Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental

6th Judicial Region
Branch 51 - Bacolod City
-oOoNOVIE E. DUNLAO,
Petitioner,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO.04-2076

JAYPEE S. AMOR,
Respondent.
x------------x

REPLY
(to Answer dated August 15, 2014)
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF NOVIE E. DUNLAO, through
the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully manifests and avers:
1. Last August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff through counsel
received a copy of the Answer with Special and Affirmative
Defenses of the Defendant JAYPEE S. AMOR dated August
15, 2014;
2. The Defendants Answer to the Verified Complaint
contained the following denials:
a. That his place of residence has now changed
from Villa San Agustin, Brgy Estefania, Bacolod City to
#1376 Lucarno Street, Helvetia Heights Subdivision,
Bacolod City;
b. Specific denial of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,
11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the Verified Petition for
allegedly containing inaccurate statements of facts;
c. Specific denial of paragraph 8 for being
allegedly bereft of factual and legal basis except for the
birth of their child HAILEY ANDREA DUNALO AMOR on
October 4, 2012;

e. Specific denial of paragraph 14, the truth

allegedly being that the Respondent left his ATM Card
with the Petitioner to enable him to send four thousand
pesos (Php 4,000.00) each month for the support of
the child;
g. Specifically denial of paragraphs 17 21 for
allegedly being false, inaccurate and for lack of
sufficient knowledge as to the truth and veracity
thereof except for the personal circumstances of the
parties who have remained civil to each other;
h. Specific denial of paragraph 23 for lack of
sufficient knowledge as to the truth and veracity;
REPLY TO ANSWER
3. By way of this Reply, Petitioner rebuts and denies the
following allegations of Respondent in his Answer:
a.
In paragraph 16, the Respondent alleged that
he had an agreement with the Petitioner that he would
send, through his employment agency an amount of
Four Thousand Pesos (Php 4,000.00) by way of deposit
in his BPI ATM Card for the support of their child.
However, the Petitioner NEVER AGREED TO SUCH
AN AMOUNT with the Respondent.
b.
In paragraph 17, notwithstanding the falsity
of the Respondents allegation of the existence of an
agreement, the Respondent alleged that from March
2013 up until August 2013, he was able to send the
agreed amount to the Petitioner. However, in truth
and in fact, the Petitioner only received Four Thousand
Pesos (Php 4,000.00) on May 2013 and another Four
Thousand Pesos (Php 4,000.00) on June 2013. Thus
she did not receive any support for the living
expenses of their child for the months of March,
April, July and August in the year 2013;
c.
Still under paragraph 17, contrary to the
Respondents allegation, he was not able to personally
deliver to the Petitioner the amount of Four Thousand
Pesos (Php 4,000.00) on September 2013 for the said

amount was deposited to the BPI Account he left with

the Petitioner;
d. In paragraph 18, when their child was
hospitalized on August 2013, the Respondent alleged
that his mother wanted to hand over Three Thousand
Pesos (Php 3,000.00) to defray the expenses of the
childs hospitalization by which the Petitioner declined
to receive. In truth and in fact, Respondents mother
only came on the second day of the childs
hospitalization where she brought some snacks and
gave the Petitioner the amount of only One
Thousand Pesos (Php 1,000.00), WITHOUT ANY
OFFER OF OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE for the
reason that she did not have sufficient money at hand
and was hoping for the Petitioners kind consideration;
e. Under paragraph 19, Respondent, was able to
give their daughter an amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(Php 10,000.00) for her birthday and the Petitioner was
able to receive Four Thousand Pesos (Php 4,000.00) for
the month of October 2013. However, this does not
negate the fact that the growing needs of their child
requires constant and continuous support from
the Respondent and such cannot be met if the
support would arrive at a very intermittent
manner as it does for the longest time;
f. The Respondent alleged under paragraph 21,
that he sought for the Petitioners account number in
order to include the same in the allotment details yet
the latter gave no information whatsoever. Yet, contrary
to such allegation, the Petitioner responded that she
will open up a bank account through which the
promised support will be coursed through. The
Petitioner was able to open a BPI account for
such purpose and sent the said account number
to the Respondent via text message for which the
Respondent made no response;
g. In paragraph 22, the Respondent alleged that
from the time he gained employment he would send
the support for their child through his mother every
month to be given to the Petitioner as soon as his
salary and allotment is released and sent by his
3

agency yet for the month of June and July 2014 the
Petitioner never received any amount from the
Respondents mother nor was she ever contacted
nor visited by the same within the said months;
h. Contrary to his word, under paragraph 25, the
Respondent failed to provide for the support which their
child needed for her day to day expenses;
i.
It was only on August 2014, as alleged in
paragraph 26, that an amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(Php 5,000.00) was given to the Petitioner, through the
Petitioners counsel, for the support of their child. It is
very unfortunate that it had to take the Petitioner a
case formally filed in court for the Respondent to send
the basic support his very own child, whom he begot
with the Petitioner, needed;
j. Lastly, under paragraph 27, the Respondent
argues that the Hon. Court should give scant
consideration for the amount of indebtedness the
Petitioner seeks to recover as she incurred the same
due to the necessary expenses she had to shell out and
borrow from other individuals, specifically her sister, for
the needs of their child. However, it is clearly stated
under Articles 206 and 207 of the Family Code to wit:
Article 206. When without the
knowledge of the person obliged to give
support, it is given by a stranger, the
latter shall have a right to claim the
same from the former, unless it appears
that he gave it without any intention of being
reimbursed.
Article 207. When the person obliged
to support another unjustly refuses or fails to
give support when urgently needed by the
latter, any third person may furnish
support to the needy individual with a
right of reimbursement from the person
obliged to give support. This Article shall
apply particularly when the father or mother
of a child under the age of majority unjustly

refuses to support or fails to give support to

the child when urgently needed.
Thus, contrary to the averment of the Respondent
that the indebtedness was incurred without his
authorization, the aforementioned articles clearly states
that the said third persons have a right to
reimbursement from him who is obliged by law to
render support to his own child, regardless of his
knowledge of the same.
4. Moreover, the Petitioner hereby adopts and repleads
the allegations embodied in her Verified Petition submitted
before this Honorable Court on April 11, 2014;
5.
To reiterate, however, some very important factual
and legal matters showing the Plaintiffs clear and
indubitable right to file this case, the following points are reasserted:
a. The Respondent, being gainfully employed
and being the father of the child whom the
Petitioner seeks to have continuous support is
obliged under the law to give support under the
Family Code, especially under Article 195.
Article 195. Subject to the
provisions of the succeeding articles,
the following are obliged to support
each other to the who extent set for in
the preceding article:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(4) Parents and their illegitimate
children []
xxx
xxx
xxx
b. The Respondent must share with the
burden the Petitioner has to carry in supporting
for the needs of their child as mandated by Article
200:
Article 200. When the obligation
to give support falls upon two or more
persons, the payment of the same shall
5

be divided between them in proportion

to the resources of each.
xxx
xxx
xxx
c. By reason of the Respondents failure to
provide for the basic support necessary for the
childs welfare, the Petitioner incurred a total debt
of One Humber Two Thousand Pesos (Php
102,000.00) for the needs of the child in the
SPAN OF OCTOBER 2012 UP UNTIL FEBRUARY
2014 OR SIXTEEN MONTHS IN TOTAL. This said
amount can be divided to a total of Six Thousand
Three Hundred Seventy Five Pesos (Php
6,375.00) per month which includes not only the
food and milk of the child but also the diapers,
clothing, medication and other expenses that it
needs for sustenance. As enunciated under Article
206:
Article 206. When without the
knowledge of the person obliged to
give support, it is given by a
stranger, the latter shall have a
right to claim the same from the
former, unless it appears that he gave
it without any intention of being
reimbursed.
d. There has been an extensive effort on the
part of the Petitioner to ask time and again for
the continuous support of the Respondent for
their child.
7. Lest we forget, through the filing of the Answer, the
Defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, notwithstanding his
previous plea in his Motion to Dismiss dated ________
specifically on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his
person;
8. The period within which the Rules of Court under
Rule 11 only allows an Answer to be filed is within fifteen
(15) days after service of summons. It is to be remembered
that for this instant case, the summons was served by the

sheriff on Respondent last ______________. However, in

lieu of an Answer, he opted to file a Motion to Dismiss;
9. Thus, notwithstanding the subsequent submission of
the Answer, it must not be forgotten that when a motion to
dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are
deemed to be hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical
admission extends not only from the relevant and material
facts well pleaded in the complaint, but also to the
inferences that may be fairly deduced from them. (The
Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, et al. vs. Hon Simeon
Dumdum, Jr., G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010)
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff most

respectfully reiterates her prayer in the Verified Petition filed
last ___________________;
Other reliefs and remedies, just and proper under the
premises are likewise most respectfully prayed for.
Most respectfully submitted this ___ August 2014, in
Bacolod City.

LYNDON P. CAA
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Roll of Attorneys No. 36621
MCLE COMP. IV-0001227, 02-09-11
IBP OR No. 929280; 01-02-14
PTR No. 5441341; 01-02-14
nd
2 Gate Annex, Acacia Cor-Birch Roads
Villa Angela Subd., Brgy. Villamonte Bacolod City 6100
Tel./ Fax No. (034) 432-0516/ 7087872

COPY FURNISHED:
ATTY. AUDREY VIOLET A. LACSON
Unit 4 & 5 St., Francis Center
Singcang Araneta Streets, Bacolod City
RR No. ___________
August ___, 2014
EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing Reply was furnished to the other
parties by way of registered mail only and not by personal
service, by reason of lack of personnel to effect personal
form of service.
LYNDON P. CAA
Reply to Answer Dunlao/alluser/ilang