Republic of the Philippines

6th Judicial Region

Branch 13
Ipo-Ipo City, Aklan

IVY C. AGUAS, CIVIL CASE NO.9876

Plaintiff FOR: Specific
Performance and Damages

EMILIA A. TURILLO,
Defendant

MOTION TO IMPLEAD
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT

DEFENDANTS, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully state:

1. On 5 September 2015, the Plaintiff filed with the Honorable Court

a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages dated 30
September 2015 praying, among others, for the Honorable Court
to issue an order directing the Defendant to deliver the balance of
the contract price agreed upon pursuant to a Contract to Sell
executed by the parties and the damages being prayed for by the
Plaintiff.

2. On 3 October 2015, the Defendant filed her answer with

compulsory counterclaim of even date. In the said Answer,
Defendant, prayed among others, for the Honorable Court to order
the dismissal of the complaint as such is being regarded to be an
unfounded suit that caused humiliation on her part in which the
damages that are being prayed for are based.

3. However, it has recently come to the attention of the undersigned

counsel that a certain Boy Pulong Coy, who also claims ownership
over the subject property, was not impleaded as a party to the
instant case. Mr. Boy Pulong Coy must be regarded as a
necessary party to the case considering that he has a claim of
ownership over the subject property and that it is him who received
the balance of the contract price although he is clearly not involved
as a party to the Contract to Sell executed. Mr. Boy Pulong Coy
must be impleaded as a party to the case for complete relief to be
accorded to those already parties, or for a complete determination
or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
 4. Section 9, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows a necessary party to
be impleaded, thus:

“Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. –

Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the
court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtrained.”

5. In the instant case, the failure to implead Mr. Boy Pulong Coy was
due to mere inadvertence and was never intended to interpose
delay in the proceedings. From the parties’ respective pleadings, it
is clear the Mr. Boy Pulong Coy ought to be joined as a necessary
party since it plays an essential role in shedding light as to who
between him and the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the subject
property.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed

that the Honorable Court issue an order directing Mr. Boy Pulong Coy to be
impleaded as a necessary party to the instant case and be given time to file
its responsive pleading.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise
prayed for.

Ipo-Ipo City, Aklan 6 September 2015.

ATTY. LOUISE NICOLE Z. ANDRADE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
4th Floor Sushi Building
Maginhawa Street
Ipo-Ipo City
IBP NO. 99887766
Attorney’s Roll No. 112233
 NOTICE OF HEARING

TO THE PARTY NAMED HEREUNDER:

Please submit the foregoing Motion for hearing on October 10, 2015.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. LEE JONG SUK

Counsel for the Defendant
Kimchi Street, Zone 99
Bibimbap City
IBP NO. 98123512
Attorney’s Roll No. 026716

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 30 September,

2015, at Ipo-Ipo City, Aklan, Philippines.

ATTY. DIEGO D. DORA

Notary Public
Roll No. 334455/5-2-2000
IBP No. 980076/1-5-2013
MCLE Compliance No. IV-000159761-3/19/2011