1

Republic of the Philippines

IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 32
Ninth Judicial Region

DOMINADOR PARFARO, CIVIL CASE No. 6333

Plaintiff,

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Defendant.
-for-

ANNULMENT OF SALE AND

CANCELLATION OF TITLE

X----------------------------------------------------X

REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMMENT/OPPOSITION

COME NOW, DEFENDANTS, through undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully state THAT:
[

1. On 25 January 2000, Defendants through counsel received a copy of

Plaintiffs’ opposition/comment to the motion for reconsideration
filed by herein Defendants last 21 January 2019.

2. In this case, albeit Defendants’ motion for reconsideration did not

state the letter of Rule 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure insofar as to
the ground that Defendants are availing, it can be, however, inferred
from the substance of the motion that Defendants have been asserting
that the summary judgment was erroneous, since neither the
authenticity of the evidence upon which the Honorable Court
anchored its assailed Order was proven in a full-blown trial in
accordance with the Rules of Evidence nor were Defendants admitted
the authenticity thereof or admitted material allegations of the
Complaint that would suffice to resort to summary judgment. Hence,
this constitutes the ground under Rule 37 that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision.
 2

3. Moreover, where the circumstances of a case do not show an intent

on the part of the pleader to merely delay the proceedings and his
motion reveals a bona fide effort to present additional matters or to
reiterate his arguments in a different light, the courts should be slow
to declare the same outright as pro forma.1

4. The tenor of Defendants’ motion for reconsideration fairly speaks that

it is meritorious and the arguments therein were not interposed to
delay the proceedings hereof, but rather it was filed to seek relief from
the Honorable Court’s findings to the end that justice and fairness
would be thereby afforded to the Defendants in this case.

5. Finally, nowhere in the assailed Order which expressly and clearly

states that the Defendants indeed admitted the allegations which are
material in the present case sufficient for the Honorable Court to avail
the Rules on summary judgment. As a matter of fact Defendants
consistently assert that the Deed of Sale is valid and it has been
thoroughly discussed in the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

6. In sum, the Defendants have timely and sufficiently assailed the

conclusion arrived at by the Honorable Court in this case through
their motion for reconsideration filed last 21 January 2019, which is
deemed compliant with the requirements imposed by Rule 37 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court

that the reliefs being prayed for by the Defendants in their motion for
reconsideration dated 21 January 2019 be granted.

Defendants pray such other reliefs that are just and equitable under the
premises.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this ___ day of January 2019, in the
City of Zamboanga, Philippines.

ANTHONY DOALE
Counsel for Defendant
______________________

1 Philippine National Bank v. Paneda, 515 SCRA 639, 649, citing Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 294 SCRA 273).
 3

Copy furnished:

NOTICE OF HEARING
THE CLERK OF COURT
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 32

GREETINGS!
Please take notice that the undersigned counsel is submitting the
foregoing Rejoinder for the approval of the Honorable Court sans oral
argument.