.
_________ issued on __________ at _________, and her competent evidence of his/her
identity in the form of his/her _________________________________.
Doc. No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Series of 2012.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
6th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 2
Kalibo, Aklan
HEIRS OF ROBERTO TIROL, JR.,
CECILIA TIROL-JAVELOSA and
CIRIACO TIROL,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO: 7891
FOR: Nullification of Deed of
Donation,
Reversion of Property to Estate,
Recovery of Possession,
Cancellation of
Tax Declaration, Damages, etc.
-versusSPOUSES GREGORIO AND MARIA
LOURDES SANSON, SPOUSES FEDERICO
AND RUTH-JARANTILLA,
PEARL OF BORACAY
LANDHOLDINGS INC., (OWNER/
OPERATOR OF PEARL OF THE PACIFIC)
GREGORIO ALFREDO SANSON, MA. RITA GLORIA
T. SANSON, LEO MONTINOLA, THE
PROVINCIAL ASSESOR OF KALIBO,
AKLAN AND THE MUNICIPAL ASSESOR
OF MALAY, AKLAN,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Plaintiffs, by counsel to this Honorable Court respectfully submit this Pre
Trial Brief stating 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 defendants, plaintiffs are open to the
possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
B. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs
respectfully submit that the desired terms of any amicable settlement would
involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of the obligation due and owing to
plaintiffs and, second, a schedule of payments.
II. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS
The plaintiffs Cecilia and Ciriaco Tirol are the compulsory heirs of the late
Roberto Tirol Sr,. Plaintiffs Martin Roberto, Ma. Zharina, Francis Antonio and
Daniel Antonio are the direct descendants and compulsory heirs of the late Roberto
Tirol Jr., the latter being a compulsory heir of Roberto Tirol Sr., although the
former predeceased latter. Hence, the children of Roberto Jr. are suing herein as
heirs of the latter, by way of right of representation in contemplation of our laws on
succession.

III. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS


Roberto Tirol Sr., during his lifetime, executed a Deed of Donation in favor of
defendants Ruth Tirol-Jarantilla and Ma. Lourdes Sanson, which was accepted in
writing by the latter. The said deed was confirmed by an affidavit executed by the
donor.
On March 09, 1994, after the death of the donor, the applicable donors tax
was purportedly paid.
IV. STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
A. Deed of Donation Not a Public Instrument
After conducting due diligence to determine the existence of the said deed,
the original or duplicate copies thereof are nowhere to be found. The National
Archives of the Philippines certified that the said deed is not available in its files,
thereby implying that the deed is not a public instrument.
Not being a public instrument, it cannot have legal efficacy and hence it
could not have transferred any right, title or interest over the said parcel of land to
the defendants.
B. Belated Payment of Taxes
Given the fact that said applicable tax was not yet paid at the time of the
death of Roberto Sr., the donor, the said parcel of land therefore contemplated in
the said deed of donation automatically formed part of the latters estate, in
accordance with our tax laws.
The delayed payment of the tax, after the death of the donor, did not in
anyway cure the fatal defect omission of its non-payment within the time
prescribed by our tax laws, thereby automatically making the parcel of land part of
his estate and theretofore subject of partition by the heirs of Roberto Tirol, Sr.
C. Breach of Deed of Donation
The afore-quoted deed of donation imposed upon the donees a perpetual
prohibition on the commercialization of the said parcel of land and that the same
shall be used exclusively as a memorial garden.
Notwithstanding, commercial establishments such as a health spa, resort
clubhouses and swimming pools were caused or allowed by the donees to be built
thereon.
V. APPLICABLE LAWS AND AUTHORITIES
Provisions of the Civil Code on Donations and jurisprudence on the matter.
VI. ISSUES TO BE TRIED
Plaintiffs submit the following issues to be tried:
1. Whether the subject Deed of Donation, executed by Roberto Tirol Sr., during his
lifetime, in favor of Defendants, is without legal efficacy and null and void;
2. Whether the Defendants breached the terms of the subject Deed of Donation;
3. Whether the parcel of land, specifically lot 5350-P, reverts back or forms part of
the estate of Roberto Tirol, Sr., and should thus, be included in its inventory of
assets in the on-going settlement of his estate;
4. Whether Defendants are liable for payment of rent for their use and possession
of the subject property.

VII. DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS


Plaintiffs intend to present the following documents:
1. Special Power of Attorney executed by Ciriaco Tirol for Cynthia Tirol to be his
legal representative, labeled Annex A to A-3;
2. Special Power of Attorney executed by Martin Roberto, Ma. Zharina, Francis
Antonio and Daniel Antonio, all surnamed Tirol for Martin Roberto Jr. and
Maria Cecilia Carrascoso to represent them, labeled Annex B to C-3;
3. Deed of Donation executed by Roberto Tirol Sr., during his lifetime, in favor of
Defendants Ruth Tirol-Jarantilla and Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson, labeled
Annexes D to D-4;
4. Late Roberto Tirol, Sr.s affidavit, confirming the said donation, labeled Annex
E;
5. Authority to Accept Payment issued by Bureau of Internal Revenue dated March
9, 1994, as evidence of the payment of donors tax corresponding to the said
deed, labeled Annex F;
6. Certification issued by Bureau of Internal Revenue dated March 9, 1994, as
evidence of the payment of donors tax corresponding to the said deed, labeled
Annex G;
7. Tax Declaration No. 3362 issued in the names of Defendants Ruth Jarantilla and
Ma. Lourdes Tirol-Sanson, labeled Annex H;
8. Certification made by Estrella M. Domingo dated December 19, 2005, labeled
Annex I;
9. Decision on Zoning issued by the Office of the Municipal Zoning Administrator
dated May 5, 2004, labeled Annex J;
10.Letter of Endorsement of the Office of the Sangguniang Bayan Municipality of
Malay dated April 6, 2004, labeled Annex K;
11.Application for Zoning Compliance issued by the Municipality of Malay dated
February 6, 2004, labeled Annex J;
12.Re-survey of subject property conducted by Engr. Certeza, labeled Annex M;
13.Permit for construction of swimming pool, cottages and a bar, labeled Annex
N;
14.Plaintiffs reserves the right to present documentary and other exhibits to prove
their case in the course of the trial;
VIII. MODES OF DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs reserves the right to avail of the modes of discovery and the use of
commissioners in the course of the trial should the need arise.
IX. WITNESSES
Plaintiffs intend to present at least 2 witnesses:
a. Estrella M. Domingo who will testify that no notarial record exists on file of
Pablo Tolentino, a notary public for and within Iloilo City, and of the copy of the
subject Deed of Donation executed before Tolentino;
b. Engr. Bernan Certeza, an engineer who will testify that commercial structures
have been built on subject property, and on the portions of the lot that these
structures were actually built on;
c. Petitioners reserve the right to present additional witnesses in the course of the
trial.
X. TRIAL DATES
Plaintiff submits to the sound discretion of this Honorable Court as well as to
its availability with respect to the setting of the trial dates.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this
PRE TRIAL BRIEF be admitted as part of the records of the case.
Such other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.
Kalibo, Aklan, January 15, 2008

10

FERRER KEH ROBLES


TORRIJOS & TUASON
LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unit 3718, South Joyas
Bldg.,
Rockwell Center, Makati
City
By:
Jefferson Ferrer
ATTY. JEFFERSON FERRER
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Katherine Keh
ATTY. KATHERINE KEH
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Jannica Robles
ATTY. JANNICA ROBLES
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Corinna Torrijos
ATTY. CORINNA TORRIJOS
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Juan Miguel Tuason
ATTY. JUAN MIGUEL TUASON
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***

Copy furnished:
The Clerk of Court
RTC-Branch 2

11

Kalibo, Aklan
Atty. Block Bee
Counsel for Defendant
Unit 311 Ateneo Law School Bldg.
Rockwell Center, Makati City

12

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
6th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 2
Kalibo, Aklan
HEIRS OF ROBERTO TIROL, JR.,
CECILIA TIROL-JAVELOSA and
CIRIACO TIROL,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO: 7891
FOR: Nullification of Deed of
Donation, Reversion of
Property to Estate, Recovery
of Possession, Cancellation of
Tax Declaration, Damages,
etc.
-versusSPOUSES GREGORIO AND MARIA
LOURDES SANSON, SPOUSES FEDERICO
AND RUTH-JARANTILLA,
PEARL OF BORACAY
LANDHOLDINGS INC., (OWNER/
OPERATOR OF PEARL OF THE PACIFIC)
GREGORIO ALFREDO SANSON, MA. RITA GLORIA
T. SANSON, LEO MONTINOLA, THE
PROVINCIAL ASSESOR OF KALIBO,
AKLAN AND THE MUNICIPAL ASSESOR
OF MALAY, AKLAN,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendants, through their respective counsels, respectfully moves to
dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the venue is improperly laid, as shown by
the following:
1.
The Deed of Donation, executed by Roberto Tirol, Sr., during his
lifetime, in favor of Defendants Ruth Tirol-Jarantilla and Maria Lourdes TirolSanson, expressly provided for a procedure to follow in the event that legal
matters should arise regarding the donation or the property situated in Kalibo,
Aklan.
2.
Clause 14 of the Deed of Donation clearly provides, as for any legal
matter which may arise involving the donation between the parties or the property
subject thereof, the claim shall be instituted in the proper courts of either Makati
City or Iloilo City.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Court to order the dismissal of the above-captioned case.
Kalibo, Aklan, February 25, 2008
B E E
LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Defendants
Unit 311 Ateneo Law School
Bldg.
Rockwell Center, Makati
City

13

By:
Block Bee
ATTY. BLOCK BEE
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Jefferson Ferrer
Atty. Katherine Keh
Atty. Jannica Robles
Atty. Corinna Torrijos
Atty. Juan Miguel Tuason
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unit 3718, South Joyas Bldg.,
Rockwell Center, Makati City
Greetings!
Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion to
Dismiss for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately
upon receipt hereof or as soon as the same may be heard upon prior notice, and
kindly include the same in the courts calendar for hearing on March 1, 2008 at
8:30 in the morning.
BLOCK BEE
Copy furnished through registered mail:
Atty. Jefferson Ferrer
Atty. Katherine Keh
Atty. Jannica Robles
Atty. Corinna Torrijos
Atty. Juan Miguel Tuason
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unit 3718, South Joyas Bldg.,
Rockwell Center, Makati City
EXPLANATION
The foregoing motion and its attachment were served on Attys. Jefferson
Ferrer, Katherine Keh, Jannica Robles, Corinna Torrijos and Juan Miguel Tuason by
registered mail instead of personal service as counsel for petitioner only has one
messenger and personal service would have resulted in the motion not being filed
on time.
BLOCK BEE

14

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


COURT OF APPEALS
Kalibo, Aklan
HEIRS OF ROBERTO TIROL, JR.,
CECILIA TIROL-JAVELOSA and
CIRIACO TIROL,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO: 7891
FOR: Nullification of Deed of
Donation, Reversion of Property
to Estate, Recovery of
Possession, Cancellation of
Tax Declaration, Damages, etc.
-versusSPOUSES GREGORIO AND MARIA
LOURDES SANSON, SPOUSES FEDERICO
AND RUTH-JARANTILLA,
PEARL OF BORACAY
LANDHOLDINGS INC., (OWNER/
OPERATOR OF PEARL OF THE PACIFIC)
GREGORIO ALFREDO SANSON, MA. RITA GLORIA
T. SANSON, LEO MONTINOLA, THE
PROVINCIAL ASSESOR OF KALIBO,
AKLAN AND THE MUNICIPAL ASSESOR
OF MALAY, AKLAN,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE A COMMENT
Respondents, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
states that:
1.

2.

3.

4.

On 08 August 2008, the undersigned counsel received the Order dated


July 31, 2008 of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, directing the
Respondents to file a comment within ten (10) days from receipt thereof;
Due to heavy work load consisting of pleading preparation, almost daily
appearances in court and client conferences of respondents counsel, the
comment thereon cannot be prepared and submitted on 18 August 2008;
In order to afford the Respondents the opportunity to comment petition
filed by the Plaintiff, Respondents humbly need and pray for an additional
period of twenty (20) days from August 18, 2008 or until September 7,
2008 to file the intended comment;
This motion is resorted not to delay, but to promote the ends of justice
and due to the foregoing reasons.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this


Honorable Court to grant herein Respondents an extension of twenty (20) days
from August 18, 2008 or until September 7, 2008 within which to file their
comment.
Such other relief and remedies deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Kalibo, Aklan, 15 August 2008

15

FERRER KEH ROBLES


TORRIJOS & TUASON
LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 3718, South Joyas
Bldg.,
Rockwell Center, Makati
City
By:
Jefferson Ferrer
ATTY. JEFFERSON FERRER
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Katherine Keh
ATTY. KATHERINE KEH
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Jannica Robles
ATTY. JANNICA ROBLES
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Corinna Torrijos
ATTY. CORINNA TORRIJOS
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***
Juan Miguel Tuason
ATTY. JUAN MIGUEL TUASON
P.T.R. No. ******** 01/01/2012 Makati City
IBP O.R. No. ****** 01/01/2012 Makati City
MCLE No. III ******* 11/18/2008
Roll No. *****
TIN *** *** ***

NOTICE
Atty. Block Bee
Unit 311 Ateneo Law School Bldg.
Rockwell Center, Makati City
Greetings!

16

Due to its nature and urgency, please submit the foregoing Motion for
Extension of Time for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt hereof.
JEFF FERRER
KATHERINE KEH
JANNA ROBLES
CORINNA TORRIJOS
JUAN MIGUEL TUASON
EXPLANATION
Due to the distance between the office of the undersigned counsels and the
office of the Petitioners Counsel and the death of messenger, personal service of
this Motion for Extension of Time is impracticable, hence, service is hereby made
through registered mail.

JEFF FERRER
KATHERINE KEH
JANNA ROBLES
CORINNA TORRIJOS
JUAN MIGUEL TUASON

Copy furnished through registered mail:


Atty. Block Bee
Counsel for Defendant
Unit 311 Ateneo Law School Bldg.
Rockwell Center, Makati City

17

Republic of the Philippines)


Mandaluyong City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Ben Janis Morales de Castro, Filipino citizen, married to Luisito de Castro and
mother of two children with residence address of 5 Villarica Street, Mandaluyong
City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state that:
1. On September 9, 2004, at 12:30 in the evening, my housemaid and I,
together with my youngest child were in the ground floor of the two-storey
house I live in when Lito Legaspi y Mullera arrived.
2. The said Lito Legaspi y Mullera, also known as Moro, was outside the house
and started shouting for him to be allowed inside the house. Upon hearing
the commotion, the housemaid and I told him to go home, and we ourselves
went up to the second floor for safety.
3. A moment passed without any shouting from the latter. But Moro once again
shouted and it came from the roof top of the house. At this point, the older
child was also awakened by the noise. I told Moro to calm down and talk.
4. Nonetheless, Moro continued shouting and even started to try to get into the
house by destroying the wood that was covering a hole, which was originally
a window. Moro succeeded in removing the wood covering and inserted his
head inside. This scared the older child and she began to cry.
5. At this point, Moro threatened me to calm my child or else he will kill me.
On that note, I told Moro to go down and I will talk to him.
6. The latter went down and met with me and my housemaid at the gate. He
instructed that the gate be opened, and at that instance, he went inside. He
once again pursued that we be left alone and grabbed my arm and
threatened that if the maid did not leave, he will create trouble.
7. I instructed the maid to leave to avoid any more trouble. The moment the
maid left, Moro picked something up and pointed it at my back. He then
dragged me outside and started walking towards his house, still with my
hands held and the object pointed at my back.
8. Moro dragged me into his house, which at the time was very dimly lit. Once
there, he held me to the ground and kissed me. Thereafter he took off my
shirt, pajamas, and underwear. After removing my clothing, he inserted his
organ into mine, for approximately two (2) minutes, causing me much pain.
9. I was unable to repulse him despite vain efforts to resist. At the time I had
been recently operated on due to the caesarian birth of my youngest child,
and was also sick with sore eyes.
10.Moro only returned my clothing after thirty (30) minutes. When I tried to get
up, he held my hands and also threatened to make it appear that I was dead.
I told him that I would not tell anybody. He responded by telling me to wait
until he would allow me to go home. Finally, he brought me home at about
1:30 in the morning.
11.Despite the incident, I did not approach the police because I was scared of
his threats to harm me and my children. I only reported to the police on
October 3, 2004, after Moro got drunk and threw something at our house. At
this point, I became afraid that he would repeat his actions.

18

12.In the light of the above-cited incident, it is evident that Lito Legaspi Y
Mullera alias Moro committed the crime of Rape under Art. 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code as provided in the Republic Act 8353.
13.Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code states that : Rape is committed:
a. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
i. Through force, threat, or intimidation
ii. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
iii. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
iv. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.
14.Lito Legaspi y Mullera, alias Moro committed all of the elements of the
crime of rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-A, thus:
a. He had carnal knowledge of me
b. He employed force, by pinning me down and forcefully inserting his
organ into mine.
15.In view of the foregoing, I am executing this affidavit in order to charge Lito
Legaspi Y Mullera of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code as provided in Republic Act No. 8353. All the allegations in this
affidavit are based on the personal knowledge and experience of the
complainant.
CERTIFICATION
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of October, 2004 in the City of
Mandaluyong. This is to certify that the affiant personally appeared before me and
verified that she executed this affidavit-complaint, has read the contents of the
same and that the contents thereof are true and correct of her own knowledge and
information based on the available records.

Flordeliza M. Silao
Office of the City Prosecutor

19

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
MANDALUYONG CITY
BEN JANIS MORALES DE CASTRO,
Complainant,
- versus

I.S. no. ______


For: Rape

LITO LEGASPI Y MULLERA @ MORO


Respondent.
x----------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, CARLITO LEGASPI Y MULLERA, 42 years old, Filipino, with home address
at #1 Villarica Street, Barangay Mabini J. Rizal, Mandaluyong City, after being
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that
1. I know the complainant Ben Janis Morales de Castro because she sometimes
calls me to do maintenance work on her house and that her husband is my
childhood friend.
2. I have a wife and child who were in Sta. Rosa, Laguna at the time of the
alleged rape.
3. I have been the caretaker of the house of Dra. De Leon and Architect Tony
de Leon, which is located at the corner of Villarica Street for about five
years already.
4. I learned of the charge against me only upon my arrest on October 3, 2004
and that on the date of the alleged rape, I was at my house with my mother,
brother, nephews and nieces and that I was sleeping inside my room as I
have to work the next day.
5. On the day of my arrest, I was engaged in a fight with a certain Jun, who is a
gay friend of the complainant residing in the same house.
6. Upon punching Jun, he ran towards the house of the complainant. I then
hurled stones to the house of the complainant who called the Barangay
Tanod.
7. Upon arrival of the Barangay Tanod, they invited me to go to Barangay
Mabini J. Rizal. I waited in the kitchen for a long time until the mobile car
arrived that brought me to the CID then to the medical hospital afterwards.
8. The charge is based on the allegation that I raped BEN JANIS MORALES DE
CASTRO on September 9, 2004.
9. To rebut the allegations of BEN JANIS MORALES DE CASTRO, I am
presenting the medico- legal report of the complainant. This will show that it
may be anyone who could have any sexual encounter with the complainant.
10.Also to be presented will be the affidavits of my brother and sister- in- law.
These affidavits will show that the date of the alleged rape, I was sleeping in
my room and could not have committed the crime charged against me
11.I am also presenting the land title of the complainants house to rebut the
allegations against me. This land title will prove that the complainants
father-in-law, Mang Vener, and that he entrusted the house to me in case
there will be persons interested in buying the house, I can just show the title
to them.
12.Considering the foregoing, I respectfully pray that I be acquitted of the
crime of RAPE wrongfully imputed upon me by BEN JANIS MORALES DE
CASTRO.

20

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Counter Affidavit


on the 3rd day of October 2004.
(sgd.) Carlito Legaspi y Mullera
Affiant

21

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 3 rd day of October 2004 at


Mandaluyong City.
Flordeliza M. Silao
City Prosecutor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the Affiant and that I am
satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his Affidavit.
Flordeliza M. Silao
City Prosecutor

22

Republic of the Philippines


Regional Trial Court
6th Judicial Region
Branch 2
Kalibo, Aklan
HEIRS OF ROBERT TIROL JR.,
CECILIA-TIROL-JAVELOSA and
CIRIACO TIROL
Plaintiffs,
-versus

CIVIL CASE NO. 7891


For: Nullification of Deed of Donation,
Reversion of Property To Estate,
Recovery of Possession,
Cancellation of Tax Declaration,

Damages etc.
SPOUSES GREGORIO AND MARIA
LOURDES SAMSON, SPOUSES FEDERICO
AND RUTH- JARANTILLA,
PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS INC.,
(OWNER/ OPERATOR OF PEARL OF THE PACIFIC)
GREGORIO ALFREDO SANSON, MA. RITA GLORIA
T. SANSON, LEO MONTINOLA, THE PROVINCIAL
ASSESSOR OF KALIBO, AKLAN AND THE
MUNICIPAL ASSESOR OF MALAY, AKLAN
Defendants,
x----------------------------------------------------x
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits its formal offer of documentary exhibits
in support of its prayer in the Complaint dated, January 15, 2008 for the
nullification of the deed of donation, reversion of property to the estate, recovery
of possession, cancellation of tax declaration, and damages.
EXHIBIT
S
Exhibit
A

Exhibit
B
Exhibit

DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE

Deed of Donation executed 1. That Roberto H. Tirol Sr. donated


by Roberto H. Tirol Sr., in
the subject parcel of land situated
favor of defendants Ruth
in
the
Barrio
of
Balabag,
Tirol-Jarantilla and Ma.
Municipality of Malay, Province of
Lourdes Tirol-Sanson.
Aklan Island of Boracay in favor of
defendants Ruth Tirol-Jarantilla
and Ma. Lourdes Tirol-Sanson.
2. That, in the alternative, the deed of
donation contained a clause that
limited the use of the donated land
as a memorial garden in honor of
the Donor and the Late Gloria L.
Tirol and the defendants violated
the clause which in turn voided the
deed of donation
Affidavit of Roberto H. As further evidence of the Donation
Tirol Sr. confirming the
made by Roberto H. Tirol Sr.
Deed of Donation.
Certification from Marietta 1. That the deed of donation was not

23

Exhibit
D

Exhibit
E

Exhibit
F

Exhibit
G

Exhibit
H

R. Chou, acting director of


properly
notarized
and
the
the archive division of the
apparent notarization of the deed
Register of Deeds, that no
was either false or non-existent.
notarial is on file with the 2. That the deed of donation was not
office of Pablo Tolentino, a
in the form of a public instrument
notary
public
who
and does not have legal efficacy,
allegedly notarized the
hence
it
could
not
have
deed of donation.
transferred any right, title or
interest over the subject parcel of
land to the defendants.
Re-Survey
of
Engineer 1. That the defendants used the
Certeza of the subject
subject property as a commercial
property to find out which
health spa and resort, which is not
areas therein the said
the purpose intended by the deed of
structures have been built
donation.
or caused to be built by 2. That
the
defendants
built
the defendant.
improvements
on
the
subject
property such as the swimming
pool, resort clubhouse, cottages
and a spa, among others, contrary
to the provisions of the deed of
donation and as such are deemed
builders in bad faith. Therefore,
defendants are not entitled to any
reimbursement or compensation in
whatever form from the Plaintiffs.
Certification issued by the 1. That the applicable donors tax was
Bureau
of
Internal
not yet paid at the time of the death
Revenue regarding the
of Roberto Tirol Sr., the donor, as
date of the payment of the
such the subject parcel of land of
applicable donors tax.
the deed of donation automatically
formed part of the latters estate, in
accordance with Philippine tax
laws.
2. That the delayed payment of the
applicable donors tax, after the
death of Roberto Tirol Sr. did not in
anyway cure the fatal omission of
its non-payment within the time
prescribed by Philippine tax laws.
Authority
to
accept That the applicable donors tax was
payment issued by Bureau not yet paid at the time of the death
of
Internal
Revenue of Roberto Tirol Sr., the donor, as
regarding the payment of such the subject parcel of land of the
the applicable donors tax.
deed
of
donation
automatically
formed part of the latters estate, in
accordance with Philippine tax laws.
Business permit issued by That the defendants used the subject
the local government to property as a commercial health spa
defendant
Federico and resort, which is not the purpose
Jarantilla involving the intended by the deed of donation.
subject property.
Construction
Permit That
the
defendants
built
obtained
by
defendant improvements on the subject property
Federico Jarantilla for the such as the swimming pool, resort
construction
of
a clubhouse, cottages and a spa, among
swimming pool, cottages others, contrary to the provisions of
and a bar.
the deed of donation and as such are
deemed builders in bad faith.
Therefore, defendants are not entitled
to
any
reimbursement
or

24

compensation in whatever form from


the Plaintiffs.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing exhibits be admitted in
evidence for the purpose/s for which they are offered and as part of the testimony
of the witness presented by the plaintiffs.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, February 27, 2012
George Matthew Habacon
Counsel for Plaintiff
IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000899
Copy Furnished:
Atty. CelestinoHilvano
Counsel for Defendant
2nd Floor, Lomat Apartment
III-B Pasadena St., Pasay City

25

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
I, Anna Banana, single, of legal age, with residence and postal address at 111
Evangelista Street, Makati City, do hereby name, constitute, and appoint MARIA
PAPAYA, single, likewise of legal age, resident of 143 Legarda Street, Manila, to be
my true and lawful attorney, for me and in my name, place, and stead, within a period
of ten (10) months, to SELL, TRANSFER AND CONVEY, for a price not less
than FIVE MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000), to whosoever may buy or
purchase the described real property, to wit:
Unit 1611, Serendra Condominum, Global City, Taguig,
with an area of more or less 42 square meters, with one
parking slot,of which I am the registered owner, as evidenced
by Condominium Certifi cate of Title No. 3711 of the Registry of
Deeds of Taguig City, and to receive the purchase price from
the sale of the said property; and
HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney-in-fact full
powers and authority to execute and perform all and every act necessary to
carry into effect the foregoing authority to sell, as fully to all intents and
purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, with full power of
substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said
attorney-in-fact shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27 th day of
February 2012, in Makati City, Philippines.
_____Anna Banana_____
Principal
SPECIMEN SIGNATURE
OF ATTORNEY-IN-FACT:
_______Maria Papaya____________
Attorney-in-fact
WITNESSES:
_________Claire Pear_____________

______Florence Orange____________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Republic of the Philippines )
_________________________) S.S
BEFORE ME, personally appeared:
Name
Anna Banana
Avenue, Quezon City
Maria Papaya
Avenue, Quezon City

License No.

Expiry Date/Place Issued

N25-12-000-178

Jan.15, 2014 / LTO East

N25-12-111-183

Jun. 1, 2014 / LTO East

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act
and deed.

26

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.
Notary Public
Doc. No.______;
Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 20___.

27

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN THESE PRESENTS:
I, Anna Banana, of legal age, single, Filipino, a resident of 111 Evangelista St.,
Makati City, do hereby name, constitute, and appoint Maria Papaya, single, likewise
of legal age, resident of 143 Legarda Street, Manila, to be my true and lawful
attorney, for me and in my name, place, and stead, to do and perform the following
acts and things to wit:
To administer, manage, and to do all other acts in connection with the
administration and management of Lingerie Shop, Inc.
To ask, demand, sue for, recover, collect any and all sums of money, debts, dues,
accounts, and other things of value of whatever nature or kind as may now be or
may hereafter become due, owing, payable or belonging to me, and to have, sue,
and to take any all lawful ways and means for the recovery thereof by suit,
attachment, compromise or otherwise;
To make, sign, execute, and deliver contracts, agreements, documents and
other writings of whatever nature or kind, with any and all third persons, entities
or concerns, upon terms and conditions acceptable to my said attorney;
To delegate in whole or in part any all of the powers herein granted or
conferred, by means of an instrument in writing, in favor of any third persons
whom my said attorney may select;
HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney full power and
authority whatsoever requisite or necessary or proper to be done in and about the
premises as fully to all intents and purposes as I might and could lawfully do if
personally present, with power of substitution and revocation, and hereby, ratifying
and confirming all that my said attorney or his substitute shall lawfully do or cause
to be done under and by virtue of these presents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27 th day of
February 2012, in Makati City, Philippines.
_________Anna Banana____________
(Principal)

_______Maria Papaya____________
(Agent /Attorney-In-Fact)

Signed in the presence of:


_________Claire Pear___________________Florence Orange____________
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Republic of the Philippines )
_________________________) S.S
BEFORE ME, personally appeared:
Name
Anna Banana
Avenue, Quezon City
Maria Papaya
Avenue, Quezon City

License No.

Expiry Date/Place Issued

N25-12-000-178

Jan.15, 2014 / LTO East

N25-12-111-183

Jun. 1, 2014 / LTO East

Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act

28

and deed.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.
Notary Public
Doc. No.______;
Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 20___.

29

Republic of the Philippines


)
City of Manila
) s.s.
DEED OF DONATION INTER VIVOS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Deed of Donation, made and executed by JUANITA T. PELAEZ of legal
age, single and resident of No. 56 Pinaglabanan St., Sta. Ana, Manila (DONOR) in
favor of RUFINA P. TIBURCIO, of legal age, single and resident of No. 02 Mountain
View St., San Juan, Manila (DONEE) WITNESSETH:
That the DONOR is the owner of that certain real property with the
buildings and improvements thereon, situated in No. 813 Lepanto, Sampaloc,
Manila and more particularly described in Original Transfer Certificate of Title No.
42417 of the land registry of Manila as follows:
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 20 of Block No. 4002 of the Cadastral Survey of the
City of Manila, situated in the District of Sampaloc. Bounded on the NE. by lot No.
22 of Block No. 4002; on the SE. by Lot No. 21 of Block No. 4002; on the SW. by
Lot No. 18 of Block No. 4002. . . containing an area of NINETY FOUR SQUARE
METERS AND EIGHTY SQUARE DECIMETERS (94.80), more or less. . .
That for and in consideration of the love and affection which the DONOR has
for the DONEE, the said DONOR, by these presents, transfers and conveys, by way
of donation, unto said DONEE, her heirs and assigns, the above described real
property with all the buildings and improvements thereon, free from all liens and
encumbrances;
That the DONOR does hereby state, for the purpose of giving full effect to
this donation, that she has reserved for herself in full ownership sufficient property
to support her in a manner appropriate to his/her needs;
That the DONEE does hereby accept this donation of the above-described
property, and does hereby express gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the
DONOR.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the DONOR and the DONEE have signed this deed
on 27 February 2012 and at Manila, Philippines.

(Sgd.) JUANITA T. PELAEZ


Donor
ACCEPTED:
(Sgd.) RUFINA P. TIBURCIO
Donee
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
JULIO T. PELAEZ
MARIA P. TIBURCIO

30

Acknowledgment
Republic of the Philippines
City of Manila

)
) s.s.

BEFORE ME, this 27th day of February 2012 in the City of Manila,
Philippines, personally appeared JUANITA T. PELAEZ, with Valid Identification
Document (Drivers License No. N25-07-007777) issued by the official agency
(Land Transportation Office) on 10 January 2012, known to me to be the same
person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that
the same is his free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on
the day, year and place written.

(Sgd.) ATTY. NOLI A.


TARIO
Notary Public
Until 2013
PTR No. 5099698
Issued at Manila,
Philippines
On January 10, 2012
Doc. No. 735
Page No. 147
Book No. II
Series of 2012

31

Republic of the Philippines


)
Manila City
) s.s.
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
I, JUANITA T. PELAEZ, Filipino, married, and resident of No. 56
Pinaglabanan St., Sta. Ana, Manila, for and in consideration of the amount of ONE
MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00) paid to me today by RUFINA O. TIBURCIO,
Filipino, single and resident of No. 02 Mountain View St., San Juan, Manila, do
hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolute and unconditionally unto said
RUFINA O. TIBURCIO that certain parcel of land, together with the buildings and
improvements thereon situated in the City of Manila, and more particularly
described as follows:
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 20 of Block No. 4002 of the Cadastral Survey of the
City of Manila, situated in the District of Sampaloc. Bounded on the NE. by lot No.
22 of Block No. 4002; on the SE. by Lot No. 21 of Block No. 4002; on the SW. by
Lot No. 18 of Block No. 4002. . . containing an area of NINETY FOUR SQUARE
METERS AND EIGHTY SQUARE DECIMETERS (94.80), more or less. . .
of which I am the registered owner in fee simple, my title thereto being evidenced
by Original Certificate of Title No. 42417, issued by the Register of Deeds of
Manila.
It is hereby mutually agreed that the vendee shall bear all expenses for the
execution and registration of this deed of sale.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this deed this 27 th day of February
2012 at Manila.

JUANITA T. PELAEZ
Vendor
With my consent:
FILOMENO C. PELAEZ
Vendors Husband

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:


JULIO T. PELAEZ
MARIA K. TIBURCIO

32

Acknowledgment
Republic of the Philippines
City of Manila

)
) s.s.

BEFORE ME, this 27th day of February 2012 in the City of Manila,
Philippines, personally appeared JUANITA T. PELAEZ, with Valid Identification
Document (Drivers License No. N25-07-007777) issued by the official agency
(Land Transportation Office) on 10 January 2012, known to me to be the same
person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that
the same is his free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on
the day, year and place written.

(Sgd.) ATTY. NOLI A.


TARIO
Notary Public
Until 2013
PTR No. 5099698
Issued at Manila,
Philippines
On January 10, 2012
Doc. No. 735
Page No. 147
Book No. II
Series of 2012

33

Republic of the Philippines


)
Manila City
) s.s.
PLEDGE OF SHARES OF STOCK
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Pledge of Shares of Stock is executed this February 27, 2012 by and between:
JUANITA T. PELAEZ of legal age, Filipino and a
resident of No. 56 Pinaglabanan St., Sta. Ana,
Manila, hereinafter referred to as the PLEDGOR;
- and
TIBURCIO
LENDING
CORPORATION,
a
corporation duly organized and existing in
accordance with laws of the Republic of the
Philippines, with principal offices at No. 09 Ayala
Avenue, San Juan, Manila represented in this act
by its President, FILOMENA O. TIBURCIO,
hereinafter referred to as the PLEDGEE.
-WITNESSETHWHEREAS, the Pledgor has secured a loan (hereinafter referred to as the Debt)
from Pledgee in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP
100,000.00) receipt of which is acknowledged and confirmed herein by the parties.
WHEREAS, Pledgor, as security for said loan (hereinafter referred to as
Collateral), hereby deposits, delivers to and pledges to Pledgee shares of stock in
Tiburcio Corporation, represented by the following stock certificates:
Certificate
Number
2
5
8

No. of Shares

Total Par Value

350
450
200

Php 35,000.00
Php 45,000.00
Php 20,000.00

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


1.

Pledgee may assign or transfer said Debt and the Collateral pledged
hereunder to any third party provided fifteen (15) days prior written notice
is given to Pledgor and Pledgor is given an opportunity to redeem and pay
the Debt within fifteen (15) days from notice.

2.

In the event a stock dividend or further issue of stock in the Corporation is


issued, Pledgor shall pledge said shares as additional collateral for the debt.

3.

During the term hereof and as long as there is no default, Pledgor shall have
full rights to vote said shares and be entitled to all dividends income, except
that stock dividends shall be pledged.

4.

During the pendency of this agreement, Pledgor shall not issue any proxy,
voting trust agreement or assignment of rights to the pledged shares.

34

5.

Pledgor warrants and represents good title to the shares which are free from
liens and encumbrances or prior pledge with full authority to transfer said
shares as collateral security.

6.

Upon default of payment of the debt, or breach of this agreement, Pledgee


or transferee shall have full rights to foreclose pursuant to law.

7.

Pledgor understands that upon foreclosure the pledged shares may be sold
at public auction or public sale with right to receive reasonable prior written
notice of any said intended sale and with full rights to redeem said shares at
any time prior to said sale upon payment of the balance due, and accrued
costs of collection. In the event the shares shall be sold for less than the
amount then owing, Pledgor shall be liable for any deficiency.

8.

Upon payment of the debt, the shares shall be returned to Pledgor and this
pledge agreement shall be terminated.

9.

This pledge agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
parties, their successors, assigns and personal representatives.

10.

Upon default the Pledgor shall pay all reasonable attorneys' fees and cost of
collections.

11.

This Deed shall be governed and constructed in accordance with the laws of
the Philippines.

12.

This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties


and may only be modified, altered or amended only with the prior written
consent of the party of or parties against whom, such modification,
alteration, or amendment shall take effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date
and place above specified.

PLEDGOR

PLEDGEE

(Sgd.) JUANITA T. PELAEZ

(Sgd.) FILOMENA O. TIBURCIO


President of TIBURCIO CORPORATION

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:


ATTY. TOPACIO TUPAZ
ATTY. VIVENCIO CUYVAS

35

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Republic of the Philippines
City of Manila

)
) s.s.

BEFORE ME, this 27th day of February 2012 in the City of Manila,
Philippines, personally appeared JUANITA T. PELAEZ, with Valid Identification
Document (Drivers License No. N25-07-007777) issued by the official agency
(Land Transportation Office) on 10 January 2012, known to me to be the same
person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that
the same is his free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on
the day, year and place written.
(Sgd.) ATTY. NOLI A.
TARIO
Notary Public
Until 2013
PTR No. 5099698
Issued at Manila,
Philippines
On January 10, 2012
Doc. No. 735
Page No. 147
Book No. II
Series of 2012

36

Republic of the Philippines


City of Manila

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
)
) s.s.

BEFORE ME, this 13th day of April, 2007 in the City of Manila, Philippines,
personally appeared ATTICUS FINCH, with [Valid Identification Document]
(Drivers License No. N25-07-007777) issued by the [official agency] (Land
Transportation Office) on 10 January 2007, known to me to be the same person
who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that the
same is his free act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on
the day, year and place written.
(Sgd.) N. O. TARIO
Notary Public
Until
__________________
PTR No.
_______________
Issued at
______________
On ___________________
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2007

37

JURAT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of _______________ on this day
of _________________, affiant exhibiting before me his community tax certificate no.
_______________ issued on __________________ at _____________________.
(Sgd.) N. O. TARIO
Notary Public
Until __________________
PTR No. _______________
Issued at ______________
On ___________________
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2007.

38

Sample Legal Memorandum:


MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF
The defense, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
This is a criminal case of murder involving the shooting of the victim arising
from self-defense.
In the early evening of May 16, 1998, accused had visitors at his residence
at Pagrai Hills, Unit IV, Mayamot, Antipolo City. While he was preparing food for
his visitors, the deceased apparently punctured the rear tire of the Tamaraw
vehicle of one of the visitors. The accused saw that it was his brother, who did such
act since the Tamaraw was right in front of the griller in the terrace where the
accused was preparing the food. Upon seeing this, the accused shouted at his
brother and went down immediately to the vehicle together with his visitors. The
deceased just quickly walked towards his house, which was located right beside
the house of the accused as they were neighbors.
After changing the tire of the Tamaraw, the deceased started to come
towards the accused to which the accused responded by confronting him. While
they were arguing, the wife (Purificacion Medina) and the son (Jimmy Medina) of
the accused, started asking the deceased why he stabbed the rear tire of the
Tamaraw. This irritated the deceased who then charged towards the wife and the
son of the accused with a kitchen knife he had been holding. The accused told his
wife and son to go inside their sari-sari store. He then proceeded to get his gun
from the same store and told the deceased that something might happen if he does
not stop. The deceased started to walk back to his house, at which point the
accused shouted to the wife of the deceased to lock him up as the accused believed
that the deceased was planning to do something.
The accused then advised his visitors that they can already leave and that he
will replace the tire that his brother punctured. While the accused was standing
beside the Tamaraw and watching his visitors get inside the vehicle, the son of the
accused shouted to warn him that the deceased was coming towards him with two
knives. The accused was able to avoid two blows from the deceased by stepping
back. He then pulled his .45 caliber pistol out and fired two warning shots in the
air, which the deceased just ignored.
The deceased attacked again to which the accused, in self-defense, fired two
shots at the deceased. After firing the shots, the deceased then ran for cover
behind the jeep. The accused then went inside his house and went up to the third
floor.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
Whether or not the accused shot the deceased in self-defense, therefore
entitling him to an acquittal
ARGUMENT
The accused should be acquitted on the ground of self-defense
Self-defense is a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code, to wit:
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do
not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur;

39

First. Unlawful aggression.


Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
Self defense is present in the case at bar for the following reasons. First,
there was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. According to People v.
Crisostomo (108 SCRA 288), there is unlawful aggression when the peril to
ones limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical
force or actual use of weapon. In People v. Pasco (137 SCRA 137), the Court
stated that unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude.
In the case at bar, the deceased, while holding a knife, charged the accused
while he was watching his visitors board their vehicle. The accused had his back
turned towards the deceased. If not for the timely warning of the accuseds son,
the accused would have been stabbed on the back. The deceased also attempted to
slash at the accused, such slashes having been fortunately evaded by the latter.
Clearly, there was an actual danger facing the accused.
Second, there was a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel the attack. The case of People v. Padua (40 O.G. 998) provides that:
Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one
defending himself and that of the aggressor is not
required because the person assaulted does not have
sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to
choose which weapon to use.
Similarly, the Court held in the case of People v. Encomienda (46 SCRA
522) that:
Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not
imply material commensurability between the means of
attack and defense. What the law requires is rational
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as
principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to
which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct,
more than reason, that moves or impels the defense,
and the proportionateness thereof does not depend
upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent
danger of such injury.
In the case at hand, the deceased attacked the accused with the use of two
knives. After the accused evaded two blows from the deceased, he fired warning
shots into the air. Despite all of these, the deceased continued his attack. Thus it
was perfectly reasonable for the accused to have shot the deceased twice in order
to save his own life. Otherwise, he certainly would have been stabbed by the
deceased who was holding not one, but two knives.
Although a gun was used against a knife-wielder, the two men were in close
proximity to each other at the time of the attack that the deceased would have
surely stabbed the accused had the latter not successfully dodged his blows. Thus
the advantage of a longer target range given by the gun vis--vis a knife was
effectively cancelled by the fact that the actual distance between the two men was
only 1 meter. The use of the gun was therefore justified.
Third, there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. The
initial altercation wherein the accused told the deceased Pumasok ka nang bahay

40

mo, kung hindi may mangyayari, cannot be considered as sufficient provocation.


The case of People v. Alconga (78 Phil. 366) provides that the provocation must
be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression
and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission. Clearly, the statement of the
accused should not have stirred the deceased into attempting to kill the accused
because it was said in response to an initial act of aggression by the deceased.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that the accused be ACQUITTED.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Makati City, March 1, 2012.
COUNSELS

FOR

THE

ACCUSED:
Atty. Carlos Garcia
Atty. George Matthew Habacon
Atty. Stefano Dong Chul Han
Atty. Gabrielle Ocampo
Atty. Cheska Pazziuagan
Atty. Maria Christina Rabonza

41

Sample Legal Opinion:


BASCUNA CHUA DE JESUS DYCHITAN LANETE and OLALIA (BCOLD)
LAW OFFICES
Unit 21B, One Rockwell Condominium
Rockwell Drive, Makati City

28 February 2012
MR. JOEY PEPE SMITH
Email Address: pepesmith@sexdrugsrocknroll.com
Re:

Nullification of Certificate of Extrajudicial Sale


[Our Ref. No. 1234.12.34]
----------------------------------------

Dear PEPE:
We respond to your query on whether you may seek the nullification of the
certificate of sale issued in favor of JUAN DELA CRUZ BANK (the BANK)
concerning a parcel of land that it had purchased at an extrajudicial foreclosure
sale.
Please note that our comments hereunder are based solely on the foregoing
facts and the information you provided us via telephone conversation.
We understand that you mortgaged a 500m 2 parcel of land located in
Novaliches, Quezon City to the BANK as security for a Php 1,000,000.00 loan
which the latter extended to you. Given that you were unable to comply with your
obligation to pay the loan, the BANK extrajudicially foreclosed on your property
and was the highest bidder at the ensuing sale. The certificate of sale contained
the following provision:
It is hereby required of said highest bidder that a statement of any amount
of assessment taxes which may have been paid on account of this purchase
and such other liens chargeable to the redemptioner, with proof thereof, be
submitted within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the expiration of
the period of redemption, furnishing [the Court] a copy thereof, as required
by law, for purposes of computing the actual amount payable by the
mortgagor/redemptioner in case of redemption.
You ask us whether the certificate of sale may be nullified because the BANK
failed to comply with the said provision. We submit that non-compliance with the
stipulation provided in the certificate of sale comes within the concept of a breach
of trust or misconduct a ground to annul the said certificate.
1. The applicable law
In our jurisdiction, the procedure governing extrajudicial foreclosure sales is
governed by Act No. 3135,1 which applies to sales made under a special power
inserted in or attached to any real estate mortgage made as security for the
payment of money or the fulfillment of any other obligation. 2 The law applies with
particularity to extrajudicial foreclosures made by banks. 3 With respect to
redemption of property sold at an extrajudicial sale, Section 6 of the Act provides:
1
2

An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate
Mortgages, Act No. 3135, Section 1.
Id.

42

In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made redemption shall be


governed by the provisions of sections [twenty nine to thirty one and thirty
five of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure]4 insofar as these are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
As such, Section 28, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
The judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the property from the
purchaser, at any time within one (1) year from the date of the registration
of the certificate of sale, by paying the purchase the amount of his
purchase, with one percentum per month interest thereon in addition, up to
the time of redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or
taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase, and
interest on such last named amount at the same rate; and if the purchaser
be also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than
the judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of such
other lien, with interest.5
Reading the two provisions together, in order to validly redeem property
sold in an extrajudicial sale, the mortgagor/redemptioner should pay 1) the
purchase price, 2) the amount of taxes paid by the purchaser and 3) other liens on
the property. The redemption amount also includes any interest accrued on the
three amounts mentioned.
If no redemption is made within the prescribed period, the purchaser
becomes the absolute owner of the property. He has the absolute right to a writ of
possession6 which is the final process to carry out or consummate the extrajudicial
foreclosure. Henceforth, the mortgagor loses his right over the property. 7
2. The certificate of sale may be nullified on grounds of breach of trust or
misconduct by the purchaser.
Under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, the debtor may, in the proceedings in
which possession was requested, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of
possession in favor of the purchaser cancelled because the sale was not in
accordance with the Act.8 He may ask for the annulment of the sale on the
ground of fraud, collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of trust or
misconduct by the purchaser.9
Among all these grounds, breach of trust or misconduct by the
purchaser would best fit a situation where a bank fails to comply with provisions of
the certificate of sale. It is therefore necessary to discuss how the failure or refusal
of the purchaser to comply with the duty prescribed in the certificate of sale
constitutes a breach of trust or misconduct.
3. Non-compliance with the stipulation constitutes breach of trust or
misconduct by the purchaser.
First, the non-compliance is an outright violation of the law. The provision
requiring the BANK to submit a statement of all assessed taxes and liens on the
3
4

Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 140 SCRA 360 (1985).


Formerly embodied in Sections four hundred and sixty four to four hundred and sixty six, inclusive,
of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Hector De Leon, Comments and Cases on Credit Transactions
560 (2010 ed.)
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 39, Section 28 (emphasis supplied).

Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 596 (2000).

Bernardez v. Reyes, 201 SCRA 648 (1991).

GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 187 (1997).

UCPB v. Spouses Beluso, 530 SCRA 567 (2007).

43

property is a legal requirement which enables the redemption price to be


determined within a reasonable time. In Hi-Yield Realty, Inc. v. CA,10 the Supreme
Court held that as soon as the redemption price is determined, the redemptioner
must make prompt payment in full. Unless this is done, the redemptioner cannot
make an actual tender in good faith of the full redemption price. 11
Second, the non-compliance is in contravention of the policy behind the law,
which seeks to aid, rather than defeat the right of redemption. In Tibajia vs. Court
of Appeals,12 the Supreme Court held:
Where redemption is proper, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale cannot
refuse to allow the same, considering that his right over the property is
purely inchoate until after the period of redemption has elapsed without the
right being exercised by those allowed by law. Furthermore, public policy
demands that the original debtor should, as much as possible, be allowed
to redeem a foreclosed property.13
Any act that defeats the public policy can be seen as a breach of trust or
misconduct that would give cause to annul the certificate of sale.
A contrary view would allow the purchaser to defeat the debtors right to
redeem his property simply by refusing to comply with his duty to inform the latter
of the amount of taxes he has paid and other liens on the property. After the oneyear period to redeem the property expires, the debtor will have no more right to
redeem the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the filing of a petition to annul the certificate of sale
on grounds of breach of trust or misconduct by the purchaser. The breach of
trust or misconduct should be premised on the purchasers non-compliance with
the duty imposed on the purchaser in the certificate of sale. The petition to annul
the certificate of sale should be filed in the court that presided over the foreclosure
proceedings and ordered the issuance of the certificate of sale.
Note, however, that such a petition does not stop the issuance of the writ of
possession in the BANKs favor. Therefore, an injunction suit seeking to prohibit
the issuance of the writ is not a proper remedy. 14
We do not recommend the filing of an action to redeem the property.
The exercise of the right of redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of
the extrajudicial sale and estops the mortgagor from impugning its validity on that
ground. Redemption is inconsistent with the claim of the invalidity of the sale. 15
We await your instructions.
Very truly yours,
JOSEPH D. DE JESUS

10

Hi-Yield Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 138978, September 12, 2002.

11

Id.

12

Tibajia v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 581 (1991).

13

Id.

14

Kho v. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 160 (1991); Veloso v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 205 SCRA
227 (1992).
Aclon v. Court of Appeals, 387 SCRA 415 (2002).

15

44