1

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Local Civil Registrar
Municipality of Kabasalan
Province of Zamboanga Sibugay

Republic of the Philippines )

Kabasalan, Zamboanga Sibugay ) S.S
x------------------------------------------------/

Petition No. ___________

PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR

IN THE LIVE BIRTH

I, ANGELITA SUMONDONG TANDUS, of legal age, Filipino, and a

resident of Brgy. Sayao, Kabasalan, Zamboanga Sibugay, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that:

1. I am the petitioner seeking the change of first name in the Certificate of

Live Birth of SALVADOR SUMUNDONG TANDUS JR. who is my son;
2. He was born on April 10, 1984 at Calapan, Kabasalan, Zamboanga del
Sur, Philippines;
3. The birth of my son was recorded under registry number 84-192;
4. The clerical errors sought to be corrected are the following:

Name
From SALVADOR SUMUNDONG TANDUS JR. To SALVADOR
SUMONDONG TANDUS JR.

Name of Mother
From PHOEBE B. SUMUNDONG To ANGELITA SUMONDONG
TANDUS

5. Defendant admits the contents in paragraph 2 of the complaint as to his

personal circumstances with a qualification that defendant is married to Annabelle E.
Fuentes. Further, he admits the averments in paragraph 9 of the complaint;

6. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the veracity of the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the complaint and
the averment in page 2 of the complaint that Lot No. 2031 located at Purok Paglaum,
Santa Lucia District, Pagadian City (the “subject lot”) was “further acquired from
Rose D. Badiang, the previous registered owner, through foreclosure of mortgage”;
7. He denies in part the averments in paragraph 6 of the complaint the
truth of the matter is set forth in paragraph five (5) and its sub-paragraphs of this
answer but admits the averment that houses were already built on the subject lot;

8. He is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the veracity of the averment in paragraph 7 of the complaint that plaintiff and
Philippine Assets entered into an agreement with respect to the eviction of the
defendants. However, defendant denies the averment in the same paragraph that
 2

defendant has been illegally possessing and occupying the subject lot even before the
plaintiffs acquired the same and also denies the averments in paragraph 10 of the
complaint the truth of the matter is that:

a. During the lifetime of Timoteo Pajaron, the predecessor-in-

interest of Rose Badiang, Timoteo Pajaron leased to the defendant’s
parents a small portion of the subject lot sometime in the early 1960’s
and which is now being occupied by the defendant. Further, rental fees
were likewise paid on time;

b. Defendant’s parents were likewise permitted by Timoteo Pajaron

to construct a building used for residential and commercial purposes on
the same portion of the subject lot. In fact, a building permit was issued
in favor of Mr. Crisostomo Fuentes, the defendant’s father, on January
17, 1974. As the building was constructed by the defendant’s parents at
their own expense, tax declarations were also issued to them;

(Copies of the Original Certificate of Title No. 2,003,

certification dated October 14, 1980, building permit and
tax declarations are attached hereto as Annexes “A”,
“B”, “C”, “D to D-1”, and “E to E-1” respectively)

c. Currently, defendant is in possession in good faith of the same

portion of the subject lot which was previously leased to his father by
Timoteo Pajaron;

d. Thus, the plaintiffs are bound by the lease entered into by and
between their predecessors-in-interest and defendant’s parents pursuant
to Article 13111 of the Civil Code. Further, plaintiffs have not made any
prior demand to pay them rent with respect to the use of the subject lot;

9. Although immaterial, defendant, nevertheless, denies being “angry”

and “making threats” to the plaintiffs or anyone in so far as the instant case is
concerned contrary to the averments in paragraph 8, the truth of the matter is that
defendant had never confronted the plaintiffs and has not made any threats to anyone.
As such, the allegation is baseless intended only to besmirch the reputation of the
defendant;

10. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the veracity of the averments in paragraph 11 of the complaint;

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

11. Defendant is not illegally occupying a small portion of the subject lot as
his father, predecessor-in-interest of defendant, even lawfully constructed a building
thereon and which was duly declared for real property tax purposes;

12. The complaint is procedurally infirm for failure to implead the spouse
of the defendant as required under Section 4, Rule 32 of the Rules of Court;

1
Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights
and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by
provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent.
2
Section 4. Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as
provided by law.
 3

13. Defendant posits that the Honorable Court is wanting of authority to

entertain the instant case. With due respect, the Honorable Court is without
jurisdiction over the case as evident in the allegations alleged in the complaint;

COUNTERCLAIM

14. First, defendant is invoking his right to be refunded of the necessary and
useful expenses under Article 546 of the Civil Code being a possessor or builder in
good faith;

15. Presently, a building originally constructed by the defendant’s parents

is erected on a small portion of the subject lot which is being occupied by the
defendant. The defendant used his own personal money in the renovation of the
building. Further, the building was constructed, rebuilt and renovated with knowledge
of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest and without any objection from
them. Consequently, the defendant is deemed a builder in good faith. Article 453 of
the Civil Code provides:

If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the
owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as
though both had acted in good faith.

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner

whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition
on his part.3

16. Since defendant is a builder in good faith, he is entitled to the relief and
right of retention provided under Article 546 of the Civil Code. Thus, he shall prove
his necessary and useful expenses during the trial of this case. The said provision reads:

Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the

possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.

Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith

with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in
the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the
expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have
acquired by reason thereof. 4

17. Lastly, due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, defendant hired
the legal services of the undersigned counsel for a fee the amount of which shall be
proven during the trial;

EX-PARTE MOTION

18. On July 12, 2018, defendant received the summons and a copy of the
complaint from the Honorable Court directing defendant to file his answer within the
reglementary period. However, paragraphs 5 and a portion of paragraph 4 of the
complaint that was served upon the defendant are not visible to the reader’s eye.
Perhaps due to an inadvertence in photocopying the original copy of the complaint;
3
Emphasis Supplied.
4
Emphasis Supplied.
 4

(A copy of the complaint that was served on the defendant is

attached hereto as Annex “F to F-3”)

19. In the interest of due process, defendant respectfully moves that he be

furnished with a new copy of the complaint containing all averments as reflected in
the original copy of the complaint so as to give
the defendant the opportunity to adequately answer the complaint against him
considering that a failure to specifically deny a material allegation results to an
admission;

20. Further, defendant respectfully requests that he be given a reasonable

period of time as fixed by the court5 in answering paragraph 5 of the complaint after
he receives the new copy of the complete complaint;

5
Section 11, Rule 11, Rules of Court. Extension of time to plead. — Upon motion and on such terms as
may be just, the court may extend the time to plead provided in these Rules.
The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed
by these Rules.