LEGAL FORMS - Class Compilation (LLB3 630-830)

University of the Visayas
GULLAS LAW SCHOOL

Main Campus
Dionisio Jakosalem St, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu
A Compilation of the
BASIC LEGAL FORMS
and
JUDICIAL FORMS & PLEADINGS
1
Submitted by:
LLB3 Section
Tue 6:30-8:30 PM
Submitted to:
Atty. Michael Francis L. Hubahib
Professor, Legal Forms
2
LIST OF STUDENTS
1. Abrenica, Krisleen A.
2. Adlawan, Samuel Jr. G.
3. Adora, Dane Pauline C.
4. Agwayas, Faith B.
5. Alad-ad, Joy Almarie D.
6. Alcalde, Rioje M.
7. Aplacador, Razzel M.
8. Arceo, Emerson S.
9. Barita, Reynold G.
10. Benigay, Renato Jr. G.
11. Caballero, Antonio P.
12. Dalire, Glyza S.
13. Degamo, Bonifacio Jo III S.
14. Dela Cerna, Jacinth D.
15. Donque, Carlito Jr. L.
16. Echavez, Lars Christian
17. Gabica, Keth Vincent M.
18. Gaoiran, Florante T.
19. Go, Rosana A.
20. Gulang, Cesar P.
21. Hatamosa, Analie G.
22. Hermosilla, Crisanto B.
23. Lanugon, Jovan N.
24. Luyao, Myrna O.
25. Mahinay, Jun Carlo F.
26. Maloloy-on, Gerby E.
27. Montecillo, Brian C.
28. Nedia, Chennie Lynn O.
29. Oliva, Renil B.
3
30. Pagodon, Eric E.
31. Pananganan, Ramon Paul P.
32. Pelagio, Mabini O.
33. Plando, Ninf Quennie Q.
34. Rabillas, Marcy Jo T.
35. Raotraot, Vincent Louie A.
36. Regulacion, Manny Kent S.
37. Requinto, Mary Grace C.
38. Santiago, Lebene Marie G.
39. Sarillana, Reeman L.
40. Wilwayco, Raphael Aaron B.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BASIC LEGAL FORM
I. Notarial Certificates ............................................................................. 6

a. Jurat...................................................................................................... 6
b. Acknowledgment ................................................................................. 7
i. Consisting of one (1) page; .................................................................. 7
ii. Consisting of two (2) pages................................................................. 8
II. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping..................... 9
II. Affidavits ............................................................................................ 10
a. Affidavit of Loss ................................................................................ 10
b. Affidavit of Change of Name ............................................................ 11
c. Affidavit of Preliminary Attachment................................................. 12
d. Judicial Affidavit ............................................................................... 13
IV. Negotiable Instruments ................................................................... 17
a. Promissory Notes ............................................................................... 17
b. Bills of Exchange .............................................................................. 18
c. Check ................................................................................................. 19
V. Simple Contracts ............................................................................... 20
a. Contract of Lease ............................................................................... 20
i. Lease of Apartment/Condominium Unit ............................................ 20
ii. Lease of Office Building ................................................................... 27
iii. Lease with Option to Purchase......................................................... 30
b. Deed of Sale of Realty....................................................................... 40
i. Registered Land.................................................................................. 40
ii. Unregistered Land ............................................................................. 40
iii. Under Pacto de Retro ....................................................................... 42
c. Deed of Sale of Personal Property..................................................... 44
i. Sale of Personal Property ................................................................... 46
ii. Sale of Motor Vehicle ....................................................................... 48
iii. Sale of Personal Property in Installment with mortgage ................. 51
5
iv. Sale of Vessel ................................................................................... 53
v. Sale of Large Cattle ........................................................................... 55
d. Deed of Donation .............................................................................. 58
e. Easement of Right of Way................................................................. 61
VI. Quitclaim in Labor Cases ............................................................... 63
VII. Notice of Hearing and Explanation .............................................. 64
VIII. Settlement of Estate ...................................................................... 65
a. Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate .............................................. 65
b. Extra-Judicial Deed of Partition ........................................................ 66
c. Extra-Judicial Settlement ................................................................... 68
d. Affidavit of Self-Adjudication .......................................................... 69
IX. Mortgage Contracts ......................................................................... 77
a. Real Estate Mortgage......................................................................... 77
b. Chattel Mortgage ............................................................................... 80
c. Deed of Release of Real Estate or Chattel Mortgage ........................ 82
X. Pre-Nuptial Agreements ................................................................... 84
XI. Deed of Assignment of Credit ......................................................... 86
JUDICIAL FORMS AND PLEADINGS
I. Captions and Titles ............................................................................. 88

a. Supreme Court ................................................................................... 88
b. Court of Appeals................................................................................ 89
c. Regional Trial Court .......................................................................... 90
d. Special Proceedings ........................................................................... 91
e. Criminal Proceedings ........................................................................ 92
II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions ...................................... 91
a. Interpleader ........................................................................................ 93
b. Action for Declaratory Relief ............................................................ 95
c. Petition for Certiorari......................................................................... 97
d. Petition for Prohibition .................................................................... 108
e. Petition for Mandamus .................................................................... 111
6
f. Petition for Quo Warranto................................................................ 113
g. Complaint for Expropriation ........................................................... 116
h. Complaint for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage ...................... 120
i. Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Estate ............................... 124
j. Complaint for Unlawful Detainer .................................................... 128
k. Complaint for Forcible Entry .......................................................... 131
l. Escheat.............................................................................................. 134
m. Guardianship .................................................................................. 137
n. Adoption of Minors ......................................................................... 139
o. Habeas Corpus ................................................................................. 142
p. Amparo ............................................................................................ 144
q. Habeas Data ..................................................................................... 149
r. Change of Name ............................................................................... 153
s. Change of First Name and Civil Entries .......................................... 157
III. Provisional Remedies .................................................................... 159
a. Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment ....................... 159
b. Complaint with Application for Preliminary Injunction ................. 163
c. Complaint with Application for Receivership ................................. 165
d. Replevin ........................................................................................... 169
e. Complaint for Separate Support with Application for Alimony Pendente
Lite ....................................................................................................... 172
IV. Miscellaneous Civil Pleadings ....................................................... 174
a. Notice of Appearance as Counsel.................................................... 174
b. Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel .................................................... 176
c. Complaint for Damages ................................................................... 178
V. Other Civil Pleadings ...................................................................... 181
a. Answer ............................................................................................. 181
b. Petition for Trial by Commissioner ................................................. 185
c. Complaint Based on an Actionable Document ............................... 187
d. Complaint in Intervention ............................................................... 189
e. Third Party Complaint ..................................................................... 191
f. Petition for Consolidation of Ownership (Pacto de Retro) .............. 193
7
g. Motion for Leave to Effect Service of Summons by Publication ... 195
h. Motion for Leave for Extraterritorial Service ................................. 197
i. Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading .............................................. 198
j. Motion for Bill of Particulars ........................................................... 200
VI. Appeals ............................................................................................ 202
a. Notice of Appeal .............................................................................. 202
b. Record on Appeal ............................................................................ 203
c. Petition for Review on Certiorari .................................................... 205
d. Appellant’s Brief ............................................................................. 208
e. Appellee’s Brief ............................................................................... 212
f. Petition for Review .......................................................................... 225
VII. Pleadings: Criminal Actions........................................................ 226
a. Criminal Complaint ......................................................................... 226
b. Investigation Data Form .................................................................. 234
c. Information ...................................................................................... 238
VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings .......................................................... 240
a. Motion to Quash .............................................................................. 240
b. Motion for New Trial ...................................................................... 241
c. Notice of Appeal .............................................................................. 243
d. Petition for Bail ............................................................................... 244
e. Application of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witness247
8
BASIC LEGAL FORMS
I. Notarial Certificates
JURAT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF CEBU) S.S
SUBSCRIBED AND SOWN to before me, in the City of Cebu this

19 day of May 2019, the affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No.
th
123456 issued by the LTO on January 2, 2000 at Cebu City.
ATTY. KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2020
PTR No. 123503
IBP No. 053235
Roll No. 305445
MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111201
Office Address: 3rd Floor, TEP Building, Tres de Abril, Cebu City
krisleenabrenica@gmail.com
09177056576
Doc No. 01;

Page No. 06;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
9
Acknowledgment
[ Consisting of one (1) page ]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in Minglanilla, Cebu, this May 2,

2018 at Minglanilla, Cebu, Philippines, personally appeared to me the above
mentioned parties showing to me their respective competent evidence of
identity as above indicated below their printed names and signatures, known
to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
instrument, and they acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and
deed.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
ATTY. SAMUEL ADLAWAN

Notary Public
PTR NO. 1607006, 1-02-07
IBP NO. 6865241, 12-28-06
Roll No. 6865222
MCLE Compliance No. XX-000001
2 n d Floor Larrobis Building, Poblacion,
Miglanilla, Cebu
Tel No. 273-1034
Doc No. 02;

Page No. 07;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
10
Acknowledgment
[ Consisting of two (2) page ]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for Quezon City, personally appeared

the parties, exhibiting to me competent evidence of their identities in the
form of valid identification cards bearing their photographs and signatures,
and they acknowledged to me that the foregoing instrument is their free act
and deed.
This Acknowledgment pertains to an integrally complete Deed of

Absolute Sale of one (1) parcel of registered land situated in Quezon City,
consisting of 2 pages, including this acknowledgment page, and signed by
the parties and their instrumental witnesses on each and every page thereof.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
ATTY. DANE PAULINE C. ADORA

Notary Public
For and within the territorial jurisdiction
of Cebu City
Notarial Commission No. 76544
Valid until December 31, 2019
IBP No. 7894566 lifetime, Cebu City
Attorney’s Roll No. 741258
PTR No. 123648, January 3, 2019
Doc No. 03;

Page No. 08;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
11
II. Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Hazel L. Boromeo, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of

Centro Mandaue City Cebu, after having duly sworn to in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition
and I have read all the allegations therein which are true and correct
based on my personal knowledge and authentic documents;
3. That I further certify that there is no pending action or proceeding

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency. If I should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action is pending, I shall undertake to inform the
Honorable Court of this fact within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

th
15 day of March in Mandaue City, Cebu.
Hazel L. Boromeo
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of

March 2019 in Mandaue City Cebu, with Driver’s License No.G06-14-
007006 valid until year 2021 and I hereby certify that I personally examined
the affiant herein and that I am fully satisfied that she voluntarily executed
the foregoing petition and she understood all the allegations herein.
ATTY. FAITH B. AGWAYAS

Appointment No. 321
Roll of Attorney No. _9798
PTR No.1, 21 NOVEMBER 2017 Manila
12
IBP No. 21, 21 November 2018 Cebu
Office Address 421 Cortes street Mandaue
City, Cebu
Contact No. 09123456789
MCLE Compliance (or Exemption) No.3
Doc. No. 04;
Page No. 09;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
13
III. Affidavits
Affidavit of Loss
AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS
I, JOHAN MARK S. MUSA, of legal age, Filipino, single and a

resident of Block 112Lot 8, Phase 2 C II Karangalan Village, Cebu City,
after having been duly sworn to
inaccordance with law, depose and state THAT:
1. I am a duly licensed driver in accordance with pertinent Land

Transportation laws, rules and regulations, and was issued a correspondi
ng Non -Professional Driver's License with number D16-05-301715
which is valid until January 13, 2020;
2. Sometime in February 2019, said driver's license was misplaced and

got lost;
3. Efforts were exerted to locate said driver's license, but in spite of diligent
search, it could not be found and the same is now beyond recovery;
4. Said Driver's License has not been confiscated by the LTO, Police or oth
erTraffic Enforcers for any traffic violation;
5. As such, I am executing this Affidavit of Loss to attest to the truth of the

foregoing and to support my application for the issuance of a new Non -
Professional Driver's License, in lieu of the one that was lost;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16 th

day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines.
Johan Mark S. Musa

Affiant
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 16th

day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his
competent evidence of identity by way of Voter’s I.D VIN 7403-0660B-
A1387LFB10000 issued at Cebu City.
ATTY. JOY ALMARIE D. ALAD-AD

Notary Public
Until 12-31-19
Roll No. 222222
Doc. No. 05; IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15
Page No. 10; PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City
Book No. III; 14
Series of 2019.
MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18
II. Affidavits
Affidavit of Change of Name
Republic of the Philippines)

City of Cebu )S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF NAME
I, RONALDO NAVARRETE, of legal age, single and with address

at 49 Tres De Abril St., Labangon, Cebu City, do hereby depose and state:
1. THAT my RONALDO NAVARRETE as stated and registered in my

birth certificate issued by the office of the Civil Registry of Cebu City. A
copy of my birth certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
2. THAT since childhood, my friends and acquaintances call me

ROLANDO and thus since then I have been accustomed to using the
name ROLANDO NAVARRETE in my personal records, transactions
and communications;
3. THAT the name RONALDO NAVARRETE be corrected and change to

ROLANDO NAVARRETE the Affiant herein;
4. THAT I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing

facts and to use the same for whatever legal purpose it may serve.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 22nd

day of February 2019 at Cebu City.
15
ROLANDO NAVARRETE
(Affiant)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

February 2019 at Cebu City. Affiant exhibiting his Driver’s License No.
53900193 issued at Cebu City on January 20, 2019.
ATTY. RIOJE M. ALCALDE

Notary Public
Commissioned until December 2019
Doc. No. 05;
Roll of Attorney No. 80009
Page No. 11;
PTR No. 902892/ Jan. 20, 2019
Book No. III;
IBP No. 89012903/ Jan. 29, 2019
Series of 2019.
MCLE Compliance: V-0908839
16
III. Affidavits
Affidavit of Preliminary Attachment

City of Cebu ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
I, RONIE BANAG, of legal age and a resident of the City of Cebu,

Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and says:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the case of Banag vs. Calumpang;

2. That there is sufficient cause of action;
3. That the defendant has removed or disposed of his
property, or is about to do so with intent to defraud his
creditor, the herein plaintiff-affiant;
4. That I am filing a bond in the amount of P 100,000;
5. That the amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum
which the order is prayed for above all legal counterclaims.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAVETH NAUGHT.
IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th

day of March, 2019, in the City of Cebu. Philippines.
RONIE T. BANAG
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of March,

2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, affiant having exhibited to me his
Driver’s License No. 345908 issued until January 23, 2024.
Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador

Notary Public
Until 12-31-19
Roll No. 222222
17
IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15
PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City
Doc. No. 07; MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18
Page No. 12;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
III. Affidavits
Judicial Affidavit
Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
REGION VII
CEBU CITY BRANCH 2
DRA. MILA D KUNIS,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 08-3636
- versus - FOR: UNLAWFUL DETAINER
TOMAS O SOSMENIA,
Defendant
x-------------------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(Pursuant to SC AM-8-8-SC)
I, Dra. Mila D Kunis, single, Filipino, and residing at 1261 A.

Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law in an answer to the question asked by Atty Stephen
Curry in his office at 5th Floor, Dominga Building III, 2113, Lahug, Cebu
City on March 15,2019 at 11:30 AM full conscious that I do so under oath
and I may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury hereby depose
and state
This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove the following:
A.) All the allegations in the complaint including all

annexes appended thereto and which were already marked as
exhibits in the case;
18
B.) All other related matters, facts and circumstances
relevant and material to this case
Q: How are you related to Dra. Mila D Kunis, the plaintiff in the civil case
no. 08-3636 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for unlawful
detainer against Tomas O Sosmenia?
A: I am the same.
Q: Do you know the defendant Tomas O Sosmenia?
A: Yes, he is the lessee that is occupying my property in a studio type unit

located at 1234 A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City. The contract of
the lessee is marked as EXHIBIT “A”.
Q: How did the defendant Tomas O Sosmenia was able to occupy your
property?
A: Tomas O Sosmenia leased my property for a period of 1 year from

March 5, 2018 to March 5, 2019.
Q: Did he comply with his obligations in paying the rentals?
A: Yes, he complied with his obligations but only from March 5, 2018 to
Deccember 5,2018. The rental payments for the said months are hereby
attached as EXHIBIT “B”.
Q: What did you do after the defendant failed to pay his rental payment for
the month of January 5,2019- March 5,2019?
A: On February 5,2019, one month before the expiration of the lease

agreement, I sent notice of expiration of lease of contract to the
defendant with option to renew the same or pay the unpaid rentals and
vacate the premises upon the expiration of the lease contract. Such
notice is attached as Exhibit “C”.
Q: Did the defendant exercise any of the two options?
A: No.
Q: What did you do after that?
A: On February 5,2019, I made an oral demand with the plaintiff to pay the
unpaid rentals due and to vacate the premises. However, the defendant,
Tomas O Sosmenia, did not pay the same and did not vacate the
premises. After that, we underwent a Barangay Conciliation proceeding
but it was futile.
19
Q: Do you have any document or proof that you and the defendant
underwent a Barangay Conciliation?
A: A Certification to File Action was issued by me from Barangay

Talamban, Cebu City. Herein attached as ANNEX “D”.
Q: What did you do after that?
A: On June 8, 2014, a day after the expiration of the lease contract, I gave
defendant, Tomas O Sosmenia a formal written demand to pay the
unpaid rentals and vacate the property. A photocopy of the said written
demand is hereby attached as ANNEX “E”.
Q: Did the defendant pay and vacate the property?
A: No, he did not. He refused to pay and vacate the said property.
Q: What step did you take after the refusal of the defendant , Tomas O
Sosmenia to pay the unpaid rentals and vacate the property?
A: I filed this action before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Cebu City for
Unlawful Detainer.
Q: In your complain you are asking for the unpaid rentals for the use and
occupation of the said property, how much is your claim for unpaid
rentals from the defendant?
A: The agreed rental per month of P90,000.00 starting April 2014 up to the
time the defendant turn over the said property and vacate the same plus
the interest stipulated in the lease contract until full payment is made.
Q: Finally, do you know why you are executing the foregoing sworn
statement in this case?
A: Yes, I am executing this sworn statement to be adopted as my direct

examination in this case to prove my cause/s of action for unlawful
detainer against the defendant in the above entitled case, and this
judicial affidavit be marked as EXHIBIT “F”.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I hereby affix my signature this 15Th day

of March 2019, Cebu City.
MILA D KUNIS
Affiant
20
ATTESTATION
I hereby attest that on this 5th day of March 2019, I have personally
examined the plaintiff, MILA D KUNIS; and that I have faithfully recorded
or caused to be recorded the questions asked and the corresponding answers
made thereto by her. I further attest that I nor any other person herein
present , or assisting me, never coached MILA D KUNIS regarding her
answers.
Cebu City, Philippines, March 15, 2019
ATTY. STEPHEN CURRY

Counsel for the Plaintiff
th
5 Floor, Dominga Building III, 2113, Lahug,
Cebu City
IBP No. 575848/01-13-2019/ Cebu
PTR No. 7012006/01-05- 2004/Cebu
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of

March 2019 in Cebu City. Affiant exhibited to me her identification card
bearing their photograph and signature as follows:
NAME ISSUED BY:

MILA D KUNIS SSS ID 12-1845
STEPHEN CURRY IBP No. 575848
Known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing document.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and on the place

above-written.
ATTY. EMERSON S ARCEO

Notary Public
7th Floor, Gullas Building Colon Street, Cebu City
Roll No. 03162019
PTR No. 1941888, 01-05-19
IBP No. 905467, 04-28-18
MCLE Compliance No. VII – 00014344, July 5, 2018
Doc. No. 08;
21
Page No. 13;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
22
IV. Negotiable Instruments
Promissory Notes
PROMISSORY NOTE
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I promise to pay without need of demand to

the order of CATHLYN R. BANCAT, at his office at Room 301, 3RD Floor
DBP Building, Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City, the principal amount of PESOS:
ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), on or before MARCH 15,
2020. In addition to the foregoing, I promise to pay monthly interest at the
rate of TEN (10 %) percent, without the need of demand, starting from the
month of APRIL 2019 until this note is fully paid.
In case of default in payment of this note plus interest when it becomes due
and demandable, I agree to pay an additional amount equivalent to TWO
(2%) per month based on the total amount due and demandable as penalty,
compounded monthly until fully paid; and in case it becomes necessary to
collect this note through any Attorney-at-Law, the further sum of FIVE
(5%) thereof as the attorney’s fee, exclusive of costs and judicial/
extrajudicial expenses.
March 15, 2019, Cebu City Philippines
REYNOLD G. BARITA
Maker
23
Bills of Exchange
BILLS OF EXCHANGE
Php 10,000.00 Cebu Philippines
March 15, 2019
For the value received, I promise to pay to the order of Yasmin Isabel
Pressman the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000.00) on or before May
19, 2019 at the City Savings Bank, Cebu.
(Sgd.) Renato G. Benigay Jr.
24
Check
Check Number PNB 075689

ANTONIO P. CABALLERO
March 9, 2019
Pay to the
P 58, 000.00
Order of MARIA Y. AGWANTA
PESOS FIFTY-EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS ONLY
___________________________
ANTONIO P. CABALLERO
25
V. Simple Contracts
Contract of Lease
[ Lease of Apartment/Condominium Unit ]
CONTRACT OF LEASE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Contract of Lease made and entered into by and between:
First Pacific Corporation, a domestic corporation duly organized and

existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines,
with principal office at General Maxilom, North Reclamation Area, Cebu
City, Philippines and represented in this act by its Human Resource
Manager, Jane Gadingan, (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSOR");
- And –
Pedro Sy, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of Lahug, Cebu City,
Philippines, (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSEE");
WITNESSETH: that –
WHEREAS, the LESSOR is the owner of a condominium unit located at 12

Street, Lahug, Cebu City, more particularly described as follows:
The unit known as Unit No. 2403 in the building known as building
number 200 in 12 Street, Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines and (1) also
described as Unit No. 2403 in the Declaration of High Point I
Condominium Corp. for High Point of Cebu I Condominium, dated
December 26, 2000, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the
Cebu City on December 31, 1973, and as shown on the floor plans
filed simultaneously with said Declaration in said Clerk’s Office as
Map Number 18110 and the floor plans filed simultaneously with said
amended Declaration as Map Number 18200.
WHEREAS, the LESSEE desires to occupy the above-named condominium

unit and the LESSOR is willing to lease the same unto the LESSEE, subject
to the terms and conditions herein below set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises

and the covenants hereinafter stipulated, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1.Term: This lease shall be for a duration of One (1) year

commencing from March 16, 2019 and to end on March 16, 2020, renewable
26
at the option of the LESSEE at such new terms and conditions as may agree
upon by the parties.
2. Rental: The LESSEE agrees to pay the LESSOR the monthly rental
fee of Pesos: Ten Thousand Pesos (P10, 000.00), Philippine currency. Upon
signing of this Contract of Lease, the LESSEE shall pay the LESSOR five
(5) months' rentals in advance to be applied on the last five (5) months of the
term of this LEASE. The LESSEE shall also issue seven (7) post-dated
checks covering the monthly rentals for the duration of this LEASE.
3. Deposit: The LESSEE shall also pay the LESSOR the sum of two
(2) months deposit of Pesos: Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),
Philippine Currency, to guarantee the payment of any damage to the leased
premises, unpaid utilities and other obligations to third parties by the
LESSEE during the term of the agreement, which deposit shall bear no
interest. Unless applied to said damages, unpaid utilities and other
obligations to third parties, said deposit shall be returned to the LESSEE
within ten (10) days after the termination of this agreement: Provided,
however, that the deposit cannot be applied to unpaid back rentals owed by
the LESSEE prior to the expiration of this agreement. Furthermore, if the
LESSEE vacates the premises before the expiration of the period of lease,
the total amount of the deposit and advance rentals shall be forfeited in
favor of the LESSOR.
4.Association Dues: Association dues per month of Pesos: One

Thousand (P1, 000.00), Philippine Currency or as may be determined by the
Association from time to time, including interest or penalties that may be
imposed for late payment, shall be for the account of the LESSEE.
5. Use of the Premises: The premises shall be used exclusively for

residential purposes only of the LESSEE and the immediate
members of (his/her) family and shall not in any way be used for any illegal
or unlawful activity or to keep materials, chemicals and other matters
considered as fire hazards or nuisance to the building.
6. Improvements: The LESSEE shall not make any alteration,

structural changes or improvement in the leased premises without the prior
written consent of the LESSOR. However, at the termination of the lease,
the same not having been renewed by the parties, the LESSEE shall restore
the leased premises in its original state existing at the commencement of the
agreement. Restoration of the LEASED PREMISES shall be for the
exclusive account of the LESSEE. Any improvement after the lease is
terminated and after the LESSEE shall have vacated the premises shall
belong to the LESSOR.
7.Facilities: All charges for water, electricity, telephone, association

dues and other public utilities used in the leased premises as well as
janitorial and security services or any other charges as may be imposed by
27
the building administrator of the condominium building shall be for the
account of the LESSEE. The LESSEE hereby guarantees the prompt
payment of any and all charges heretofore mentioned as they fall due. Any
delay in the payment thereof shall constitute a material breach of this
agreement.
8 Insurance: The LESSOR shall insure the leased premises against

fire. Should the leased premises be damaged by fire, earthquake, storm or
any fortuitous events to the extent that the same be rendered untenable this
agreement shall be automatically canceled and the deposit as well as the
unused portion of the advance rentals be refunded within thirty (30) days,
minus any unpaid obligation.
9. Repairs: The LESSEE shall, during the duration of the lease, make
all minor repairs on the leased premises to preserve the same in serviceable
or tenantable conditions at the LESSEE's expense except
replacement of parts due to natural wear and tear. The LESSEE, however,
shall give advance written notice to the LESSOR of Ten (10) days prior to
undertaking any minor repair. All damages caused to the leased premises
due to the fault, misuse, carelessness, and/or negligence or on account of the
use thereof by the LESSEE and other occupants therein shall be made good
and repaired by the repairs done. Should the LESSEE fails to make the
necessary and appropriate repairs within five (5) days from demand, the
LESSOR shall undertake the needed repairs and shall charge the costs
thereof to the LESSEE.
10. Inspection of the Premises: To ensure that the lease premises is

being maintained in good and tenantable conditions, the LESSOR or his
authorized representative is hereby given the right after due notice, to enter
and inspect any part of the leased premises during reasonable hours and as
the occasion thereof might require.
11. Assignment and Sub-Lease: The LESSEE hereby shall have no

right to assign or transfer its rights, interest and obligations under
the lease contract or sub-lease contract premises or any portion thereof to
any person or entity without the prior written consent of the LESSOR.
12. Injury or Damage: The LESSEE hereby assumes the full

responsibility for any damage which may be caused to the person or
property of any third person in the leased premises during the
duration of the lease. LESSEE further binds himself to hold the LESSOR
free and harmless from damages as a result thereof, unless such damage or
liability arose out of structural or other inherent defects in the leased
premises or is due to the fault of the LESSOR, his agent or representatives.
13. Sale of Leased Premises: The LESSEE recognizes the right of the
LESSOR to sell or otherwise convey ownership of the leased premises to
28
any other interested party, provided the LESSEE's rights under the lease are
respected.
14. Hazardous and Prohibited Materials: The LESSEE shall not keep
or store in the lease premise any hazardous and obnoxious substance or
inflammable material or substance that might constitute a fire hazard or
other chemicals and materials or prohibitive drugs in violations of the
laws of the Philippines.
5. Rules and Regulations: The LESSEE binds himself to comply with

the existing rules and regulations promulgated by the building administrator
and/or association and any other environmental or other laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations applicable to the leased premises.
16. Violations: The LESSOR may, at these options, consider this agreement
automatically rescinded and canceled, without need of any court action,
upon ten (10) days’ notice given to the LESSEE based on any of the
following grounds:
a. Failure of the LESSEE to pay two (2) months advance rental and
other bills or charges therefore mentioned as they fall due for any
reason whatsoever within the period to pay.
b. For any violation made by the LESSEE or its agents and

representatives of any of the terms and conditions stipulated in
this contract.
c. In case the leased premises shall be vacated or abandoned for a

period of thirty (30) days without prior written notice to the LESSOR.
Consequently, the LESSOR is hereby permitted authorized by the
LESSEE to enter the premises, either by force or otherwise, without
being liable to prosecution therefor.
Upon termination of the contact of lease based on any of the foregoing

grounds and upon demand, the LESSEE shall immediately vacate and
peacefully surrender possession of the lease premises to the LESSOR or his
duly authorize representative.
17. Remedies: In addition to the provisions of the preceding

paragraph, the LESSEE hereby acknowledges and recognizes the right of the
LESSOR to avail or resort to any or all of the following remedial measures
without need of court action:
a. In case of failure of the LESSEE to pay or settle any due and

unpaid obligations (rentals, electricity, water, telephone,
association dues etc.) as provided for under this lease contract, the
LESSEE hereby authorizes the LESSOR, who is hereby given the
right, to disconnect all facilities such as but not limited to
disconnect all facilities such as but not limited to electricity,
29
telephone, water in the leased premises without need of further
notice to the LESSEE.
b. Likewise, until the aforesaid unpaid obligations are paid or settled,

the LESSEE hereby given the rights, to re-renter
the lease premises, remove all persons therefrom, take
possession of any of all furniture, fixtures and equipment's found
thereon or therein and/or padlocked the door of the premises.
c. Moreover, by way of a security or to secure the

payment of any of the unpaid obligations of the LESSEE, the
LESSEE consents and authorizes the LESSOR to retain
possession of any of all the furniture, fixtures and equipment's that
may found on the premises as belongings to the LESSEE until
such time that all the unpaid obligations of the LESSEE are paid or
settled.
d. If after ten (10) days from the date the LESSOR shall have taken
possession of the aforesaid furniture, fixtures and equipment by
way of security, the LESSEE still fails to pay or settle its unpaid
obligations to the LESSOR the LESSEE hereby consents and
authorizes the LESSOR to sell by way of public or private sale any
or all the furniture's fixtures equipment as may be sufficient to pay
or settle the lessee's unpaid obligations plus the accrued interests
and attorney's fee equivalent to 25% of the total amount due and
unpaid. All expenses that may be incurred in the sale shall be for
the account of the LESSEE.
For purposes of selling the aforesaid properties, the LESSEE hereby

irrevocably appoint the LESSOR as its attorney-in-fact to sell and
dispose of any or all of the aforesaid the property of the LESSEE in a private
or public sale at a price as may be determined to be just and reasonable by
the LESSOR and to apply the proceeds therefrom to any or all the unpaid
obligations of the LESSEE.
If the sale proceeds should prove to be inadequate to fully payer settle the
unpaid obligations of the LESSEE, the LESSEE shall remain liable to the
LESSOR for any of the deficiency.
Should the proceeds of the sale of any of the aforesaid properties be
sufficient to pay or settle all of the lessee's unpaid obligations, the LESSEE
may get back its other properties not sold by the LESSOR. If after thirty(30)
days from written notice of the LESSOR directed to the last known
address of the LESSEE, the LESSEE still fails to get back the remaining
properties, said properties shall then be deemed abandoned in favor of the
LESSOR.
The above enumerated remedies proved for the LESSOR shall not be
exclusive, but shall be cumulative and without prejudice to any court action
30
that may be instituted by the LESSOR for any causes of action that may
arise under this contract of lease.
18. Attorney's Fee: In case the LESSOR resorts to judicial action base
upon or in connection with this lease contract, the LESSEE hereby agrees to
pay attorney's fee equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total amount
involved pr claimed by the LESSOR as against the LESSEE plus all court
expenses and/or costs of litigation.
19. Venue: All court actions from this contact of lease shall be filed
only in the proper courts of Cebu City, Philippines to exclusion of all other
courts.
20. Time of Essense: Time is the essence hereof any waiver by the
LESSOR of a breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained,
whether express or implied, shall not constitute of a waiver of any
subsequent breach thereof, or a breach of covenant to pay the rent so
accepted. No waiver by the LESSOR shall be deemed to have been made
unless expressed in writing and signed by the LESSOR.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands, this
16th day of March at Cebu City, Philippines.
JANE GADINGAN PEDRO SY

LESSOR LESSEE
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
JUAN DELA CRUZ MARIA CLARA
31
CITY OF CEBU ) S.S.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
BEFORE ME, this 16th day of March 2019 at the City of Cebu,
Philippines, personally came and appeared the following persons with their
competent identifications to wit:
NAME ID NO. DATE/ PLACE

JANE GADINGAN. 123-456-7 March 2010/ Cebu City
PEDRO SY 891-112-1 March 2010/ Cebu City
All known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the
forgoing instrument and acknowledge to me that the same is in their own
free voluntary act and deed and that of the corporation they purport to
represent.
This instrument refer to a CONTRACT OF LEASE which consists of

two (2) pages including this page where the acknowledgement is written by
the same parties and their instrumental witnesses at the fact thereof and in
the other pages at the left hand margin and which is sealed with my notarial
seal.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first above
mentioned.
ATTY. GLYZA S. DALIRE

Notary Public for Province and City of Cebu
Reg. No. 2 Until December 31, 2019
Gaisano Capital Building, NRA, Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys No. 62765
PTR No. 235628/January 09, 2019/Cebu CITY
IBP No.52587926 /January 09, 2019/Cebu City
32
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0008220/march 22, 2018
Doc. No. 12;

Page No. 20;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
33
V. Simple Contracts
Contract of Lease
[ Lease of Office Building ]
CONTRACT OF LEASE
This CONTRACT OF LEASE is made and executed at the City of Cebu,

this 28th day of May, 2018 by and between:
OFELIA CENTEÑA DEGAMO, of legal age, Filipino and a resident

of Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the
LESSOR.
-AND-
EMELIE STEWART, of legal age, Filipino, and with residence at

Costa Del Sol, Marigondon, Lapu-lapu City, Cebu, Philippines hereinafter
referred to as the LESSEE.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the LESSOR is the declared owner of a COMMERCIAL

BUILDING on Lot No. 115 located at Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu;
WHEREAS, the LESSEE intent to lease Door 302;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing

premises, the LESSOR leases unto the LESSEE and the LESSEE hereby
accepts from the LESSOR the LEASED premises, subject to the following:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. That the term of this lease contract shall be for ONE(1) Year
commencing on June 1, 2018 and will terminate on December 1,
2018, renewable at the option of the LESSOR under new terms and
condition;
2. That the agreed rental of the leased area/ premises shall be at TEN
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 10,000.00), Philippine Currency per
month collectible every 6th of the month;
34
3. That as agreed and upon preparation of this agreement the LESSEE
shall give a total amount sum/amount of TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 20,000.00), Philippine Currency to the LESSOR
equivalent to one (1) month advance and the down payment of TEN
THOUSAND PESOS(Php 10,000.00), Philippine Currency ;
4. That monthly consumption of electric and water bills and any other
necessities applied shall be for the exclusive account/responsibility of
the herein LESSEE;
5. That the LESEE is prohibited to sublease portion of the leased

commercial building to any third party;
6. That the LESEE shall not introduced any and whatever improvements
on the leased area unless the LESSOR shall permit to do so and if ever
the LESSOR permitted the improvements the same shall be at the
account/expenses of the LESSEE, however whatever improvements
that cannot be detached/removed shall belong to the exclusive
property of the LESSOR without need of reimbursement from the
herein LESSOR;
7. That the LESSEE during the period of their occupancy shall hold the
LESSOR free from any damages, liabilities, responsibilities to any
person or property arising from or as a consequence of the use of the
leased premises;
8. That the LESSEE shall keep the premises clean, provide a fire
extinguisher and to maintain the leased premises in its good and
habitable condition;
9. That taxes of the land shall be in the sole expenses of the LESSOR
however whatever taxes as regards to the business of the LESSEE
shall be at the sole account of the latter as well as whatever
minor/major repairs and alterations in the leased commercial building;
10. That should the LESSEE fail to pay for one (1) month (in delay) or
more and violates any of the conditions herein mentioned shall entitle
to terminate this contract by notifying the herein LESSEE in writing
giving he thirty(30) days to vacate the premises and forfeiting
whatever payments made in advance;
This contract of lease supersedes and renders void and any all
agreements and understanding, oral and written previously entered into
by the parties covering the leased property, and this contract may not
hereafter be modified or altered except by another instrument in writing
duly signed by the parties hereto.
35
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein affixed their signatures
on the date and place above written.
OFELIA CENTEÑA DEGAMO EMELIE STEWART

LESSOR LESSEE
ID# SSS ID 80312 UMID ID # CRN-0111-4932333-3
Signed in the presence of:
1.______________________ 2._________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Republic of the Philippines )

City of Cebu ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, personally appeared OFELIA CENTEÑA DEGAMO and

EMELIE STEWART who exhibited to me their respective proof of
identity indicated below their respective names, 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.
This instrument consisting of two (2) page/s, including the page on

which this acknowledgement is written, has been signed on each and every
page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses, and sealed with
my notarial seal.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above
written.
ATTY. BONIFACIO JO S. DEGAMO II

Notary Public
Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu
IBP NO. AP18720000-1/3/18 Cebu City
PTR No. 1643815-1/3/18 Cebu City
MCLE COM. CERT. NO. VI- 0010732
issued on 23rd day of July 2017 and
valid until April 14, 2021
Notarial Commission No. 68-15
Doc. No. 13;

Page No. 27;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
36
37
V. Simple Contracts
Contract of Lease
[ Lease with Option to Purchase ]
CONTRACT OF LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE
This Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase (Rent-to-Own

Contract) made and executed this 15TH day of March 2019, Cebu City, Cebu,
Philippines by and between.
JUAN P. DELA CRUZ, Filipino, of legal age, single, with post

address at Punta Princesa, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as
the LESSOR/SELLER.
-- AND –
MARIA F. CLARA, Filipino, of legal age, single/married to, with

postal address Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as
the LESSEE/BUYER.
WITNESSETH:
THAT, for and in consideration of the payment of rent and the
faithful compliance by the LESSEE/BUYER of all the stipulations and
covenants hereinafter contained, the LESSOR/SELLER has agreed to lease
unto the LESSE /BUYER the premises located at Dona Maria II, Punta
Princesa, Cebu City, Cebu under the following terms and conditions.
1. PURPOSE: That the premises hereby leased shall be used

exclusively by the LESSE/BUYER for residential purposes only and
shall not be diverted to other uses. It is hereby expressly agreed upon
that if at any time the premises are used for other purposes, the
LESSOR/SELLER shall have the right to rescind this contract without
prejudice to its other rights under the law.
2. TERM: The term of this non–renewable lease is for 3 years from

March 15, 2019 to March 15, 2022 inclusive.
3. RENTAL RATE: The monthly rate for the leased premises shall be
in PESOS: TWENTY THOUSHAND PESOS [Php 20,000.00],
Philippine currency. All rental payments shall be made payable to
LESSOR/SELLER or his authorized representatives.
4. DEPOSIT: Thatthe LESSEE/BUYER shall deposit with the

LESSOR/SELLER upon signing of this contract and prior to move
38
two months advance rental or in an total amount of PESOS:
FOURTY THOUSAND PESOS [ Php 40,000.00 ], Philippine
currency.
5. RENTAL PAYMENT: The LESSE/BUYER shall issue, likewise,

upon signing of this contract and prior to move in, Thirty (30) post-
dated checks to cover monthly rental for the months of April 2019 to
March 2022, each check dated on the 15th day of each month.
6. DEFAULT IN PAYMENT: In case of default by the

LESSEE/BUYER in the payment of the rent, such as when the checks
are dishonored, the LESSOR/SELLER, at its option may terminate
this contract and eject the LESSEE/BUYER as hereinafter provided.
However, the LESSE/BUYER is given seven (7) days grace period
within which to settle the account from date rental payment is due.
Granting an extension to the aforesaid grace period may not be
deemed as a waiver of LESSOR/SELLER right to terminate this
contract and eject the LESSE/BUYER but in the event the
LESSOR/SELLER so opts to grant a written request for extension, a
penalty equivalent to three (3%) percent per month of the rental due,
with a fraction of a month considered as one month shall be charged
and assessed for delayed payments.
7. SUB–LEASE: The LESSEE/BUYER shall not directly or indirectly

sublet, allow or permit the leased premises to be occupied in whole or
in part by any person, form or corporation; neither shall the
LESSEE/BUYER assign its rights hereunder to any other person or
entity and no right of interest thereto or therein shall be conferred on
or vested in anyone by the LESSEE/BUYER without
LESSOR/SELLER’s written approval.
8. LESSE’S VISITORS, etc…: In case of damage to leased premises

attributable to the LESSEE/BUYER, agents and/or visitors, repair of
the same shall be for the account of the LESSEE/BUYER without
prejudice to LESSOR/SELLER’s availment of any other right under
the law.
9. POWER, WATER CONSUMPTION & ASSOCIATION

DUES: Power, water and association dues shall be for the account of
the LESSEE/BUYER.
10. OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES: The LESSEE/BUYER shall pay for

its telephone, cable and electrical services and other public services
and utilities.
11. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: The LESSOR/SELLER shall

deliver the leased as is where is. The LESSEE/BUYER hereby
expressly acknowledges that the leased as is where is. The
39
LESSE/BUYER hereby agrees and binds itself to undertake at its
exclusive expense all minor and major repairs as may be required to
maintain the leased premises in good state of repair, any provisions of
law, present or future, or any stipulation in this agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding.
12. IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERATIONS AND RENOVATIONS:

The LESSEE/BUYER shall not make any improvements, alternations
and renovations in the leased premises without prior written consent
of both the Association and the LESSOR/SELLER. It is understood
that all permanent improvements shall be owned by the
LESSOR/SELLER and may not be removed without the express and
written consent of the LESSOR/SELLER.
13. INJURY OR DAMAGE: The LESSEE/BUYER hereby assumes full

responsibility for any damage which may be caused to the person or
property of third person/s while remaining either casually or on
business in any part of the premises leased. LESSEE/BUYER further
binds itself to hold the LESSOR/SELLER harmless and free from any
claim for such injury or damage. Provided, however, that the
LESSOR/SELLER shall make necessary actions to correct said
deficiencies to ensure that premises are in good and tenantable
condition.
14. DISTURBANCE OF POSSESSION: Disturbance or discontinuance

of possession of the LESSEE/BUYER due to “force majeure” shall
confer nor right of any kind to the LESSEE/BUYER as against the
LESSOR/SELLER, by reason of inconvenience, annoyance or injury
to business arising out of the necessity of repairing any portion of the
leased premises.
15. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS: The LESSEE/BUYER, shall, at

its own expense and risks, comply with all the laws, ordinances,
regulations and orders of any agency of the government, national or
local, affection or pertaining to the leased premises and to any effects
or articles which said LESSEE/BUYER may have in its possession
therein.
16. ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES: Should the LESSEE/BUYER

abandon the leased premises for a period of THIRTY (30) DAYS or
vacate the premises before expiration of this Contract of Lease
without notifying the LESSOR/SELLER and check payment for the
current month is dishonored, the LESSOR/SELLER’S may
immediately re-enter the leased premises and this lease shall thereon
be automatically terminated.
17. BREACH OF CONDITIONS: In case of breach by the

LESSEE/BUYER of any of the conditions and covenants of this lease
40
as herein stipulated, the LESSOR/SELLER at its option, may
forthwith terminate and cancel this lease and the LESSEE/BUYER
shall be liable for any and all damages as a result of such default and
termination. Forfeiture of whatever rental desists and advances shall
apply in case the LESSEE/BUYER violates any of the provisions in
the contract. Forfeiture shall likewise apply should the
LESSEE/BUYER fails to exercise his option to purchase after the
expiration of this contract.
18. NON-WAIVER OF LESSOR’S RIGHT: Failure of the

LESSOR/SELLER to enforce strict performance by the
LESSEE/BUYER of any of the terms, conditions and covenants of
this agreement shall not be construed as waiver of any right or remedy
that the LESSOR/SELLER’S may have, nor shall it be deemed as a
waiver of any subsequent breach of the terms, conditions, and
covenants contained therein. No waiver by the LESSOR/SELLER of
its rights hereunder shall be deemed to have been made unless
expressed in writing and signed by the LESSOR/SELLER.
19. EXPIRATION OR CANCELLATION OF LEASE: At the

expiration of the term of this lease or cancellation thereof, as herein
provided, the LESSEE/BUYER will promptly deliver to the
LESSOR/SELLER the leased premises with all corresponding keys
and in as good and tenantable condition as the same is now, ordinary
wear and tear excepted, devoid of all occupants, movable furniture,
articles and effects of any kind. Non-compliance with the terms of
this clause by the LESSEE/BUYER will give the LESSOR/SELLER
the right, at latter’s option, to refuse to accept the delivery of the
premises and to compel the LESSEE/BUYER to pay therefrom at the
same rate as herein provided plus an additional sum equal to Twenty
Five (25%) percent thereof as penalty until the LESSEE/BUYER shall
have complied with terms hereof. The same penalty shall, likewise, be
imposed in case the LESSEE/BUYER shall refuse to leave the leased
premises after the expiration of this Contract of Lease or the
termination for any reason whatsoever.
20. OPTION TO PURCHASE: For good & valuable consideration, the

receipt whereof is hereby acknowledge from the
LESSEE/BUYER. The LESSOR/SELLER hereby extends an option
to the LESSEE/BUYER to purchase for the amount of PESOS: TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS [Php 250,000.00 ] of
Lease on the 18th month or the period from 1st to 15th of September
2020.The LESSEE/BUYER, at his/her/its exclusive option,
conditioned on faithful compliance with all payments and
undertakings contained herein, may convey his/her/its decision to
avail of option to purchase in writing to the LESSOR/SELLER.
41
21. TRANSFER EXPENSES: Documentary stamp tax, capital gain tax,
registration fees, transfer tax, and other necessary expenses connected
with the execution and registration of the sale shall be for the account
of and paid by the LESSEE/BUYER.
22. TAXES, UTILITIES AND OTHER ASSOCIATION

IMPOSITIONS: For the duration of this lease, LESSEE/BUYER
shall pay the Realty Taxes. However, should the LESSEE/BUYER
not exercise the option to purchase, LESSOR/SELLER shall
reimburse the LESSEE/BUYER of all the taxes, exclusive of penalties
for delayed payments, if any, it had paid as well as the start-up fund of
the Homeowners Association.
23. JUDICIAL RELIEF AND PENALTY: Should any one of the

parties herein be compelled to seek judicial relief against the other, the
losing parties shall pay an amount equivalent to One Hundred Percent
(100%) of the amount claimed in the compliant as attorney’s fees
which shall in no case be less than P 100,000.00 pesos in addition to
other cost and damages which the said party may be entitled to under
the law, to recover from the other party. Provisions of penal character
in this Contract of Lease shall be considered as cumulative to the
relief granted by this section.
24. RIGHTS AND INTERESTS: The rights and interests of the

LESSOR/SELLER subject under this instrument shall be fully
assignable by the LESSOR/SELLER subject only to previous written
notice thereof to the LESSEE/BUYER.
25. FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT: Forfeiture of whatever rental deposit

and advances shall apply to any of the following:
a. When the LESSEE/BUYER is in default in payment for three (3)

months. In such a case, the LESSOR/SELLER shall have the
right to prohibit entry of the LESSEE/BUYER, visitors, guests
and his employees in the premises and the right to padlock the
leased premises until indebted is satisfied;
b. When LESSEE/BUYER pre-terminates lease with or without
cause;
c. When LESSEE/BUYER violates any of the provisions of this
contract; and
d. When the LESSEE/BUYER fails to exercise his/her option to
purchase.
26. PENAL PROVISION: The parties agree that all covenant and
agreements herein contained shall be deemed conditions as well as
covenants that if default or breach be made of any such covenants and
conditions, then this lease may be terminated and cancelled and the
party in breach shall be liable for any and all damages, actual and
42
consequential, resulting from such breach or termination; provided
however, that no default shall be declared under this lease unless the
party in default has given written notice to cure such default within
thirty (30) days. In the event of violation of this contract, other than
the non-payment of rentals, the party in breach must immediately take
remedial steps to cure the breach not later than thirty (30) days.
27. RIGHT OF ENTRY: LESSOR/SELLER or its authorized agent/s

shall, after giving due notice to the LESSEE/BUYER, have the right
to enter the premises in the presence of the LESSEE/BUYER or its
representative at any reasonable hour to examine the same or to make
repairs therein or for the operation of regular maintenance of the
building or for any other lawful purpose which it may deem
necessary.
This RENT TO OWN CONTRACT (CONTRACT OF LEASE

WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE) shall be valid and binding, between the
parties, their successors-in-interest and assigns. No amendment of the terms
of the instrument shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the
parties therein.
IN WITNESS WHEROF, parties herein have affixed their

signatures on the date and place first above written.
_______________________ ____________________
JUAN P. DELA CRUZ MARIA F. CLARA
LESSOR/SELLER LESSEE/BUYER
ANDRES T. BONIFACIO BRAVE MANDIRIGMA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, this 15th day of March 2019

personally appeared the following to witness:
NAME SSS No. Date/Place Issued

Juan P. Dela Cruz 000-111-222-333-000 June 14, 2017/Cebu City
Maria F. Clara 000-111-222-333-000 April 26, 2017/Cebu City
43
Known to me to be the same persons who have executed the foregoing,
instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is of their own free will
and voluntary act and deed as well as of the corporation herein represented.
This instrument consisting of five (5) pages, including the page on

which this acknowledgement is written, has been signed on the left margin
of each page and every page thereof by the parties and their instrumental
witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, the day,

year and place above written.
ATTY. JACINTH D. DELA CERNA

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567
IBP No. 1234567
Roll No. 1234567
Doc. No. 14;

Page No. 30;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
44
V. Simple Contracts
Deed of Sale of Realty
[ Registered Land ]
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
WE, SPOUSES LEO B. EBLAMO AND CHARLITA E.

EBLAMO, both of legal age, Filipinos, married, with residence and postal
address at Emerald Street, Casals Village, Mabolo, Cebu City, hereinafter
referred to as the SELLERS
in favor of
STEPHANIE UY CHUA, married to KEVIN CHUA, of legal age,

Filipino, with address at Sitio Tawagan, Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu,
hereinafter referred to
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the above-named SELLERS are the exclusive owner of
a house and lot located Emerald Street, Casals Village, Mabolo, Cebu City,
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. before the Registry of
Deeds for Cebu City in the name of LEO B. EBLAMO married to
CHARLITA E. EMBLAMO and declared for taxation purposes under Tax
Declaration No. C-04-028-0009 (land), and Tax Declaration No. C-04-
028-00010 (building) described as a parcel of land ( Lot 7 Block 11, of the
subdivision plan ( LRC ) PSD-81580 being a portion of Lot 836 of the
Banilad Estate. L.R.C. ( GLRO) Record No. 5988; situated in the City of
Cebu, Island of Cebu. Bounded on the NE., points 4 to 1; by lot 8. Block
11; , on the S.E . points 1 to 2, by Road Lot 6 (10.00 m. wide) on the SW.,
points 2 to 3 , by Lot 6 Block 11, all of the subdivision plan; and on the N.,
point 3 to 4, by lot 835, Banilad Estate; Beginning at a point marked “1” on
plan, being N; 44 deg. 36.E 493.11 m. from monument No. 3 Banilad
Estate, thence S. 38 deg. 13 W., 12.00 m. to point 2 thence N 52 deg, 08.
W., 20.37 m to point 3, thence N 42 deg. 09’E., 12.00 m to point 4; thence
S. 52 deg. 14’E., 19.75 m. to the point of beginning containing an area of
TWO HUNDRED FORTY ONE (241) SQUARE METERS, more or
less. All points referred to acts indicated on the plan and marked on the
ground by P.S cylindrical conc. Rate monuments, 15 x 60 centimeters; 15 x
60 centimeters; declination 1 deg. E., date of the original survey August
1906 – July 1907, and that of the subdivision survey, August 25 –
September 25, 1967.
45
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of THREE
MILLION PESOS (Php3,000,000.00) Philippine Currency, the receipt
whereof is hereby acknowledged in full form from the BUYER to the entire
satisfaction of the SELLERS, said SELLERS do by these presents, SELL,
TRANSFER and CONVEY in a manner absolute and irrevocable unto
the BUYER, her successors and assigns, the above-described parcel of land
with improvement.
The property is paid from the exclusive funds of the BUYER and
shall form part of her exclusive property.
That, the SELLER hereby warrant valid title to and peaceful

possession of the property herein sold and conveyed and further declare that
the same are free and clear of all liens and encumbrances of any kind
whatsoever and for purposes of the present sale the provisions of Art. 1623
of the New Civil Code have been complied with; that they have perfect right
to convey the same, and that they will warrant and forever defend their title
to the same and its subsequent transfer in favor of the BUYER, its
successors and assigns, against the lawful claims of third persons
whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the SELLERS sign this on

_______________ in ___________________
LEO B. EBLAMO
SELLER
CHARLITA E. EBLAMO
SELLER
WITNESSES:
________________________ _____________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Cebu City ) S.S
BEFORE ME, a notary for and in the City of Cebu, personally appeared:
46
Name Identification No. Date/Place Issued
LEO B. EBLAMO
CHARLITA E. EBLAMO
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the

foregoing Deed of Absolute Sale consisting of 2 pages and acknowledged to
me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.
written.
ATTY. CARLITO L. DONQUE JR.

Notary Public
PTR No. 123503
IBP No. 053235
Roll No. 305445
Doc. No. 15;

Page No. 37;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
47
V. Simple Contracts
[ Unregistered Land ]
This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made, executed and entered into by:
JOSE D. MANALO, of legal age, single, Filipino, and with residence

and postal address at Hillside Talamban, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to
as the SELLER
-AND-
JAKE Y. CUENTA, Filipino and with residence and postal address at

Tabunok Talisay, City Cebu, hereinafter referred to as the BUYER.
WITNESSETH, THAT:
For and in consideration of the amount of P 350,000 , paid to me today by

JAKE Y. CUENTA, of legal age, Filipino, single and resident of Tabunok
Talisay, City Cebu, the SELLER does hereby SELL, TRANSFER, and
CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said BUYER his heirs and
assigns that parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements
thereon, situated at Sitio Santo, Banilad Cebu City, and more particularly
described as follows:
(A portion of land situated at Sitio Santo Nino, Banilad Cebu City,

containing an area of 50 sq. meter more or less, declared in the name of
JOSE D. MANALO under tax dec. No. 002958 with an assessed value of
Php. 8,000 of 2017 revision for taxation purposes.
The SELLER hereby declare that the boundaries of the foregoing land are
visible by means of Trees; that the land is assessed for the current year at
Php 8,000 as per Tax Declaration No.002958, and that the property is in the
present possession of the SELLER.
The SELLER hereby covenants and agrees with the said BUYER that
he/she is lawfully seized in fee of said premises, that they are free and clear
of all liens and encumbrances, that he/she has a perfect right to convey the
same, and that he/she will warrant and forever defend the same unto said
BUYER, his/her heirs and assigns against the lawful claims of third persons
whomsoever;
48
The above described real estate, not having been registered under Act No.
496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law, the parties hereto have agreed to
register this instrument under the provisions of Act 3344.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this deed this 15th day of

March, 2019 at CEBU CITY.
JOSE D. MANALO
(SELLER)
Signed in the Presence of:
CHARMAINE L. ESTOYA LEONARD I. MENOZA

PROVINCE OF CEBU)
CEBU CITY) S.S.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a NOTARY PUBLIC for and in the above

jurisdiction, this 15TH day of March , 2019, personally appeared the
following persons
NAME IDENTIFICATION Date/Place of Issuance

JOSE D. MANALO DRIVERS LICENSE 09-28-2017
JAKE Y. CUENCA DRIVERS LICENSE 07-19-2018
Known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing

instrument and they acknowledged to me that the same is their own free and
voluntary act and deed and of the corporations herein represented.
This instrument refers to a deed of sale and consists of two pages

including the page on which this acknowledgment is written and signed by
the parties and their instrumental witnesses on each and every page thereof.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and at the place above
written.
Atty. LARS CHRISTIAN ECHAVEZ

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until Dec. 30, 2019
Doc. No. 16; IBP No. 010134, 07/15/2017, Cebu City
P.T.R No. 0853456, Cebu City
Page No. 40;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019. 49
V. Simple Contracts
[ Under Pacto de Retro ]
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WITH PACTO DE RETRO
This Deed of Absolute Sale with Pacto de Retro made and executed
by and between:
BOB SPONGE, of legal age, Filipino, widow, and with postal

address at Santol Tae, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the SELLER;
and
DONALD DHUCK, of legal age, Filipino, single with residence

address at Tubo’lee Village, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the
BUYER.
WITNESSETH:
That the SELLER is the absolute owner of a certain parcel of land

situated in Sanciangko Village, Brgy. Kalubihan, Cebu City and more
particularly described and bounded as follows:
TCT No. T-123456
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 9 of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC)

Pcs-501, being a portion of the consolidation of Lots 1 and 2, Psu-12223
Amd., LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. N-18322), situated in Sanciangko Village,
Brgy. Kalubihan, Cebu City. Bounded on the NW., points 2 to 4, by Lot 84;
on the S., points 8 to 1 by Lot 35; on the SE., points 1 to 2, by Lot 31; and
on the N., points 2 to 3 by Lot 39, all of the consolidation-subdivision plan.
Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being N. 52 deg. 29' E., 1211.74
m. from B.L.L.M. No.1, Brgy. Kalubihan, Cebu City (a copy of which title
is hereto attached as Annex "A")
THAT the SELLER, for and in consideration of the amount of FIVE

HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 3, 500,000.00), Philippine Currency,
receipt in full is hereby acknowledged by him to his satisfaction, hereby
SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY under PACTO DE RETRO unto said
BUYER, his heirs and assigns, the above described property with all the
50
buildings and improvement thereon, free from liens and encumbrances
whatsoever;
THAT the SELLER, in executing this conveyance, hereby reserves

the right to REPURCHASE, and the BUYER, in accepting the same, hereby
obligates himself to RESELL the property herein conveyed within a period
of five (5) years from and after the date of this instrument for the same price
of THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P3,
500,000.00), Philippine Currency: Provided however, that if the SELLER
fails to exercise her right to repurchase as herein granted within the period
stipulated, then this conveyance shall become absolute and irrevocable,
without the necessity of drawing up a new deed of absolute sale, subject to
the requirements of the law regarding consolidation of ownership of real
property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands

this 17th day of March 2019 in Manila, Philippines.
BOB SPONGE DONALD DHUCK

Seller Buyer
Signed in the presence of:
JEAN CLAUDE ARNOLD SWARTSE

WITNESS WITNESS
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of

March, 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines. Further, I certify that I personally
examined the herein Seller who furnished his Tax Identification Number
38299 issued at Cebu City. known to me and to me known to be the same person
who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged to me that the same is the
free and voluntary. This Instrument consists of only of two (2) page/s, including this
page in which this Acknowledgement is written, duly signed by SPONGE BOB and his
instrumental witnesses on each and every page hereof. WITNESS MY HAND AND
SEAL this 17th day of March, 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.
ATTY. KETH VINCENT GABICA

NOTARY PUBLIC
st
1 floor, Un Building, Colon Batman St., Cebu City
Roll no. 111111
PTR No. 2222222
IBP No. 3333333 04-07-18
Doc. No. 17;
51
Page No. 42;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
52
V. Simple Contracts
Deed of Sale of Personal Property
[ Sale of Personal Property ]
This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, made and executed in Cebu

City, Philippines, on this 18th day of March 2019 by and between:
MARIA FE CLARA, of legal age, Filipino, widowed, with resident

and postal address at 143 Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, herein
referred to as the SELLER
- and -
ELIZABETH INGLES, of legal age, Filipino, married, with

residence at 144 Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to
as the BUYER.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND

PESOS (Php 20,000.00) Philippine Currency, in hand this date receiverd by
the SELLER from the BUYER to the former’s full satisfaction and benefit,
the SELLER hereby SELLS, TRANSFERS and CONVEYS, in a manner
absolute and irrevocable unto said BUYER, her successors and assigns, that
certain 3.02 Carat Diamond Ring of which the SELLER, is the absolute
owner, covenants that she has a perfect right to sell and transfer said
diamond ring and that she will defend the same against lawful claims from
all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have hereto affixed their

signature this 18th day of March 2019, at Cebu City, Philippines.
53
MARIA FE CLARA ELIZABETH INGLES
SELLER BUYER
__________________________ AND _________________________
54
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S


Maria Fe Clara 000-111-222-333-000 June 20, 2009/Cebu City
Elizabeth Ingles 000-111-222-333-000 April 26, 2008/Cebu City

This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including the page on


ATTY. JACINTH D. DELA CERNA

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567
IBP No. 1234567
Roll No. 1234567
Doc. No. 18;

Page No. 44;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
55
V. Simple Contracts
[ Sale of Motor Vehicle ]
This Deed of Absolute Sale is made and entered into in Cebu City this
1st day of March, 2019 by and between:
Gwapa B. Sy, of legal age, Filipino, with residence address at 624 F

Pacaña St., Tisa, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as SELLER;
- and -
Gwapo A. Kho, of legal age, Filipino, with residence address at 23

Doña Maria Village, Punta Princessa, Cebu City hereinafter referred to as
BUYER;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the SELLER is the absolute and registered owner of the

following motor vehicle, more particularly described as follows:
MODEL/MAKE : Honda
COLOR : Gold Wing
BODY : Motorcycle
YEAR OF MODEL: 2017
MOTOR NO. : B1-03-5467
SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. : HZ-1234-09
PLATE NO. : JF 2110
FILE NO.: MC12901
C.R. NO.: 00978135
WHEREAS, the SELLER desires to sell the aforesaid motor vehicle

and the BUYER is able, willing and ready to purchase the same under the
terms and conditions herein below set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum total of

FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00), Philippine currency, VAT
Inclusive and receipt hereof is hereby acknowledged by the said SELLER,
the SELLER hereby SELL,CEDE, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto the
BUYER, in a manner absolute and irrevocable the above-described 1 Unit of
56
2017 Honda Motor Vehicle, free from any and all liens and encumbrances
whatsoever and on an “AS IS WHERE IS BASIS”.
The SELLER warrants that the Motor Vehicle is free from any liens
and encumbrances and that said SELLER shall defend the title and rights of
the BUYER from any claims of whatever kind or nature from third persons.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their

signatures on the date and at the place first above-written.
Gwapa B. Sy Gwapo A. Kho

Seller Buyer

______________________ ______________________
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Cebu City ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in Cebu City, this 1 st day of
March, 2019 personally appeared:
Name Identification Card Issued On/At

Gwapa B. Sy PRC No. 98765 April 13, 2017 / Cebu City
Gwapo A. Kho Driver’s License No. 123456 January 05, 2018/Cebu City
all known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing

instrument and hereby acknowledged to me that the same is their free and
voluntary act and deed.
This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including this page on

which this acknowledgment is written refers to a DEED OF SALE of 1 Unit
of 2017 Honda Motor Vehicle and has been signed by the parties and their
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL.
ATTY. ROSANA A. GO
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567
Doc. No. 19;
Page No. 46; 57
Book No. III;

Series of 2019.
IBP No. 1234567
Roll No. 1234567
3rd Floor, Third Building, Colon St., Cebu City
58
V. Simple Contracts
[ Sale of Personal Property in Installment with Mortgage ]
This CONTRACT TO SELL, made and executed this 11th day of

March, 2019 by and between:
JEREMY BACUSMO, of legal age, single, Filipino, and with residence

and postal address at 123 Brgy. Pari-an Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as
the "VENDOR";
-AND-
YVONNE GASCON, Filipino and with residence and postal address at

Pardo, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the "VENDEE".
WITNESSETH;
WHEREAS, the VENDOR is the absolute and registered owner of a

parcel of land consisting of Two hundred (200) square meters, more or less,
located at Pardo, Cebu City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
778899 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City;
WHEREAS, the VENDEE has offered to buy and the VENDOR has
agreed to sell the above mentioned property under the terms and conditions
herein below set forth;
WHEREAS, the VENDEE has offered to MORTGAGE his Motor

Vehicle to the VENDOR for purposes of securing the payment of the
Vendee in this Contract to Sell;
WHEREAS, the Motor Vehicle is more particularly described as:
MODEL/MAKE : 2011 Isuzu

COLOR : Black
BODY : Canter
MOTOR NO. : 66666
SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. : 999999
PLATE NO. : ABC-456
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the total sum of

Two Hundred thousand Pesos Only (Php: 200,000.00) Philippine Currency,
and of the covenants herein after set forth the VENDOR agrees to sell and
59
the VENDEE agrees to buy the aforesaid property subject to the following
terms and conditions:
1. The total consideration shall be Two Hundred thousand Pesos Only

(Php: 200,000.00), Philippine Currency, payable as follows:
a) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 100,000.00)

PESOS, representing earnest money shall be payable by
the VENDEE to the VENDOR upon signing of this Contract to
Sell;
b) The remaining balance in the amount of ONE HUNDRED

THOUSAND (Php 100,000.00) PESOS, shall be paid in Cash on
or before April 19, 2019.
c) That the MORTGAGE vehicle will be released upon completion

of the payment and the MORTGAGE CONTRACT incorporated
herein shall be rendered VOID;
2. Capital Gains Tax and Real Estate Tax, shall be for the account of
the VENDOR;
3. Documentary Stamps Tax, Registration Fee, registration expenses,

and all other miscellaneous fees and expenses shall be to the account
of the VENDEE;
4. Possession to the subject property shall be delivered by the

VENDOR to the VENDEE upon full payment of the total
consideration;
5. Upon full payment of the total price, the VENDOR shall sign and
execute a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE in favor of the
VENDEE. The VENDOR shall likewise execute and/or deliver any
and all documents, including but not limited to the original copy of
Transfer Certificate of Title, Tax Declaration and all
other documents necessary for the transfer of ownership
from VENDOR to the VENDEE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their

signatures, this 15th day of March, 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.
JEREMY BACUSMO YVONNE GASCON

Vendor Vendee
60
TARZAN BALTAZAR DAN APRIL MAYFEB
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, this 15TH day of MARCH 2019, personally
appeared the following:
Name ID PRESENTED Date/Place Issued

JEREMY BACUSMO PRC ID NO.223 February 5, 2019/Cebu City
YVONNE GASCON UMID ID NO. 334 January 14, 2019/Cebu City
This instrument, consisting of 3 pages, including the page on which this

acknowledgment is written, has been signed on the left margin of each and
every page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses, and sealed
with my notarial seal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the day, year and
place above written.
ATTY. CESAR P. GULANG

Notary Public
PTR No. 188118:1-04-18:B.C.
IBP No, 696969:1-04-18:B.C.
Roll No. 424242:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Cebu Boating Center
180 Jones Ave., Cebu City
Doc. No. 20;

Page No. 48;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
61
V. Simple Contracts
[ Sale of Vessel ]
SALE OF VESSEL
KNOW ALL MEY BE THESE PRESENTS:
I, LEISEL HATAMOSA , Filipino, of legal age, single, with residence

at Garing Consolacion Cebu, and post-office address at Consolacion, 6001,
for and in consideration of the sum of Eight Million Five Hundred
Thousand (Php 8,5000,000.00) Philippine currency, to me in and paid by
ANDREW PITOGO, Filipino, of legal age, single, with residence and post
office address at Bangkal Mandaue City do hereby SELL, TRANSFER
and CONVEY unto the said buyer, his heirs and assigns, the following
vessel, described as follows, to wit:
Name: M/V PRINCESS AGATHA
Rig: automatic make – up, doubled – steel gears
Materials: high powered steel sheets
Principal dimension: 20 meters wide by 30 meters in length
Gross Tonnage: 800,000 kilos
Place Built: Arizona
Year Built: 2014
Name and citizenship of owner: Andrew Pitogo
Date of Issuance of Certificate of Phil. Registry: November 15, 2015
my title thereto being evidenced by Certificate of ownership No. CRO – 158

– USA – 213,, dated November 15, 2015, issued by the Collectors of
Customs.
Herein provided that inspection and examination of the vessel is open to the
Tariff Officers to assure its level of seaworthiness
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 19th day of

March, 2019, Cebu, Philippines.
62
LEISEL HATAMOSA
Vendor
WITNESSES:
Sgd: NANCY ALIVIO Sgd: EARNEST PAHAMUTANG
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of March 2019 in

the City of Cebu, personally appeared:
LEISEL HATAMOSA CTC# LC101010008 CEBU CITY

ANDREW PITOGO Voters ID # 21689680 Consolacion Cebu
And known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing

instrument and acknowledged to me that the same persons executing the
deed of sale of the herein vessel and that execution is of their own will and
deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affix my seal on the

date and place written.
ATTY. ANALIE HATAMOSA

Notary Public
Roll # 183156284
IBP # 00313852
PTR # 313202 – 00 June 23 , 2018
63
Doc. No. 21;
Page No. 51;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
64
V. Simple Contracts
[ Sale of Large Cattle ]
SALE OF LARGE CATTLE
This agreement made and executed in the Cebu City, Philippines,

on this 15th day of March, 2019, by Juan Dela Cruz, of legal age, Filipino,
married to Maria Dela Cruz, with residence and postal address at
Consolacion, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as VENDOR, and Pedro
Bonifacio, of legal age, Filipino married to Mabini Bonifacio, with residence
and postal address at Cebu City, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as
VENDEE.
WITNESSETH, THAT:
1. That VENDOR is the owner of a carabao described as follows:
Class: Large cattle

Color: Black
Sex: Female
Brand: Chinese buffalo
Cowlicks (remolinos): Donesia
Other marks of identification: white color on four feet
2. For and in consideration of the sum of fifteen thousand pesos (PHP

15000), Philippine Currency, and other valuable consideration,
payment of which is acknowledged to have been received, VENDOR
hereby sells, transfers and conveys unto the vendee, absolutely free
from any encumbrances, his carabao.
3. VENDOR shall assume the risk of the loss of the sugar herein
conveyed by reason of fire, rain, locusts, and other accident or force
majeure, and if due to said causes the VENDOR cannot deliver to the
VENDEE not later than March 31, 2019, the carabao, then it shall be
the obligation of the VENDOR to deliver an equal quantity of
carabao referred to above to the Vendee, and, in default thereof, then
the VENDORshall deliver to the VENDEE its equivalent in money.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto affixed

their respective signatures at the place and on the date first above written.
MABINI BONIFACIO JUAN DELA CRUZ

Vendee Vendor
65
__________________ ___________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for Cebu, personally

appeared Juan Dela Cruz, with Community Tax Certificate No. CI692511
issued on January 20, 1019 issued at Cebu City, and presented to me a
document called Sale of large Cattle, who is personally known to me ( or
identified by me through competent evidence of identity, namely, drivers
license) and represented to me that the signature on the instrument or
document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the
instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed. (and, if he
acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign
in that capacity.)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

affixed my notarial seal this 15th day of March, 2019 at Cebu.
ATTY. CRISANTO B. HERMOSILLA

Notary Public
MCLE Complaince XXX-XXXX
7th Floor, UV Building
Colon Street, Cebu City
Doc. No. 22;

Page No. 53;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
66
V. Simple Contracts
Deed of Donation
DEED OF DONATION
RODOLFO R. RAMOS married to ZENAIDA M. RAMOS, both of

legal age, married, Filipinos, with address at San Vicente Village, Mandaue
City, Cebu, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the "DONORS";
IN FAVOR OF:
ROZEN REALTY, INC., a corporation duly organize and existing by

under the laws of the Philippines, with principal address in A.C Cortes
Avenue, Ibabao, Mandaue City, Cebu, represented by SHIRLEY RAMOS
ARGUELLES , as per Secretary’s Certicate registered in the Notarial
Register of Atty. Marie Dee Seares-Del Rosario under Doc No. _, Page No.
_____ Book No. ______ Series of _________hereinafter referred as
“DONEE”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the above-named DONORS are the exclusive owners of a

parcel of land located in Ibabao, Mandaue City and registered in the Registry
of Deeds for the City of Mandaue under TCT No. 9216 in the name of
RODOLFO R. RAMOS. and covered by Tax Declaration No. 2017-013-
00802 described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot No. 60, Gss, 592 ) situated in the Barangay of
Ibabao, City of Mandaue, Island of Cebu. Beginning at a point marked “1”
of lot 60, Gss- 592, being N. 05-35 E., 813.51 m. from BLLM # 1, Gss-592;
thence S. 30-03 W., 35.17 m. to point 2; thence N. 57-52 W., 41.39 m. to
point 3; thence N. 42-03 E., 67.52 m. to point 4; thense S. 70-48 E., 27.21 m.
to point 5; thence S. 29-08 W., 37-51 m. to point 1; point/ of beginning,
containing an area of TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY
(2,360 ) SQUARE METERS. ALL POINTS ARE MARKED ON THE
GROUND BY b.l CYL. CONC. MONS. Bounded on the SE., along line 1-2
by lot 59, Gss-592; on the SW., along line 2-3 by Road; on the NW., along
line 3-4 by Creek; on the NE., along line 4-5 by lot 71, Gss-592; and on the
67
SE., alone line 5-1 by lot 966, Gss-592. Bearings true. This lot was surveyed
in accordance with law and existing regulations promulgated thereunder, by
C. Zabala, Public Land Surveyor, on June 14, 1962.
The DONEE is the owner of the building erected in the subject land of
the DONORS and covered by Tax Declaration No. 2017-013-00805.
NOW THEREFORE, the DONORS in consideration and as an act of the

DONORS generosity and liberality, the DONORS freely gives, transfers and
conveys, by way of donation, unto said DONEE, all the rights, title and
interests which the said DONOR has over the said parcel of land.
THAT the DONORS have reserved sufficient property for themselves

which are necessary and adequate for their support and financial standing in
society.
ACCEPTANCE
That the DONEE through its authorized representative does hereby

accepts the foregoing donation of the above-described property for which
he/she expresses his/her sincerest appreciation and gratitude for the kindness
and liberality shown by the DONOR.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES SIGN this on

_______________ in ___________________
RODOLFO R. RAMOS
DONOR
ZENAIDA M. RAMOS
DONOR
ROZEN REALTY INC.

DONEE
By:
68
SHIRLEY R. ARGUELLES
WITNESSES:
________________________ _____________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

_____________________ ) S.S
BEFORE ME, a notary for and in the City of Cebu, personally appeared:
Name Identification No. Date/Place Issued

RODOLFO R. RAMOS
ZENAIDA M. RAMOS
ROZEN REALTY INC.
SHIRLEY R. ARGUELLES
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the

foregoing Deed of Donation consisting of 3 pages and acknowledged to me
that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.
written.
ATTY. JOVAN N. LANUGON

Notary Public
PTR No. 123503
IBP No. 053235
Roll No. 305445
69
Doc. No. 23;
Page No. 55;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
70
V. Simple Contracts
Easement of Right of Way
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
This AGREEMENT OF EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY, entered

into this 18th day of March 2019 by and between JUAN DELA CRUZ
owner of the dominant estate, of legal age, single and a resident of 123 Tres
de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City and MARIA FE CLARA, owner of the
servient estate, also of legal age, single, and a resident of 126 Tres de Abril,
Labangon, Cebu City witnesseth:
That JUAN DELA CRUZ is the owner of a parcel of agricultural land

located in the municipality of Minglanilla, province of Cebu, and more
particularly described as follows, to wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND located at Minglanilla, Cebu City,

bounded in the north by the property of Maria Fe Clara; in the east by
the property of Elizabeth Ingles; in the south by the property of
Juanita Duhaylungsod; and in the west by the property of Ben Datu,
with an area of 9,985 square meters more or less.
which property is covered by T.C.T. No. 9876 of the Register of

Deeds of Minglanilla, province of Cebu, which lot is adjacent to MARIA FE
CLARA property, and more particularly described as follows, to wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND located at Minglanilla, Cebu City, bounded in

the north by the property of Elizabeth Ingles; in the south by the property of
Juan Dela Cruz; in the west by the property of Ben Datu; and in the east by
the property of Juanita Duhaylungsod, with an area of 10,987 square meters
more or less.
which property is covered by T.C.T. No. 7844 of the Register of

Deeds of the province of Cebu.
71
That JUAN DELA CRUZ in order to have an access to and from, and
to cultivate the above-mentioned land, and so as to have an outlet to travel
the goods from his crops and for his pasture, which is the nearest public road
and least burdensome to the servient estate and to third persons, it would be
necessary for him to pass through MARIA FE CLARA property, and for this
purpose, a path or passageway of not less than two (2) meters wide through
the whole length of the western side of MARIA FE CLARA property is
necessary for the use of JUAN DELA CRUZ and for all his needs in
cultivating his estate;
That said path or passageway is particularly described in the attached

plan, “Annex A’,
WHEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTY

THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged by MARIA FE CLARA, the latter agrees and permits JUAN
DELA CRUZ to have a permanent easement of right of way over the above-
mentioned property of said MARIA FE CLARA limited to not more than
two (2) meters wide throughout the whole length of the western side of said
property and as specifically indicated in the attached plan which is made an
integral part of this contract, as “Annex A”.
It is further agreed that MARIA FE CLARA shall deliver unto JUAN

DELA CRUZ all the necessary papers, deed, and titles in relation to the
servient estate in order to facilitate the registration of the above-mentioned
right of way, in accordance with.
This agreement shall be binding between the parties and upon all
their heirs, successors, and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this

agreement the day and the year first above written, in the municipality of
Minglanilla, province of Cebu, Philippines.
JUAN DELA CRUZ MARIA FE CLARA

Owner of Dominant Estate Owner of Servient Estate
72
_____________ _____________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S


Maria Fe Clara 000-111-222-333-000 June 20, 2009/Cebu City
Elizabeth Ingles 000-111-222-333-000 April 26, 2008/Cebu City

This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including the page on


ATTY. ANN ONIMOS ABOGADA

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567
IBP No. 1234567
Roll No. 1234567
Office Address: 7th Floor, Inday Pining, UV, Colon
Doc. No. 24;

Page No. 58;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
73
74
VII. Quitclaim in Labor Cases

Province of Cebu ) S.S.
Municipality of Consolacion )
x--------------x
WAIVER, RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM
I, Edgar Allan Damasu Ponsi, Filipino, of legal age, married , and

a resident of Bamboo Hills, Poblacion Occidental, Consolacion, Cebu,
Philippines, after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That by these presents, I hereby state that I have voluntarily resigned

as Branch Manager of DYO Road Side Marketing Corporation;
2. That I hereby acknowledge to have received from my employer the
sum of FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY
PESOS (Php 57,890.00) which is in full and final satisfaction of my
salary and other benefits that may be due me for the service which I
have rendered for the latter employer;
3. That I hereby declare that I have no further claims whatsoever
against my employer, its President, members of the Board, officers
or any of its staff and that I hereby release and forever discharge all
of them from any and all claims, demands, causes of actions of
whatever nature arising out of my employment with the latter;
4. I further agree that this WAIVER, RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM
may be pleaded in bar to any suit or proceeding (Civil, SSS,
PhilHealth, Medicare, Labor, etc.) to which either I, or my heirs and
assigns, may have against my employer in connection with my
employment with the latter and that the payment which I have
received as provided herein abovementioned should not in any way
be construed as an admission of liabilities on the part of my
employer and is voluntarily accepted by me and will, if need be,
serve as full and final settlement of any amount(s) due me or any
claims or causes of actions, either past, present, future, which I may
have in connection with my employment with my employer;
5. As such, I finally make manifest that I have no further claim(s) or
causes of actions against my employer nor against any person(s)
connected with the administration and operation of the latter and
forever release the latter from any and all liabilities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
March 15, 2019 at Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines.
75
EDGAR ALLAN DAMASU PONSI
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 15th day of

March 2019, by EDGAR ALLAN DAMASU PONSI, who exhibited to me
his valid identification card, UMID No. 12345678, issued at SSS Main
Office, Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines on June 18, 2017.
Atty. Myrna Orque Luyao, CPA

NOTARY PUBLIC–Mandaue City
Per Notarial Commission No. 5678-9, Mandaue City
Luyao, Orque, Yaun & Associates
3578 Lopez Jaena Street, Subangdaku, Mandaue City
PTR No. 9876543, Mandaue City, 01/13/2019
IBP No. 85738, Cebu City, 08/23/2018
MCLE Commission No. 3456789,Cebu City,07/08/2018
TIN 123-456-789
Doc. No. 25;

Page No. 61;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
76
VII. Notice of Hearing and Explanation
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
CEBU CITY BRANCH 39
Please submit the foregoing motion to the court for its consideration and
approval immediately upon receipt thereof and kindly include the same in
the court’s calendar for hearing on Friday, 13 February, 2019 at 9:00 o’clock
in the morning.
SHALLONA ACOSTA DELPOSO

BULACAO STREET
CEBU CITY
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 13

February, 2019 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning.
JUN CARLO FUELLAS MAHINAY

Counsel for Defendant
JCFM Firm
Sanciangko St., Cebu City
Copy furnished through registered mail:

Atty. Jun Carlo Fuellas Mahinay
Counsel for the defendant
JCFM Firm Sanciangko St., Cebu City
Registry Receipt No: 12345
Post Office: Cebu City
Date: January 28, 2019
Doc. No. 26;

Page No. 63;
Book No. III;
77
Series of 2019.
VIII. Settlement of Estate
Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate

City of Cebu . . . . . . . . . . . ) S.S.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT WITH

PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT:
This settlement of estate with partition is executed by and among the

heirs of the late ELPIDIO RICAFORT, Filipino and married.
EUSEBIO LUSTE RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

MARIAFE LIMPIO and a resident of Pondol, Balamban, Cebu City,
Philippines.
CARMEN R. LOGRONO, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

DEMOSTHENIS LOGRONO and a resident of Arpili, Balamban, Cebu,
Philippines.
DOMINGA R. LABUGA, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

RODRIGO LABUGA and a resident of Tungkop, Minglanilla, Cebu,
Philippines.
MAGDALINA R. MINOR, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

FERDINAND MINO and a resident of Arpili, Balamban, Cebu,
Philippines.
ANTONIO L. RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

LOURDES RICAFORT and a resident of Pondol, Balamban, Cebu City,
Philippines.

heirs of the late MAMERTO RICAFORT, Filipino and married.
78
GULI RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to JOSE
MAGALFO and a resident of Proper Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
BASILISA R. DUBLIN, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

GENARO DUBLIN SR. and a resident of Poblacion, Balamban, Cebu,
Philippines.
SANDALIA RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

CARLITO SALINAS and a resident Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
FRANCISCO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to

DIVORA LISADA and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
LUCIO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to FANNY

MABAQUIAO and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
CRISPINIANO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to

BISENTA BIAY and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
EVARISTO VISTAS RICAFORT Filipino, of legal age, single and a

resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.

heirs of the late FLORINTINO RICAFORT, Filipino and married.
EVARESTO L. RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to

DIOSDADA RICAFORT and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
LOSILO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to LOURDES

BENIGNOS and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
BELEN R. CUEVAS, Filipino, of legal age married to JOSE CUEVAS

and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
BESENTA R. DUMDUM, Filipino, of legal age married to

MARCELO DUMDUM and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
RUDOLFO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to JUDY

PEREZ and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines.
Was constituted as Lot No. 1339, 1349 and 1350 all of my legal age,
Filipino and residing in Balamban, Cebu.
DECLARE AND MAKE MANIFEST
That the deceased left a certain of land at Balamban, Cebu, containing

the 1/3 share with an area of 13, 144 square meters more or less covered by
79
Original Certificate of Title No. 20489 of the Register of Deeds of Cebu and
more particularly described as follows to wit:
LOT NO. 1339, 1349 and 1350
A parcel of land (Lot No. 1339, 1349 and 1350 of the Cadastral Survey
of Balamban with the improvement thereon, situated in the Municipality of
Balamban, bounded on the N and E by Lots No. 1342 on the S by 1351 and
on Lots 1338 and 1334, 1330, 1329, 1340, 1341, 1342 beginning at a point
marked E on plan, being N 10 deg 25 W: 226.7 from B.B.M. No. 5 thence N
85 deg 44 S: 204.36m to point 2’ thence S 15 deg 32’ E 21.07m to point 3’
thence S 14 deg 43 E; 46.15m to point ‘4’ thence S. 86 deg. 20’ W; 74.65m
to point ‘5’ thence 33’ W; 25.14 to point ‘7’ thence S. 73 deg 16; W 18.34m
to point ‘8’ thence N. 81 deg. 57’ W; 26.41m to point ‘9’ thence N. 57 deg.
54’ W’ 13.42m to point ‘10’ thence N. 33 deg. 46’ W; 25.20m. to point 11”
thence N. 65 deg. 51’ E. 12.02m. to point ‘12’ thence N 24 deg. 44’ E;
16.59m. to point ‘13’ thence N. 61 deg. 38’ W m. to point ‘14’ thence deg.
22’ W; 38. 19m to point ‘14’ thence N. 41 deg. 22W; 38.19 to point ‘15’
thence N.88 deg. 50’ W; 12.83m to point ‘16’ thence N 21 deg. 31 ‘W;
8.07m. to point of beginning an area of Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred
Thirty Two (39, 432 square meter, more or less. All point referred to are
indicated on the plan, bearing true; declaration 1 deg. 24’ E date of Survey
on December 23, 2016.
That parties herein agree that it must be divided into Three (3) Lots and
Settle the aforementioned Real Property between them pro indiviso.
That for and consideration of the foregoing the parties herein by these
presents do hereby accepted and designated lot:
1. Lot No. 1339-A, 1349-A and 1350 containing an area of 13, 144
square meters more or less in the name of EUSEBIO LUSTE
RICAFORT, CARMEN R. LOGRONO, DOMINGA R.
LABUGA, MAGDALINA RICAFORT and ANTONIO
RICAFORT;
2. Lot No 1339-B, 1349-B containing an area of 13, 144 square

meters more or less in the name of EVARESTO RICAFORT,
LOSILO RICAFORT, BELEN R. CUEVAS, BESENTA R.
DUMDUM and RUDOLFO RICAFORT;
3. Lot No. 1339-C containing an area of 13, 144 square meters more
or less in the name of GULI RICAFORT, BASILISA R. DUBLIN,
SANDALIA RICAFORT, FRANCISCO RICAFORT, LUCIO
RICAFORT, CRESPINIANO RICAFORT and EVARESTO
RICAFORT;
80
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our hands this
th
16 of March, 2019, at Cebu City, Philippines.
EUSEBIO LUSTE RICAFORT BESENTA R. DUMDUM

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
CARMEN R. LOGRONO RUDOLFO RICAFORT

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
DOMINGA R. LABUGA GULI RICAFORT
HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
MAGDALINA RICAFORT BASILISA R. DUBLIN

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
ANTONIO RICAFORT SANDALIA RICAFORT

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
EVARESTO RICAFORT FRANCISCO RICAFORT

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
LOSILO RICAFORT LUCIO RICAFORT

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
BELEN R. CUEVAS CRESPINIANO RICAFORT

HEIR HEIR
ID No. _________________ ID No. _________________
EVARESTO RICAFORT
HEIR
ID No. __________________
___________________________ ___________________________
(Witness) (Witness)
81
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

CITY OF CEBU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public this 16th of March, 2019, at Cebu City,
Philippines, personally appeared both parties with ID Nos. above written
below their names, known to me to be the same person and acknowledge to
me that the same is their own free act and deed.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, this date and place first above
written.
ATTY. GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON

Notary Public for Cebu City, Carcar City
San Fernando, Cebu Until Dec. 31, 2019
COMM NO. 0281 11/25/2010 CEBU CITY
PTR No. 8894089, 1/10/2018 CEBU CITY
LIFE TIME IBP No. AR001264, IBP Cebu City, 1/10/18
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 56281
D Jakosalem Street, Cebu City
Doc. No. 27;

Page No. 64;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
82
Extra-Judicial Deed of Partition
EXTRAJUDICIAL DEED OF PARTITION
This AGREEMENT OF PARTITION made and executed by and

between:
SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH, of legal age, Filipino, married to

Jessica S. Fortich, with residence and postal address at 1478 Begonia St.,
Ladislawa Village, Buhangin, Cebu City, Philippines,
and
JOSHUA C. DIONISIO, of legal age, Filipino, married to Mika M.

Dionisio, with residence and postal address at 163 Santol St., Buhangin,
Cebu City, Philippines;
WITNESSETH
That the Parties herein are the registered co-owners of the parcel of land
described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6557 of the Registry of Deeds
of Cebu City, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan of Ts-V-941-D, being

N.49-38’E., 314.70 m. from Triangulation Station Cebu
Townsite; thence N.34-00 E., 40.00 m. to point 2; S. 56-00’E.,
17.00 m. to point 3; thence to S.23-30’E, 12.00 m. to point 4;
S.13-00’W., 35.94 m. to point 5; N 56-00’W m. to point 1, point
of beginning. Containing an area of ONE THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED (1,400) SQUARE METERS. All points referred to
are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground by PLS
cys. conc. mons. Bounded on the NW., along line 1-2 by Public
Land (Lot 1, Block 4, Dona Vicenta Subdivision); on the NE.,
and E., along lines 2-3-4 by Road; and on the SW, along 5-1 by
83
Public Land (Lot 3, Block 4, Dona Vicenta Subdivision). This
survey was executed under authority of Chapter XI,
Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, and in accordance with
existing regulations of the Bureau of Lands, Regie Andrei
Lastimosa, Deputy Public Land Surveyor, on May 28, 2009 and
approved on November 8, 2009.
That the said Parties have caused the subdivision of the aforesaid parcel of
land into two (2) lots, each having an area of SEVEN HUNDRED (700)
SQUARE METERS, more particularly described as Lots 1 and 2 in the
subdivision plan (LRC) PSD-4829882 which was duly approved by the
Land Registration Commissioner, to wit;
Lot 1 (LRC) Psd- 4829882

A parcel of land (Lot 1 of the Subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-
4829882 being a portion of the parcel of land described on TS-V-
542-C, LRC Rec. T.S. Sales Pat.) situated in the Res. Sec. “B”,
City of Cebu. Bounded on the N.E., points 2 to 5 by Subdivision
Road (10.00 m. wide); and on the SW., points 5 to 1 by Lot 2, of
the Subdivision Plan; and on the NW., points 1 to 2 by Lot 1,
Block 4. Beginning at a point marked “1” on Plan. This
containing an area of SEVEN HUNDRED (700) SQUARE
METERS, more or less.
Lot 2 (LRC) Psd- 4829882

A parcel of land (Lot 1 of the Subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-
4829882 being a portion of the parcel of land described on TS-V-
542-C, LRC Rec. T.S. Sales Pat.) situated in the Res. Sec. “B”,
City of Cebu. Bounded on the SE., points 2 to 3 by Subdivision
Road (10.00 m. wide); on the SW., points 3 to 1 by Lot 3, Block
4; and on the NW., points 1 to 2 by Lot 1 of the Subdivision
Plan. This containing SEVEN HUNDRED (700) SQUARE
METERS, more or less.
That the above Parties have agreed and covenanted, as by these presents, do
hereby agree and covenant, that Lot 1 as above described shall appertain and
belong to SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH, his heirs and assigns, and that
Lot 2 as likewise above described, shall appertain and belong to JOSHUA C.
DIONISIO, his heirs and assigns.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above

agreement, the Parties herein shall have the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
84
T-3805 CANCELLED by the Register of Deeds of Cebu City, and in lieu
thereof to ISSUE two (2) new certificates of title for the two lots in favor of
the two owners, respectively.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto set their hands below,

this 16th day of March 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.
(Sgd.) SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH
(Sgd.) JESSICA S. FORTICH
(Sgd.) JOSHUA C. DIONISIO
(Sgd.) MIKA M. DIONISIO
In the presence of:
(Sgd.) ALMUND SARMIENTO (Sgd.) LEANDRO LUI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S.
x-------------------------------x
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the City of Cebu,

Philippines, personally appeared the following, with their residence
certificate Nos., SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH, CTC No. 72294, issued at
Cebu City on January 5, 2019 and JOSHUA C. DIONISIO, CTC No. 67542,
issued at Cebu City on January 18, 2019, known to me and to me known to
be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument consisting of
four (4) pages only, including this page, and they acknowledge that the same
is their free and voluntary act and deed.
85
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place above
written.
(Sgd.) ATTY. BRIAN C. MONTECILLO

NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission valid until December 31, 2020
P.T.R. No. 765532, January 3, 2013, Cebu City
IBP No. 918225, Attorney’s Roll No. 14344
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. 66587
G/F J King Bldg., Jose L Briones St., NRA, Cebu City
Mobile No.: (+63) 933 8650 903
Email: brianmontecillo@live.com
Doc. No. 28;

Page No. 69;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
86
Extra-Judicial Settlement
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE
This DEED OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF

ESTATE made and entered into by and between:
Charmaine L. Santos, Christine L. Santos and Christian L. Santos

all of legal age, single, Filipino and resident of Block 1 Lot 2 Colorful
Subdivision, Barangay Linao, Talisay City, Cebu herein referred to as the
HEIRS;
WITNESSETH :
1. That the above-named HEIRS are the only surviving and lawful heirs
of spouses Christopher Z. Santos and Claribell L. Santos, who both
died intestate on 14 February 2019 at Block 1 Lot 2 Colorful
Subdivision, Barangay Linao, Talisay City, Cebu which was the
place of residence at the time of their death;
2. That the deceased spouses at the time of their death left certain real
and personal properties;
3. That the spouses died without any no known debts or obligations due
against the estate of the said decedents and without any will, the
only surviving heirs are above-mentioned Charmaine L. Santos,
Christine L. Santos, and Christian L. Santos;
4. That the heirs affirm that they have executed this instrument
voluntarily, freely and without force, intimidation or violence upon
their person, that they have hereby received their just and proper
share, and that they have no claim or demand against each other.
87
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing
premises and invoking the provision of Sec. 1 Rule 74 of the Rules of Court,
the said HEIRS above named have agreed to settle the estate extra-judicially
and to this effect do hereby partition and adjudicate the same unto
themselves and the foregoing inheritance, subject however to the liabilities
imposed by Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court for a period of two years in
favor of any other possible heirs, creditors or any other person deprived of
the lawful participation over the said estate of the deceased and
encumbrances;
The parties agree to publish this instrument in a newspaper of general

circulation in the City of Talisay, Province of Cebu once a week for three
consecutive weeks.
In the remote event that any other property of the decedent should
ever be found which is not included hereinabove, the HEIRS hereto further
agree as they do so agree to settle and distribute the same in like manner and
proportion as herein established and disposed.
That the HEIRS hereby covenant and further warrant that should there
be preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the
direct line, whether living or not at the time of the execution of this Deed,
will not invalidate/nullify the terms and conditions of this Deed. Instead, the
HEIRS shall proportionately oblige themselves to pay to the omitted Heirs
or the latters’ heir(s) the share which belongs to him/them, in accordance
with the rules of succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affix our signature this

nd
22 day of March 2019, at Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines.
___________________ ____________________ __________________

Charmaine L. Santos Christine L. Santos Christian L. Santos
__________________________ _________________________
88
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Talisay )S.S
BEFORE ME this22nd day of March 2019 at Talisay City, Cebu,

Philippines, personally appeared the following persons, who are identified
by me through competent evidence of identity:
Name Competent Evidence of Identity Date/Place Issued

Charmaine L. Santos TIN No. 666-888-999 3/2/19- Cebu City
Christine L. Santos TIN No. 111-222-333 4/5/20- Cebu City
Christian L. Santos TIN No. 444-777-555 6/7/20- Cebu City
known to me and to me made known to be the same persons who executed

the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their own
free voluntary act and deed.
This instrument refers to a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of

Estate of consisting of four (4) pages including this page on which the
acknowledgment is written and duly signed by the parties and their
instrumental witnesses.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the date and

place first above written.
ATTY. CHENNIE LYNN O. NEDIA

NOTARY PUBLIC
2ND FLOOR PNB BLDG., TABUNOK
TALISAY CITY, CEBU PHILIPPINES
IBP NO. 8886789
89
PTR NO. 6666769
ROLL NO. 5559714
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-12345
Doc. No. 29;

Page No. 72;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
90
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication

City of Cebu ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SELF- ADJUDICATION
I, GLORIA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, respectively, and presently

residing at Blk 55, Lot 66, Ibarra Homes, Labangon, Cebu City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. I am the sole heir of the late JUAN CRUZ, being his only biological
daughter;
2. The late JUAN CRUZ passed away on January 2, 2019, and died
without any last will and testament;
3. At the time of death my father, he had no debts, liabilities or

obligations to any persons, agency or institution;
4. The only property left by my late father is a house and lot, more
particularly described as follow:
TCT No. T-2222
A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 32 of the consolidation-subdivision

plan (LRC) Pcs-5141, being a portion of the consolidation of Lots 1
and 2, Psu-112287 Amd., LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. N-17511), situated in
the South District, City of Cebu, Island of Cebu. Bounded on the NE.,
points 3 to 6, by Lot 85; on the S., points 6 to 1 by Lot 30; on the SW.,
points 1 to 2, by Lot 31; and on the N., points 2 to 3 by Lot 35, all of
the consolidation-subdivision plan. Beginning at a point marked "1" on
plan, being N. 51 deg. 36' E., 1321.76 m. from B.L.L.M. No.1, Cebu
City.
5. As sole heir of the herein decedent, I hereby adjudicate the

abovementioned property solely for and in my name as well as any
and all liabilities arising from the said property;
6. I hereby execute this affidavit for the purpose of processing the

transfer of the said property in my name, the settlement of the estate
of the late JUSN CRUZ, as well as for the release of any other claim
or benefit in relation to his death before any government/private
office and banking institution and for any other legal purpose this
may best serve.
91
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19Th
day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines.
GLORIA CRUZ
Affiant
Voter's ID No. 5555
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th day of March

2019 in Cebu City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her valid proof of
identification.
ATTY. RENIL B. OLIVA

Notary Public
Doc. No. 30;

Page No. 75;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
92
XI. Mortgage Contracts
Real Estate Mortgage
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
This MORTGAGE made and executed by
Jonathan Dela Cruz, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of _

Brgy. Baguer, Libongan, North Cotabato herein called the Mortgagor
-and-
Judith Villamora, Filipino, of legal age, single/married, and a resident of

Blk 9, Lot 15, Phase II, Kalapati St. DDF Subd, Mandug, Davao City herein
called the MORTGAGEE;
W I T N E S S E T H:
1. That as security for the payment of the loan in the principal sum
of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00), and such other loans or
advances already obtained, or still to be obtained by the MORTGAGOR(s)
as MAKER(s), CO-MAKER(s), or GUARANTOR(s) from the
MORTGAGEE plus interest at the rate of 4 % per month, payable on the
dates mentioned in the corresponding loan agreement, the MORTGAGOR(s)
by way of first mortgage, mortgages the parcel(s) of land described
hereunder, together with the improvements now existing, or which may
hereafter be made thereon, of which MORTGAGOR(s) represents and
warrants that MORTGAGOR(s) is/are absolute owner(s) and that the said
parcel of land is/are free from all liens and encumbrances. The
MORTGAGOR hereby transfer and convey by way of mortgage unto the
MORTGAGEE, their heirs, successors, executors, administrators or
assigns the following parcel of land covered by and described in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 1234 issued by the Office of the Registry of Deeds of
Kidapawan, North Cotabato which title is attached hereto as Annex 1.
93
2. That if the obligations herein secure, or any of the amortization of
such indebtedness should be unpaid when due or upon non-compliance with
any of the conditions and stipulations herein agreed, or if the
MORTGAGOR or the person availing of the credit accommodations herein
secured shall, during the time the mortgage is in force, instituted solvency
proceedings or be involuntarily declared insolvent, or if the proceeds of this
loan/credit line should be used or applied for purposes other than those
specified herein, or if this mortgage cannot be recorded in the corresponding
Registry of Deeds, then all the obligations secured by this mortgage and all
the amortization thereof shall immediately become due, payable and
defaulted and the MORTGAGEE may immediately foreclose this
extrajudicially in accordance with Act No. 3135, as amended, and for the
purpose, the Mortgagor hereby names, constitutes and appoints the
Mortgagee as it’s Attorney-in-Fact, to enable it to extrajudicially foreclose
the herein Mortgage and as well as to sign all documents and perform any
act requisite and necessary to accomplish said purpose and to appoint its
substitutes as such attorney-in-fact with the same powers as above-specified.
In case of judicial foreclosure the MORTGAGOR hereby consents to the
appointment of the MORTGAGEE and/or its duly authorized representative
or of any of its designates as receiver, without any bond, to take charge of
the mortgage property at once, and to hold possession of the same and the
rents, benefits and profits derived from the mortgaged property before the
same, less the costs and expenses of the receivership; the MORTGAGOR
hereby agrees further that, in all cases, attorney’s fees is hereby fixed at
25% of the total indebtedness then unpaid, which in no case shall not be less
than Php 5,000.00 exclusive of all cost and fees allowed by law, and the
expenses of collection shall be the obligation of the MORTGAGOR and
shall with priority, be paid to the MORTGAGEE out of any sums realized
from the sale of said property and this mortgage shall likewise stand as
security therefor. It is hereby agreed that the period or periods granted for
the payment of the amortization and/or obligations secured by this
mortgage is for the mutual benefit of both MORTGAGOR and the
MORTGAGEE. The MORTGAGEE may be a bidder at the sale of the
properties hereby mortgage to it, whether under foreclosure proceedings, or
under the powers of sale herein provided, or otherwise. The remedy of the
MORTGAGEE under the powers of sale hereby conferred upon it shall be,
and is in addition to and cummulative with such right of action as the
MORTGAGEE may have in accordance with the present or any future laws
of the Philippines. It is hereby agreed that in the case of foreclosure of this
mortgage under Act No. 3135, the auction sale shall be held at the capital
province; and in case of judicial execution of this obligation or any part of
it, the debtor waive all their rights under the provisions of Rule 39 Section
12 of the Rules of Court, Art. 232 of Republic Act No. 386, known as the
Civil Code of the Philippines, and the proper venue of the foreclosure suit
thereto corresponding, where the mortgage may institute the foreclosure suit
is the Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court of Davao city or
elsewhere at the election of said MORTGAGEE;
94
3. It is of the essence of this contract that if the MORTGAGOR
fails to pay the principal obligation then this mortgage shall be foreclosed
and the above-mentioned property/ies shall be sold in accordance with law;
but, if the MORTGAGOR pay said obligation together with the interests,
then this mortgage shall become null and void and of no effect.
In Witness Whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this December

18, 2015 at Davao City, Philippines.
Jonathan Dela Cruz Judith Villamora

Mortgagor Mortgagee
With my marital consent:

_______________________
Husband of Mortgagor
Signed In The Presence Of: ______________ & ________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Davao City ) S.S
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for Davao City this 18th day of
December 2015 personally appeared:
ID Number
Lorena H. Camino SSS No. 000-111-222-333
Judith C. Villamora SSS No. 222-333-444-555
All known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the
foregoing real estate mortgage and who acknowledged the same to be their
free voluntary act and deed, and that of the entities represented.
95
This document refers to a loan agreement which consists of three (3)
pages including this page on which this Acknowledgement is written, and
duly signed by the parties together with their instrumental witnesses on each
and every page hereof.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first above
written.
ATTY. ERIC PAGODON
Notary Public
102 Maryjoy Bldg. Gen Maxilom Avenue Cebu City.
Roll No. 50308
Doc. No. 31; PTR NO. 1855380
Page No. 77; IBP No. 805831, 05-04-18
Book No. III; MCLE Compliance No. V11- 00053803, Jun. 12, 2018.
Series of 2019.
96
XI. Mortgage Contracts
Chattel Mortgage
DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE
That I, OLIVE OLIVIANO, of legal age, married and resident of

Brgy. Pari-an Cebu City, for and in consideration of the loan
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), granted to me by LUCKY
AWANGAN, also of legal age, married and resident of 800 St. Brgy.
Labangon Cebu City, to be paid one (1) year from date hereof, have
transferred and conveyed by way of chattel mortgage unto said LUCKY
AWANGAN, his heirs, successors and assigns, free from all liens and
encumbrances that certain motor vehicle, presently in my possession, more
particularly described as:
MODEL/MAKE : 2011 Isuzu

COLOR : Black
BODY : Canter
MOTOR NO. : 123456
SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. : 789666
PLATE NO. : XYZ-123
of which I am the true and absolute owner by title thereto, being evidenced
by Registration Certificate of Motor Vehicle No. 1122 issued in my name by
the Land Transportation Office on July 6, 2017.
This chattel mortgage has been executed in order to secure the full and
faithful payment of my obligation to LUCKY AWANGAN in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this instrument. Upon payment, this
contract shall become canceled; otherwise, it shall continue in full force and
effect and may be foreclosed in accordance with law.
IN WITNESSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed

this deed of chattel mortgage, this 5th day of March 2019 at Cebu City,
Philippines.
OLIVON OLIVIANO
Mortgagor
With my marital consent (if married):
97
MARIA OLIVIANO
Mortgagor’s wife
AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD FAITH
We, the undersigned MORTGAGOR and MORTGAGEE, severally

swear that the foregoing chattel mortgage is made and executed for the
purpose of securing the obligation specified therein, and for no other
purpose, and that the same is a just and valid obligation, and one not entered
into for the purposes of fraud.
OLIVON OLIVIANO LUCKY AWANGAN

Mortgagor Mortgagee
MARIA MAKILING JUAN TAMAD

Witness Witness
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

City of Makati ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in the City of Cebu, this
25th day of March 2019 personally appeared:

LUCKY AWANGAN PRC ID NO. 6789 2/04/2018|CEBU CITY
OLIVON OLIVIANO UMID ID NO. 4869213 4/02/2018|CEBU CITY

This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including this page on

which this acknowledgment is written refers to
a DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE and has been signed by the parties
and their witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal.
ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE

PANANGANAN
Doc. No. 32; Notary Public
Page No. 80;
98
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
99
IX. Mortgage Contracts
Deed of Release of Real Estate or Chattel Mortgage
DISCHARGE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
I, Lelanie Rubia, Filipino, of legal age, married to Reynaldo

Rubia with residence and post-office address at Block 11 Lot 25 Deca
Homes 5 Basak, Lapulapu City, having received the full consideration of the
sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), to me in
hand paid by Mariz Macasaquit, of legal age , married to Froilan
Macasaquit with residence and pot-office address at Block 10 lot 86
Corinthian Homes Basak, Lapulapu City, hereby by these presents forever
RELEASE and DISCHARGE that certain mortgage of real estate with all
the improvement thereon, covered by Transfer ( or Original) Certificate of
Title No. 00000 of the Registry of Deeds of Lapulapu City, which real estate
mortgage was executed on 10th day of May, 2017, by the said Mariz
Macasaquit , before Notary Public ED BINZ as per his Notarial register
document no. 00000, Page no. 00000, Book no. 00000, series of 00000, and
duly registered in the Registry of Deeds of Lapulapu City, on 15 th of May,
2017 as per Primary Entry No. 0000, Volume 00000 of the Day Book of the
said Registry of Deeds,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 18th

of February, 2019 in City of lapulapu, Philippines.
________________________________
Lelanie Rubia
WITNESSES:
Myrna Perez Jasmine Credo
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

City of Lapulapu ) S.S.
100
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in the City of Lapulapu, this
20th day of February 2019 personally appeared:
Lelanie Rubie 00000 00000

Mariz Macasaquit 00000 00000
ATTY. MABINI O. PELAGIO

2nd Floor Patalinghug st., Pajo, Lapulapu City
Roll No. 98289
PTR No. 78921, 6 Jan 2019
IBP No. 89892, 8 May 2o18
MCLE Compliance NO. 95287391, 16 June 1977
Doc. No. 33;

Page No. 82;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
101
X. Pre-Nuptial Agreements

CITY OF CEBU) S.S
PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT
This PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT, entered into this 1st day of Februrary

2019 in Cebu City, Philippines , by and etween CARLITO M. PLANDO
and NINFAG. QUINTANA, both of legal age, and residing at Buena Hills
Sundivision, Guadalupe, Cebu City.
WITNESSETH:
THAT the parties hereto are about to enter into a ontract of

marriage, tentatively scheduled to take place sometime in the 31 st of
December 2019;
THAT they hereby mutually agree that all the property, real and
personal. Now owned by the future wife, NINFA G. QUINTANA, shall
remain to be owned exclusive and separate property, subject to her
disposition, administration, and enjoyment; while those of the future
husband, CARLITO M. PLANDO, shall likewise remin also to be his own
exclusive and separate property, subject to his absolute disposition and
administration;
THAT all properties and earnings acquired after marriage by any

party or jointly by both parties shall constiute conjugal properties or funds
which, among other common purposs shall defray or take care of family
expenses, including the rearing and education of future chldren that may be
begotte or that may be adopted during marriage;
THAT this agreement shall take effect upon the celebration of the
marriage.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed their names unto
this document on the date and at the place first above written.
CARLITO M. PLANDO NINFA G. QUINTANA

Future Husband Future Wife
BASANIO G. QUINTANA LEILANIE Q. YALUNG
102
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, in and for Cebu City, Philippines, this 1st
day of Februrary 2019, personally appeared:
Name GSIS ID No.

CARLITO M. PLANDO 196431
NINFA G. QUINTANA 196160
known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument

and theyacknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act
and deed.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand andaffix my

notarial seal on the date and place first above written.
ATTY. NINF QUENNIE Q. PLANDO

7th Floor UV Building, Colon St., Cebu City
Roll No. 121212
PTR No.232323, 6 Jan 2019
IBP No. 343434, 8 May 2018
Doc. No. 34;

Page No. 84;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
103
XI. Deed of Assignment of Credit
DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF CREDIT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS PRESENTS
This deed, made and entered into this 14th of March 2019 at the City of
Cebu, by and between:
JUAN DELA CRUZ, Filipino citizen, of legal age, with residence

and postal address at Escario, St. Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the
“ASSIGNOR”
-AND-
PEDRO DELA ROSA, Filipino citizen, of legal age, with residence

and postal address at Colon Street, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the
“ASSIGNEE”
WITNESSETH THAT-
WHEREAS , the ASSIGNOR is the buyer of a 2-bedroom unit

located at 27C, Grand Tower, Cebu CitY with an area of Fifty Five (55)
square meters more or less, covered by condominium certificate title no.
458327 of the Register of Deed of Cebu, registered in the name of the Bank
of the Philippine Islands.
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR has offered to assign all his rights, title
and interest over the above unit, as referred in the said contract to sell and
the ASSIGNEE hereby accepts the assignment in accordance with the terms
herein set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and consideration of the forgoing

premised and the sum of TWO MILLION PESOS (2,000,000.00)
Philippine currency which the ASSIGNOR hereby acknowledged to have
received from the ASIGNEE, the ASSIGNOR hereby assigns, transfer and
104
conveys unto the ASSIGNEE , all his rights, title and interest to the
aforementioned property and appurtenant interest in the condominium
project pursuant to this agreement and the ASSIGNEE by these presents
hereby accepts the assignment and agrees to be bound by the terms and
condition of the Contract to Sell and the rules, and regulations and
restrictions pertaining to the said unit.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands

on the date and place first above written.
J UAN DEL A CRUZ PEDRO DELA ROSA

ASSIGNOR ASSIGNEE
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF
ANA SANTOS
MARIA ABAD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

City of Cebu ) S.S.
Before me, a notary public, for and in the City of Cebu, this 14 th day
of March 2019, personally appeared:
NAME IDENTIFICATION CARD ISSUED ON
/AT
JUAN DELA CRUZ PASSPORT NO. 58I258925
July 24, 2017/Cebu City
PEDRO DELA ROSA PASSPORT NO. 09495593 June 12,
2017/Cebu City
105
All known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that the same are their free act and deed.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed

my notarial seal on the date and place above written.
ATTY. MARCY JO T. RABILLAS

Notary Public
3rd Floor, ABC Building
Osmena Street, Cebu City
Roll No. 58241
PTR No. 7462621, 05-25-18
IBP No. 684391, 03-25-18
MCLE Compliance No. VII –
00043741, June 4, 2018
Doc. No. 35;

Page No. 86;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
106
JUDICIAL FORMS & PLEADINGS
I. Captions and Titles
Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SPS. EMERSON ARCEO, and

BOJOY ALAD-AD ARCEO,
Petitioners.
G.R. No. 14314369
-versus- (RTC Civil Case No. CEB-14369)
JACINTH DELA CERNA, and

DANE PAULINE ADORA,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------/
107
Court of Appeals

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
MANNY KENT S. REGULACION

Petitioner,
-versus- C.A. G.R. No. 6989
(ACTION FOR INJUNCTION)
CRISANTO HERMOSILLA
Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------------------/
108
Regional Trial Court

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7th Judicial Region
Cebu City
Branch 10
ARLYN SANCHEZ
Plaintiff,
-versus- CRIMINAL CASE No: 1022548
FOR: ESTAFA
LOVELY LIM,
Accused
x--------------------------------------------------x
109
Special Proceedings

National Capital Region
Makati City
Branch 21
Guardian’s Bond for the

Property of the Minors
Jacinth and Jovan, both surnamed Abrenica,
Sp. Proc. No. M-6710
KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA
Petitioner,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
110
Criminal Proceedings

Seventh Judicial Region
Branch 45
Oslob, Cebu
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No. 4344
For: Murder
JUAN DE LA CRUZ,
Accused.
x--------------------------------------/
111
II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions
Interpleader
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

BRANCH 4, CEBU CITY
JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,
– versus – Special Civil Action No.

_______
Petition for Interpleader
JUAN TAMAD and JUAN TANGA,

Defendant,
x--------------x
COMPLAINT
I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the counsel, respectfully states that:
1. Plaintiff and defendant are all of legal age; plaintiff resides at 1234
Pelaez street Cebu City, whereas defendants resides at 4321 Pelaez
street Cebu City and 9012 Ramos St. Cebu City respectively, where
they may be served the respective notices;
2. That on January 31st of 2019, plaintiff found a Bag containing

Macbook laptop, 1 Hard Drive, a check worth twenty five thousand
pesos (pay to cash) and a Blackberry playbook that said properties
where in the possession of the plaintiff.
3. On 10th of February 2019, defendants made similar representations to

the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the said properties without even
showing proof that he own as such.
4. Plaintiff who claims no interest on the said properties cannot

determine the conflicting claims of defendants and thus seeks to
compel defendants to interplead and litigate their several claims
between themselves.
PRAYER
112
WHEREFORE, I respectfully prayed before this Honorable Court
to issue and order directing defendants to interplead with one another and to
determine their respective rights and claims and to allow plaintiff to recover
his expenses and the costs of this suit as first lien upon the subject of this
action Cebu City, 21st of February 2019.
(sgd.) Atty. Raphael Aaron Wilwayco

Unit 1234 Gran Turino, Cebu City
IBP No. 111
MCLE Compliance
CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION OF NON FORUM

SHOPPING

City of Cebu )S.S.
I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, after having been duly sworn in accordance

with the law, deposes and states that:
1. I am the plaintiff in the above titled case;
2. I am of legal age and as of the moment in possession of the said

properties mention in the above titled case;
3. I certify that I have not commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues before any other court and quasi-judicial
agency;
4. To the best of my knowledge there is no such pending action or claim,

or in case there arise I will personally report to the Honorable Court
the status of the same within 5 days;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on 21 st of

February 2019.
(Signed) JUAN DELA CRUZ
Doc. No. 41;

Page No. 93;
113
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.

Action for Declaratory Relief

Branch 15
Cebu City
WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,
-versus- G.R. DOCKET NO. 868-SC-922-VI
FOR: Petitioner for
Declaratory Relief
CITY OF CEBU, represented by
MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MOTION WITH LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO ADMIT

ATTACHED COMPALINT-IN-INTERVENTION
Movant-Intervenors, by counsel, to this Honorable Court

respectfully states:
This is a Complaint for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of

Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed on March
15, 2019 to declare Ordinance 7774 prohibiting the admission of customers
on a short-time basis or for a short-time rate invalid and unconstitutional.
114
Herein movants are operators and proprietors of various business
establishments in the City of Cebu whose main customers are local tourists
from far-flung areas in the country having their vacation in the City.
That the passage of the aforesaid Ordinance will adversely affect

herein movant’s lawful occupation and businesses, due to the fact that the
establishments they operate are tourist-and people-fueled, and the passage of
the Ordinance in controversy may affect the patronage of the movant’s
customers.
The passage of the aforesaid Ordinance 7774 will adversely affect

the business operation and occupation of movants, to their detriment and
prejudice.
WHERFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be rendered

admitting herein Movants as Intervenors in the above-entitled case.
City of Cebu, 19 March 2019.

LOMIBAO LAW OFFICE,
406 Punta Princesa, Cebu City
Tel. No. 0917-7056-576
Email Add: LLawOffice @gmail.com
by:
ATTY. KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA

Notary Public
PTR No. 123503
IBP No. 053235
Roll No. 305445
115
Doc. No. 42;
Page No. 95;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
NOTICE OF HEARING
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT

CITY OF MANILA
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and

approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof.
116
Petition for Certiorari

COURT OF APPEALS
CEBU CITY
SPOUSES ARA ECHAVEZ

AND VAN ECHAVEZ,
ET. AL.,
Petitioners,
CA G.R. CV-No. XXXXXX
-versus-
RTC CEBU CITY, Branch XX
R.T.C. No. CEB-XXX
FOR: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,

PRESIDING JUDGE, ETC.,
RTC, BRANCH 12, CEBU CITY,
And EUTIQUITA ARA,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65
117
Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court of Appeals, most respectfully file this Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Order of the
respondent court dated November 3, 2006, dismissing the above
complaint, and the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by plaintiffs-petitioners on February 5, 2007 at RTC Branch
12, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB -19530 for Specific
Performance, Etc., entitled SPOUSES ARA. ECHAVEZ AND VAN
ECHAVEZ, ET. AL., versus EUTIQUITA ARA, and further
state, THAT:
1. Petitioners are all of legal ages, Filipinos, married, with

postal address c/o undersigned counsel, where they may be
served with summons and other court processes;
2. Public respondent, Hon. ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO,

is made a party to this case in her capacity as the Presiding
Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, where
summons may be served;
3. Private respondents are of legal ages, Filipinos, married,

and with postal address c/o their respective counsels, where they
may be served summons, notices and other court papers;
4. On November 10, 2006, plaintiffs -petitioners received a

copy of the Order of RTC Branch 12, Cebu City, dated November
3, 2006, dismissing the above-mentioned case;
5. A certified true copy of the decision being assailed is

hereto attached as Annex “A”, together with copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto;
This order of the court a quo transpired from the events

chronologically enumerated and described as follows:
6. After a protracted hearing, constant changes of

counsels, and immediately towards the last stage of the hearing
of the case, the trial court issued an order dated July 17 , 2006,
requiring plaintiffs-petitioners to formally offer their exhibits.
Initially, during the incipient period of his illness due to
hoarseness of voice complicated by high blood sugar and
118
pneumonia, plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel of record was advise d
by his attending physician to rest. For this reason plaintiffs -
petitioners failed to formally offer their exhibits on time, hence,
they were given another thirty (30) days from July 17, 2006 or
until August 16, 2006 within which to file same;
7. Consequently, due to the failure of plaintiffs -petitioners

to file their formal exhibits within the extended time, and upon
motion, the lower court extended the period of filing same for
another thirty (30) days from August 16, 2006, or until
September 18, 2006;
8. However, as fate would have it, a matter of life and

death supervened. His illness having worsened and complicated,
i.e. Hemothysis secondary to PTE, active with Lower Respiratory
Tract Infection; Diabetes Mellitus, type 2, poorly controlled;
Hypertensive Cardiovacular Disease; and, Anemia secondary to
blood loss from hemothysis, counsel of record of petitioners was
confined at the H.W MILLER MEMORIAL SANITARIUM &
HOSPITAL from September 6 to 19, 2006, for which reason the
attending physician advised counsel of record for a complete rest
for three (3) months after being released from confinement at
said hospital.
The Physician’s Certificate even labored for a

consideration regarding counsel of record’s absence from work.
The sheer impossibility of plaintiffs-petitioners’ submitting their
offer of exhibits within the reglementary period given by the
court a quo was because of compelling reasons involving life and
death brought about by counsel of record’s being admitted to the
hospital due to said complicated illnesses. A machine copy of
said Physician’s Certificate is hereto attached a Annex “B”;
9. On October 10, 2006, defendant -respondent Arañas,

filed a Motion to Dismiss herein complaint. At the hearing of
said motion, plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel of record again failed
to appear as he was still suffering from the aforementioned
illnesses;
10. On November 2, 2006, plaintiffs -petitioners received a

copy of the Order of the court a quo giving them ten (10) days
from receipt thereof within which to file their
Comments/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by
119
defendant, herein respondent Arañas. A copy of said order is
hereto attached as Annex “C”;
11. On November 10, 2006, or two (2) days before the

expiration of the period to file their Comments/Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant -respondent Arañas,
plaintiffs-petitioners filed their Comments/Opposition To
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss With Leave Of Court To
Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, and the Formal Of fer of
Exhibits, through registered mail. A copy of said Motion and
Formal Offer of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit are hereto attached as
Annexes “D” and “D-1”, respectively;
12. On the same date however, plaintiffs -petitioners

through counsel, received a copy of the Order of the court a quo,
the dispositive portion of which is quoted in paragraph 31
hereof, dismissing herein complaint for the alleged reasons,
among other things, that plaintiffs-petitioners lack interest in
pursuing the case and that they had delayed the case without any
justifiable reasons;
13. On February 5, 2007, plaintiffs -petitioners through

counsel of record, filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court Order dated November 3, 2006. A copy of said motion is
hereto attached as Annex “E”;
14. On February 1, 2007, a hearing was conducted to

resolve the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein plaintiffs -
petitioners, and where parties are directed in open court to file
appropriate pleading regarding the dismissal of herein case, ten
(10) days from said date. A copy of the order to this effect is
hereto attached as Annex “F”;
15. On February 23, 2007, herein plaintiffs -petitioners

received a copy of respondent Arañas’s Opposition to the Motion
for Reconsideration of the Order of the Court dated November 3,
2006;
16. On May 18, 2007, plaintiffs -petitioners received a copy

of the Order of the court a quo dated May 2, 2007, denying the
Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioners, for the reason
that plaintiffs-petitioners “still have not advanced any ground
120
upon which to excuse their delay in the filing of their formal
offer of exhibits”. A copy of said order is hereto attached as
Annex “G”;
17. In fine, the reasons given by the court a quo in

dismissing plaintiffs-petitioners’ complaint are, among other
things, that they lacked interest in pursuing the case, and that
they had allegedly delayed the case without any justifiable
reasons, and the reason denying plaintiffs -petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration was that they had not allegedly advanced any
grounds upon which to excuse their delay in the filing of their
formal offer of exhibits. These grounds of the order of dismissal
and order of denial of the motion for reconsideration are amply
rebutted and negated in the next succ eeding paragraphs;
18. Surprisingly, what made this order of dismissal unique

in itself, if not gross and whimsical, is that it was issued and
dated two days before the expiry of the period to file the
required pleading – the same day that the offer of exhibits was
filed, together with the Comments/Opposition To Defendants’
Motion To Dismiss With Leave Of Court To Formally Offer
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits;
19. Hence, since said order of dismissal was issued two

days before the expiry of the reglementary peri od, it is believed
that same was issued prematurely and irregularly, if not
wantonly and capriciously, considering that the period given has
not yet even lapsed. On the other hand, for whatever it is worth,
public respondent should not have even dismisse d the case but
instead order it terminated;
20. Furthermore and with all due respect, it bears stressing

that plaintiffs-petitioners could not be said as lacking interest in
pursuing this case. In fact, despite personal and health
problems, plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel of record had exerted
efforts to inform the court of his complicated illnesses, and his
subsequent confinement to a hospital, hence could not possibly
comply with the order of the court on time – that is if it was
really filed out of time. This, in itself, is a reasonable ground
upon which to excuse their delay in the filing of their formal
offer of exhibits;
121
21. And, compounding counsel of record’s predicament
was the fact that his wife was also hospitalized for advanced
diabetes resulting to the amputation of her leg;
22. To stress this point even further, contrary to the

reasons stated in the order of dismissal, plaintiffs -petitioners had
indeed showed their interest in pursuing this case by filing the
appropriate pleadings ordered by the trial court. Following the
order of dismissal, they have in fact filed a motion for
reconsideration stating plausible reasons but which was denied
nevertheless. Having no other recourse in sight, their plight in
pursuing this case even now reached this Honorable Court of
Appeals. So, where is the lack of interest? What more could be
asked of plaintiffs-petitioners to show their interest in pursuing
this case?
23. Though admittedly, there is really a delay in the
resolution of the case, it is not without any justifiable reasons.
As stated above, had not misfortune intervened, and instead had
fate and nature been favorable, this case would have been
resolved with proper dispatch. Be it noted that these misfortunes
were not of plaintiffs-petitioners’ own making. So why could
the trial court be reasonable and lenient? The trial court should
have reconsidered the motion for reconsideration and allowed
admission of the Formal Offer of Exhibits so filed;
These are not only justifiable but COMPELLING grounds

and reasons enough to merit reconsideration of the honorable
court a quo;
24. As a result of this seeming indifference of the trial

court, counsel of record seemed to have lost focus on the case
considering his failing health condition. Thus, in order to be
relieved of the legal duties as counsel to herein petitioners, and
in order not to exacerbate his failing health, counsel of record
had decided to eventually withdraw from this case. This he
eventually did by filing his mo tion to withdraw as counsel on
June 20, 2007. Copy of the Notice to Withdraw as Counsel is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “H”;
25. By the withdrawal of their counsel of record,

plaintiffs-petitioners were then at the moment left out in the
cold. With the last day of filing the next appropriate available
remedy closing in on them, plaintiffs -petitioners must need to
122
secure the services of another lawyer at the soonest possible
time. And seeing this precarious situation they were in wherein
time is already of the essence, herein plaintiffs -petitioners then
approached and tried to persuade the services of undersigned
counsel on July 15, 2007, or just barely two (2) days before the
reglementary period to file this petition would lapse;
26. Pursuant to Sec. 4 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and

reckoning from the Order of the court a quo dated May 2, 2007,
denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein plaintiffs -
petitioners, which was received by plaintiffs -petitioners’ counsel
on record on May 18, 2007, the latter had only until July 17,
2007 within which to file their Petition for Certiorari, thereby
already putting undersigned counsel in a tight time constraint;
27. Eventually, taking their plight into consideration, and

anxious to help plaintiffs-petitioners get their day in court in
order to protect their interests, undersigned counsel acceded to
be engaged as their counsel on that day July 15, 2007. Thus,
quite naturally, due to present office workloads, court
appearances, and other previous commitments, undersigned
counsel, now under pressure because of time constraint, had to
file plaintiffs-petitioners’ Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 before this Honorable
Court of Appeals. The reason obviously i s that undersigned
counsel needs more time to study the case thoroughly in order to
prepare an intelligent petition for certiorari under Rule 65. By
anyone’s standard, this appears to be an insurmountable task
considering that undersigned had only barely two (2) days to
prepare said motion. But this he had to do soonest and finish
until the afternoon of July 17, 2007;
28. Again however, misfortune seems to continue to play a

cruel joke on plaintiffs-petitioners. Though now ready on the
afternoon of July 17, 2007, when plaintiffs-petitioners went to
the Court of Appeals to file their Motion for Extension of Time
to File Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 before this
Honorable Court of Appeals, Cebu City, the court’s cashier had
already left the court premises. Some court personnel thereat,
however, advised plaintiffs-petitioners to just file their motion
first thing the following day;
29. Thus, early the following morning at 8:30 on July 18,

2007, plaintiffs-petitioners filed their Motion for Extens ion of
123
Time to File Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 before this
Honorable Court of Appeals.
This, after payment of the required docketing and other

lawful fees and the deposit as for costs as, evidenced by the
hereto attached original and photocop ies of O.R. No. 21283304
in the amount of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN (P1,418.00) PESOS, O.R. No. 21283331 in the
amount of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
(P1,130.00) PESOS, O.R. No. 4107113A in the amount of ONE
THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS, and O.R . No. 5405738C in the
amount of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY (P530.00) PESOS, or a
total of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY
(P4,530.00) PESOS;
30. Although technically, plaintiffs filed said motion a few

hours after the reglementary period to file same had already
elapsed, plaintiffs-petitioners are respectfully appealing for the
kind indulgence and magnanimity of this Honorable Court of
Appeals, to consider the lapse considering that they had only
engaged the services of undersigned counsel just barely two (2)
days before the expiration of the reglemantary period to file
same;
Considering this, and the fact that when plaintiffs -

petitioners really tried to file the said motion on the afternoon of
the last day of the period, the Honorable Court’s cashier had
already left, and that they, by advise of court personnel, filed the
same at 8:30 the following day, they had therefore shown to all
and sundry their good faith and intention to file their motion,
which they could have done on time had misfortune not
intervened;
Moreover, and more importantly, in a further show of good

faith and intention of filing same within the reglementary period,
copies of said motion for extension of time to file this petitione
were served by plaintiffs on the counsels of respondents by
registered mail on July 17, 2007, the last day of the reglementary
period, as shown on page 6 in the original copy of said motion
thus filed in the early morning of the following day;
31. Be that as it may, we come to take the issue at hand.

Subject to this petition is the assailed order of the court of RTC
124
Branch 12, Cebu City, dated November 3, 2006, dismissing the
above-mentioned case, the dispositive portion of which states:
“WHEREFORE, for lack of interest on the part of
the plaintiffs to further prosecute this case, the same is
hereby ordered DISMISSED, pursuant to Section 3 of
Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.
Set the continuation of the hearing of this case for

the presentation of evidence on the counterclaim on the
part of the defendants on February 1, 2007 at 8:30 in the
morning.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines, November 3, 2006.
(Sgd.) ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO

Presiding Judge.”
32. The bone of contention advanced in the assailed order

is whether or not plaintiffs -petitioners indeed “lack interest in
pursuing the case” and that they had delayed the case “ without
any justifiable reasons”, as allegedly pointed out by the trial
court;
33. With all due respect, we beg to disagree with the

reason given in said order. With the foregoing confluence of
events, it is very clear that these reasons are nothing farther from
the truth. And, taking into consideration t he above
circumstances, it can hardly be said that plaintiffs lacked interest
in pursuing the case. As a matter of fact, as stated earlier,
counsel on record, despite his illnesses, even took pains in
informing the court of this fact, hence, in his fragil e condition,
he could not possibly perform the desired duty as counsel of
plaintiffs. Clearly, the will and interest is there, only that
plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel could not perform the function as
adequately, effectively, and intelligently as when s till of sound
health. To their minds, these reasons are plausible and
125
COMPELLING enough to merit the sound and favorable
discretion of the court;
34. For paucity of reasons contained in the assailed order

of dismissal, and for reasons cited above, the court a quo, in said
order, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of her jurisdiction, despite the reasonable inability of
counsel to formally offer their exhibits;
Thus, plaintiffs-petitioners are assailing and questioning

said order via this petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court;
Section 1, of said Rule states:

“Section 1. - Petition for certiorari. - When any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi -
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment
be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
Xxx xxx xxx.”
As quoted by HON. JUSTICE FLORENZ D. REGALADO,

in page 718 of his Remedial Law Compendium Vol. 1, 8 t h
Revised Ed. First Printing:
“And there is grave abuse of discretion where the
respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or
despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment as to be
said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Alafriz vs.
Nable, 62 Phil. 278; Abad Santos vs. Prov. of Tarlac, 66
Phil. 480)”.
126
Indeed, while the public respondent might not be
“despotic” in the manner of the dismissal of plaintiffs -
petitioners’ complaint, and the subsequent denial of plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration, surely the dismissal and the denial
were done capriciously and whimsically, by the fact that she had
not even considered the plausible and COMPELLING reasons of
their counsel’s failure to formally offer their exhibits;
35. Even more crucial, what makes this decision so paten t,

gross, capricious and whimsical is that, despite the fact that on
November 10, 2006, or two (2) days BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD to file their
Comments/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by
defendant-respondent Arañas, plaintiffs -petitioners filed their
Comments/Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss With
Leave Of Court To Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, and the
Formal Offer of Exhibits, through registered mail, the court a
quo, ON THE SAME DATE, dismissed herein complaint for
reasons, among other things, that plaintiffs -petitioners “lack
interest in pursuing the case” and that they had delayed the case
“without any justifiable reasons ”;
36. Even then and more importantly, public respondent

still refused to reconsider the fact that plaintiffs -petitioners had,
on November 10, 2006, or two (2) days BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD, indeed filed their
Comments/Opposition To Defendants’ Mo tion To Dismiss With
Leave Of Court To Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, and the
Formal Offer of Exhibits itself, by denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by plaintiffs -petitioners of the assailed
order of dismissal;
Hence, the foregoing premises considered, and for the

reason that public respondent acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of her jurisdiction in the
exercise of her judicial functions, and that there is no appeal, or
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy i n the ordinary course of
law, plaintiffs-petitioners are now assailing the order of
dismissal of herein case under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court;
36. This petition is not intended to delay the early

disposition of the case but for reasons aforecited;
127
-PRAYER-
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises and for

compelling reasons, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court of Appeals to give due course to this petition,
and the motion for reconsideration dated February 5, 2007, and
the and that a writ of certiorari be issued, ordering public
respondent to reconsider her order of dismissal dated November
3, 2006, and the motion denying the motion for reconsideration
dated May 2, 2007, and allow herein petitioners to file their
Formal Offer of Exhibits in due course, in the interest of justice
and fair play.
Minglanilla (for Cebu City), Cebu, Philippines, August 1,

2007.
ADLAWAN ADLAWAN
& ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsels for Petitioners
2 n d Floor Larrobis Building
Poblacion, Miglanilla, Cebu
Tel No. 273-1034
By:
SAMUEL ADLAWAN
PTR NO. 1607006, 1-02-07
IBP NO. 6865241, 12-28-06
CEBU PROVINCE
128
C.C.:
THE PRESIDING JUDGE Reg. Receipt No. ________
RTC Branch 12 Issued on August 1, 2007
Palace of Justice, Cebu City At Minglanilla, Cebu
ATTY. SISINIO ANDALES Reg. Receipt No. ________

Counsel for Respondents Eutiquita Issued on Aug. 1, 2007
Arañas, Elmer Arañas Caparida, At Minglanilla, Cebu
Alfred Arañas, Euvel Arañas Ouano,
Engie Arañas, & Jocelyn Arañas dela Calzada.
Andales Bldg., 28 Balagtas St., Cebu City
ATTY. GRENARDO MACAPOBRE Reg. Receipt No. _____

Counsel for Respondents Cubello & Issued on Aug.1, 2007
Lidzustre. At Minglanilla, Cebu
Mezzanine Floor, Gorones Bldg.
Osmeña Blvd, Cebu City
EXPLANATION
Served thru registered mail due to lack of personnel and

distance.
SAMUEL ADLAWAN
Doc. No. 43;

Page No. 97;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
129
Petition for Prohibition

7th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 3, Cebu City
ANDRES BONIFACIO
Petitioner,
- versus - SCA No. ______

For Prohibition with
prayer for preliminary
injunction
SANGGUNIANG BARANGAYNG LAHUG CEBU CITY

Respondent,
x-------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION
PETITIONER, thru counsel respectfully avers that:

1. ANDRES BONIFACIO, is Filipino, of legal age,and a residentof
Barangay Lahug, Cebu City.
2. EMILIO AGUINALDO, is Filipino, of legal age, and is being sued
in his official capacity as Punong Barangay of Barangay Lahug, Cebu
City.
(State the capacity and residence of the petitioner and the
respondent.)
3. On 14th of February 2019 Dangerous Drugs Board issued Board
Regulation No. 3 Series of 2017, herein attached as Annex “A.”
Under the regulation, a Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Council
(BADAC) would be formed with a Punong Barangay as the
chairperson and the Sangguniang Barangay as members. The council
is tasked to conduct aninventory of identified drug personalities. The
130
intelligence gathering of the list comes from anonymous and
unverified tips. Those listed are tagged as drug personalities without
final conviction. Some listed persons are reported in the news as
having been summarily executed by unknown assailants. On the 3 rd of
March 2019, the BADAC of Barangay Lahug convened and
announced though public notices that with the Philippine National
Police they were going to conduct door-to-door summons of the drug
dependents/pushers/couriers in the barangay to voluntarily surrender
based on a partial list.
4. Petitioner is a recovering drug dependent for over a year and has
tested negative on a drug test last 1 st of March 2019, herein attached
as Annex “B.” Petitioner reported to the BADAC of his status on the
6th of March 2019 to prevent his name his name from being included
on the watch list. Petitioner is exercising his constitutional right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty from being violated by the
respondent without or in excess of his jurisdiction. Petitioner also
fears for his life and his family. (State the facts and circumstances
under which the respondent [tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions] has acted without or
in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.)
5. There is no other plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.The DDB Regulation provides no
mechanism/process/procedure to remove the name of one listed on the
watch list.
6. That a certified true copy of the DDB Regulation No. 3 Series of 2017
herein sought to be reviewed is here attached, together with copies of
all documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that pending the proceedings

in the action, a preliminary injunction be granted ordering the respondent
EMILIO AGUINALDO to desist and refrain from further proceedings, and
that after due notice and hearing, a Writ of Prohibition be issued,
commanding said respondent to desist absolutely and perpetually from
further proceedings (in the action or matter in question), with costs.
Incidental reliefs as law and justice may require are likewise prayed
for.
Cebu City, Philippines, this 15thday of March 2019.
JOSE RIZAL, Esq.
131
Counsel for Petitioner
Rizal Law, Kalayaan Street,
Barangay Socorro, Quezon City
Roll No. 19061861
IBP No. 30121896
PTR No. 12301896
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION

CITY OF Cebu ) S.S.
I, ANDRES BONIFACIO, Filipino, of legal age residing at Barangay

Lahug, Cebu City, after being sworn to in accordance with law, deposes and
says that:
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. The facts stated in the above petition are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and authentic records;
3. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending in
them; and
4. If I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed
or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five days
from notice to the court or where the petition has been filed.
Cebu City, Philippines, this 15thday of March 2019.
Andres Bonifacio
ANDRES BONIFACIO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 15thday of March 2019,

in the City of Cebu by ANDRES BONIFACIO with Passport No. 30111863
issued on 10th of May 2017 at Department of Foreign Affairs - JMall.
132
ATTY. DANE PAULINE ADORA
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission Serial No. 123
Roll of Attorney 8456
IBP No. 1235
PTR No. 78922366
Doc. No. 44;

Page No. 108;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
133
Petition for Mandamus

SUPREME COURT
Manila
HAZEL M. BOROMEO
Petitioner, GR SP No. 12345
---versus--- FOR: MANDAMUS
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR MANDAMUS
PETITIONERS, by counsel, respectfully state that:
1. That the petitioner is of legal age, (state the capacity and residence of the
petitioner, and of the public and private respondents);
2. That (state the facts and circumstances under which the respondent-
tribunal, board or officer) unlawfully neglected the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust or station, or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the enjoyment
of a right or office to which the petitioner is entitled;
3. That the petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in
the ordinary course of law other than this action;
4. That (state the material dates showing when notice of judgment or final
order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new
consideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was
received).
5. That the petitioner by reason of the wrongful act of the respondent has
sustained damages in the sum of Five Thousand pesos (Php5000);
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed, that after due notice and hearing, a

Writ of mandamus be issued, commanding the respondent forthwith to: (here
state the act required to be done, with damages and costs.)
Mandaue City, Philippines, this15th day of March 2019
134
Atty. Faith B. Agwayas
Appointment No.321
Office Address 421 Cortes street Mandaue City, Cebu
Contact No. 09123456789
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
I, Hazel M. Boromeo, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of

Centro Mandaue City Cebu, after having duly sworn to in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition
and I have read all the allegations therein which are true and correct
based on my personal knowledge and authentic documents;
3. That I further certify that there is no pending action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency. If I should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action is pending, I shall undertake to inform the
Honorable Court of this fact within five (5) days therefrom.

th
15 day of March in Mandaue City, Cebu.
Hazel M. Boromeo
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day ofMarch

2019 in Mandaue City Cebu, with Driver’s License No.G06-14-007006
valid until year 2021 and I hereby certify that I personally examined the
affiant herein and that I am fully satisfied that she voluntarily executed the
foregoing petition and she understood all the allegations herein.
Atty. Faith B. Agwayas
135
Appointment No.321
Office Address 421 Cortes street Mandaue City, Cebu
Contact No. 09123456789
Doc. No. 45;
Page No. 111;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
Petition for Quo Warranto

SUPREME COURT
MANILA
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL
JOSE C. CALIDA,
Petitioner, G.R. No. __________
- versus – For: Quo Warranto under
Sec. 5(1), Article VIII of
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, the 1987 Constitution and
Respondent. Rule 66 of the RulesofCourt
x----------------------------x
COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:
1. Petitioner Republic is a sovereign entity with capacity to sue and be

sued. It has the authority to commence a quo warranto proceeding under
Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. It is represented in this petition
by the Solicitor General who has the mandate to “represent the
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter
136
requiring the services of a lawyer.”4 The Solicitor General’s authority to
institute a quo warranto petition on behalf of the Republic is provided
under Section 2, in relation to Section 7, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno may be served with the writs,
orders, and processes of the Court at 31 Hunt Street, Filinvest East,
Antipolo City, through the Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of
the Philippines, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila.
2. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was appointed as a permanent

faculty member of the University of the Philippines College of Law in
1986.6 She continued teaching in UP until June 1, 2006. While
employed with UP, Respondent submitted her Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth as of December 31, 2002.8 She also submitted
to the Office of the Ombudsman, on December 16, 2003, her SALN
ending in December 1998. Respondent took a leave of absence from UP
on the following periods: 1. June 1, 2000 – May 31, 2001 2. June 1, 2001
– May 31, 2002 3. November 1, 2003 – May 31, 2004 4. June 1, 2004 –
February 10, 2005 5. February 11, 2005 – October 31, 2005 6.
November 15, 2005 – May 31, 2006. On June 1, 2006, Respondent
resigned from the UP College of Law. In July 2010, Respondent applied
for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.12 In support
of her application for appointment, she submitted her SALN for 2006.13
Respondent was later appointed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court in the same year. After the position of Chief Justice became vacant
in 2012, the Judicial and Bar Council issued an Announcement for the
opening of the position. In the Announcement, the JBC directed that
candidates submit the following requirements, in addition to the usual
documentary requirements:
1. Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN)

a. for those in the government: all previous SALNs (up to 31
December 2011)
b. for those from the private sector: SALN as of 31 December
2011
2. Waiver in favor of the JBC of the confidentiality of local and
foreign bank accounts under the Bank Secrecy Law and Foreign
Currency Deposits Act. On June 5, 2012, the JBC made another
Announcement for vacancies in several positions, including that
of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In this Announcement,
the JBC iterated that applicants to the position of Chief Justice
must meet the following Constitutional qualifications:
A member of the Supreme Court must:
a. be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
137
b. be at least forty (40) years of age but not seventy years old or
more
c. have been for fifteen (15) years or more a judge of a lower
court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines; and
d. be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
The announcement emphasized that candidates for the Chief Justice

post must submit “all previous SALNs (up to 31 December 2011)
for those in the government or SALN as of 31 December 2011 for
those from the private sector;” and reminded applicants that those
with “incomplete or out of date documentary requirements will not
be interviewed or considered for nomination. In her application for
the Chief Justice post, Respondent submitted to the JBC her SALNs
for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. She also submitted an
Explanation Letter dated July 23, 2012 on why she submitted her
SALN only for the mentioned years.18 In it, she requested that the
requirements she submitted “be viewed as that from a private sector
[sic], before [her] appointment to the Government again in 2010 as
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”19 It does not appear that
Respondent’s request was even approved by the JBC. On July 2,
2012, Respondent accepted her nomination for the position of Chief
Justice.21 On August 24, 2012, she was appointed as the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Five years later, that is, on August
30, 2017, Atty. Larry Gadon filed against Respondent an
impeachment complaint based on the following grounds: culpable
violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal
of public trust. Gadon alleged, among others, that Respondent
failed to truthfully declare her SALNs.23 Gadon also claimed that
Respondent failed to disclose "exorbitant lawyer's fees in the
amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND U.S.
DOLLARS ($745,000.00) or THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION PESOS
(₱37,000,000.00), which she received from the Philippine
government."The complaint was endorsed by twenty-five
congressmen.25 Finding the complaint sufficient in form and
substance, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Justice
conducted hearings on the complaint. During the proceedings, the
invalidity of Respondent’s appointment as Chief Justice was
exposed in view of her failure to submit her SALNs for several
years from 1986 to 2006 when she was a professor at the UP
College of Law. It was discovered that aside from her SALNS for
the years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011 which she submitted in her
applications for Associate Justice and Chief Justice, Respondent
only filed SALNs for the years 1998, 2002, and 2006 during her
tenure as law professor at the UP College of Law from 1986 up to
2006.26 Respondent was nominated to the positions of Associate
Justice and Chief Justice despite her failure to file her SALNs
138
which were required to determine whether she passed the
Constitutional requirement of integrity. Thereafter, the Solicitor
General received a letter dated February 21, 2018 from Atty. Eligio
Mallari requesting the filing of quo warranto proceedings against
Respondent.
3. That plaintiff has demanded that defendant to vacate said office and
deliver it to plaintiff but that defendant has unlawfully refused to do so.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of quo warranto issue

ousting and excluding defendant from occupying the office of
____________ and declare that plaintiff is entitled to the said office and that
he be placed forthwith in possession thereof. Quezon City; 7 July 2007.
ATTY.JOY ALMARIE D.
ALAD-AD
Counsel for the Plaintiff Mambaling
City,Philippines
Doc. No. 46;

Page No. 113;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
Complaint for Expropriation

7th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 99, CEBU CITY

Plaintiff, Civil Case No.
For: Expropriation
-versus-
AAA and CCC,
139
Defendants,
x--------------------------------------------------/
COMPLAINT
(With Prayer for Extra-Territorial Service and Urgent Ex-Parte Motion
for the Issuance of Writ of Possession)
Plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of

Public Works and Highways (DPWH), by counsel, respectfully states:
1. Plaintiff, through the DPWH, is a sovereign political entity vested

with the power and authority to condemn and expropriate private property
for public use upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to Section 7 of
Executive Order No. 1035 dated June 25, 1985. It is represented in this
action by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with the address at 134
Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, where it may be served with
pleadings, motions and other papers, and court processes.
2. Defendant AAA is the registered owner of the property for

expropriation. As per Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, Possession and
Ownership dated March 22, 2011, and Special Power of Attorney dated
March 18, 2011, said defendants are residing in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.
With defendant AAA appointing CCC as her Attorney-in-Fact for certain
transactions involving the subject.
3. Defendant AAA may be served extra-territoriallly by publication and

registered mail pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court while
CCC may be served at Saint Jude Acres, Pardo, Cebu City.
4. Pursuant to its rights under Executive Order No. 1035, the DPWH is
implementing the construction of the Bohol-Cebu-Negros Toll Expressway
Project (BCN) with aims to provide a high-speed toll road along the Bohol-
Cebu-Negros corridor and constribute to the development fo the Visayas
Urban Belt Way Super Region. Copies of the Projects Road Alignment Plan,
Project Profile and Certification of Availability fo Fund covering the amount
needed for the acquisition of lots and improvements are hereto attached as
Annexes “A”, “B” and “C”.
5. The property sought to be expropriated would be traversed by the

construction of the BCN Project, a public purpose authorized by law. In this
regard, an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) has been secured
from the DENR. A copy of the ECC No. 000000 dated March 19, 2019 is
hereto attached as Annex “D”.
6. The Six Hundred Fifty Eight (658) and Two Hundred Eighty (280)
square meter property for expropriation, shaged and indicated as Lots 20 and
21 in the plaintiff's parcellary plan hereto attached as Annex “E” and E-1,
are portions of Lot 20 and 21 covered by TCT No. ______ and Tax
140
Declaration NO. __________ and _____ in the name of Ellazar married to
Juanito Estrada, containing an area of One Thousand Three Hundred
Twenty Eight (1, 328) for said Lot. 20 and Two Thousand Fifty Six (2, 056)
square meters for lot 30, more or less, both located in Brgy. Basak, Cebu
City, Cebu.
7. The total valuation of Six Hundred Eight (680) square metter at

Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) zonal valuation of Three Hundred Pesos
(300.00) per square meter is Two Hundred Eight Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (Php 289, 500.00). The foregoing details may be summarized as
follows:
“Copies of the TCT No. _______ and TCT No. _________ and BIR
Certification on the relevant zonal valuation are hereto attached as
Annexes.”
8. The parcel of referred to above has not been applied to or expropriated

for public use and is indispensable in implementing the PROJECT. It was
selected by plaintiff in a manner compatible with the greatest public good
and with the least injury to private property.
9. Under Section 7 of Executive Order No. 1035 dated June 25, 1985,
plaintiff through the DPWH, is authorized to institute expropriation
proceedings through the Office of the Solicitor General.
10. Plaintif exerted efforts to acquire the above-described property by

negotiated sale pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 8974, but the same failed for
with reason expropriation is sought herein.
11. The determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a

judicial function, which should be discharged at the trial on the merits with
the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners pursuant to Sections
5 to 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. However, upon the filing of the
complaint, or at anytime thereafter, and after due notice to defendant,
plaintiff is authorized to take possession and enter into the property
involved, upon payment of the amount equivalent to the “one hundred
percent (100%) of the zonal value” of the land to be taken based on the
current zonal valuation of the BIR, conformably with the Republic Act No.
8974.
12. Plaintiff is able and ready to pay defendant owner Ellazar the amount
of the Two Hundred Eighty Nine Five Hundred (Php 289, 500. 00), which is
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the zonal value of the property
sought to be expropriated, and to make the necessary deposit with this
Honorable Court of such amount in compliance with the required payment
under R.A. 8974. The corresponding check, payable in the name of the
defendant owner, is available and will be deposited with the Honorable
Court prior to the issuance of the writ of possession.
141
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that:
(i) Extraterritorial service of summons to non-resident defendant be

effected by way of publication once in a newspaper of a general circulation
in the Province of Cebu with a copy of the said summons and the
accompanying of this Honorable Court sent her last known address via
registered mail pursuant to Section 15 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court;
(ii) Plaintiff be authorized, by proper order and writ to take immediate

possession, control and disposition of the subject land sought to be
expropriated, upon plaintiff's deposit with the Office of the Clerk of Court,
Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, of check payment equivalent to the 100%
of the BIR current zonal valuation of the affected property in the name of
defendant owner;and for the office of said Clerk of Court to safe keep and
release the same to said defendant or her Suject Clearance for the plaintiff of
her satisfaction or completion of proofs of ownership in accordance with its
Road Right-of-Way Implementing Rules and Regulations and Commission
on Audit (COA) requirements.
(iii) An Order be issued directing the Register of Deeds of the place

having territorial jurisdiction over the subject property to enter the Writ of
Possession in the Primary Entry Book and annotate the same in the
Registration Book Pursuant to Section 69 of P.D.1529.
(iv) After decreeing plaintiff's right of condemnation and determining the

just compensation therefor, plaintiff be authorized to pay just compensation
to the defendant owner, after deducting the sum due the government for the
unpaid real property taxes, if any, and amounts paid/deposited as provisional
value as well as any amount necessary to discharge any lien or
encumbrances; and
(v) Judgment be rendered condemning the property subject of the

present case, free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, for public
use and for the public purpose herein set forth.
(vi) Directing the same Register of Deeds to cause the registration and
annotation of the decision or judgment to the instant eminent
domain/expropriation case covering the road right-of-way of Bohol-Cebu-
Negros Expressway project.
Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs and remedies which this
Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.
Makati City for Cebu City, Cebu. February 25, 2019.
142
RIOJE M. ALCALDE
Solicitor General
Roll No. 54321
IBP Lifetime No. 89898 – 1/18/18
MCLE Exemption No. III-430092
Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City; Telephone No. 818-6301-09
143
Complaint for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

7th Judicial Region
Brach 23, Cebu City
MARIO K. NALOKO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 123
- versus - For: FORECLOSURE
OF REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGE
BERT S. TAPADOR,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE

MORTGAGE
COMES NOW, the plaintiff by the undersigned attorney, and unto

this Honorable Court, respectfully states:
1. That both the plaintiff and the defendant are of age, and residents of
Cebu City;
2. That on January 5, 2018, the defendant, in order to secure the payment
of the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P100, 000.00),
acknowledged to have been received by him on said date, executed in
favour of the plaintiff a first mortgage on certain real property located
in Cebu City, a true copy of said mortgage contract is hereto attached
as Exhibit “A”, and made an integral part of this complaint;
3. That the condition of said mortgage, as stated therein, is such, that if
within the period of twelve (12) months from and after the execution
of the same, the defendant shall pay or cause to be paid to the
144
plaintiff, his heirs or assigns, the said sum of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos ( P100, 000.00) together with the stipulated interest of 10% per
annum, then the said mortgage shall be discharged; otherwise, it shall
remain in full force and effect, to be enforceable in the manner
prescribed by law;
4. That the defendant has not paid or caused to be paid the mortgage
debt of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P100, 000.00) or any part
thereof, in spite of the lapse of the stipulated period;
5. That the plaintiff has demanded of the defendant to pay the above sum
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos, plus the stipulated interest, but said
defendant has failed to pay the same;
6. That the defendant has also agreed in the mortgage contract that
should the plaintiff foreclose the mortgage, the latter is entitled to
receive the further sum of 20% of the total amount due as attorney’s
fees, expenses and costs;
7. That there are no other persons having or claiming an interest in the
mortgaged property.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed:
a) That, upon due hearing, judgment be rendered:

1) Ordering the defendant to pay unto the Court within the
reglementary period of ninety days the sum of One
Hundred Thousand (100, 000.00) Pesos together with the
stipulated interest at 10% per annum from and after
January 5, 2018, plus the additional sum of 20% of the
total amount due as attorney’s fees, expenses and costs;
2) And that in default of such payment, the above-mentioned
property be ordered sold to pay off the mortgage debt and
its accumulated interest, plus 20% of the total amount
due as attorney’s fees, expenses and costs,
b) That plaintiff be granted such other relief in law and equity.
15 March 2019, Cebu City, Philippines.
APLACADOR & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 3, Lux Tower
Cebu City, Philippines
145
By:

Roll No. 222222
IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15
PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15; Cebu City

CEBU CITY) S.S.

NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, MARIO K. NALOKO, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, and

resident of Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing application for
probation and have read the allegations contained therein;
3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my
own knowledge and authentic records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein;
5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency where the
original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein
have been filed;
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the
foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm.
Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

th
15 day of March 2019, Cebu City.
146
MARIO K. NALOKO
Plaintiff
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day ofMarch,

2019, in the City of Cebu, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No.
12345 issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 8, 2019 at the
City of Cebu.

Notary Public
Until 12-31-19
Roll No. 222222
IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15
PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City
Doc. No. 48;

Page No. 120;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

Metropolitan Trial Court
Cebu City, Branch 23
MA’AM/SIR:
Greetings!
Please take notice that on March 22, 2019 at 8:30 in the morning or
upon the approval of the Honorable Court the instant Petition shall be heard.
147
Thank you.
ATTY. RAZZEL APLACADOR

Cebu City
Copy furnished through personal service:

Cebu City, Branch 23
148
Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Estate

7th Judicial Region
Branch ___
Cebu City
MR. LUCA D DUNCIC,

Petitioner, CIVIL CASE NO. 123
-versus- For: Judicial Partition
MR. TREY C YOUNG,

Respondent
x-----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, and

unto this honorable court, most respectfully avers:
1.That plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino Citizen, with postal address at

A. Borbajo St.,
Talamban, Cebu City;
2.That Defendant Mr. Trey C Young, is of legal age, Filipino Citizen,

with postal address at No. 23 N. Bacalso Ave., Cebu City, where he
may be served with summons and other processes by this
Honorable Court;
3. That plaintiff and defendant are co-owners pro-indiviso, in

two (2) equal parts, of one parcel of land situated at A. Borbajo St.,
Talamban, Cebu City and covered by TCT No. 12345 issued by the
Register of Deeds of Legazpi City, which is more particularly
described as follows:
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 12345

“A parcel of land located in A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu
City, known as Lot A-3,bounded on the north by Lot B, on the South
by Lot C, on the west by Lot D, and on the South by National Road,
with a total area of 200 square meters, registered in the name of Mr.
Luca Doncic.”
149
4. That the aforementioned parcel of land has a total land area of 200
square meters more or less, and it is easily divisible into two parcels
both of which can conveniently serve as either residential or
commercial premises;
5.That plaintiff had several times notified defendant of his desire and
intention to partition said property, and, for that purpose had presented
and submitted to defendant a project-plan of partition, which was
prepared and drafted by EMBBI Surveyor Firm a duly licensed
surveyor, and an unprejudiced third party;
6. That the aforementioned project-plan of partition is a very fair and

practical division of the property in question;
7. That notwithstanding repeated demands of the plaintiff,

defendant refused, and still refuses, without justifiable cause or
reason, to accede to the partition of said property.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after
hearing, judgment be rendered as follows:
a.Ordering the partition of the parcel of land mentioned

and described in Paragraph 2 of thiscomplaint, adopting, for
the purpose of said partition, the project-plan perpared
by EMBBI Surveying Firm copy of which will be presented at
the day of the trial;
b. Ordering that the determination as to which of thetwo (2)

parcels in said project-plan should pertain to either party be
done by the choice of the parties;
c. Ordering defendant to execute and sign all necessary

papers or deeds which shall give validity and effect to
this partition;
d. Ordering defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P125.00

which is equivalent to 50% of the amount paid by plaintiff to
the licensed surveyor for the preparation of the project-plan;
e. Cost of suit and other relief. Other reliefs which are just and
equitable are likewise prayed for.
Legazpi City, Philippines, March 31, 2005.
ABOGADO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
Rasi Bldg., Legazpi City
150
By:
STEPHEN S. CURRY
IBP No. 1231231/2-5-05
PTR No.123/10-2203/Leg.
Roll No. 123123
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF LEGAZPI )S.S.
I, MR. LUCA DUNCIC, of legal age, Filipino Citizen, married, after

having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have cause the preparation of the foregoing

Complaint/Petition and have read the allegations contained
therein;
3. That the allegations in the said complaint/petition are true

and correct of my own knowledge and authentic records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action

or proceeding involving the same issued in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
5. That if I should thereafter learned that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
court of Appeals or any other tribunal agency, I hereby imdertake to
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed;
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth

of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provision of Adm.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this ___ day of March 2005, in Cebu City, Philippines.
MR. LUCA DONCIC
151
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of March

2005, in the City of Cebu, with affiant exhibiting to me his SSS ID, with ID
No. 1234 issued at Cebu City on April 2001.
ATTY STEVE KERR

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. 49;
Page No. 124;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
152
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

Cebu City
MOIRAH JUDE TAG-IYA

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 0004
For: Unlawful Detainer
-versus-
GUSTO L. MAKALIBRE,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1. That the plaintiff, MOIRAH JUDE TAG-IYA is of legal age,
Filipino, single, with residence and postal address at W. Claro Street,
Cebu City;
2. That the defendant, GUSTO L. MAKALIBRE is of legal age,

Filipino, married with residence and postal address at Karapatan
Street, Cebu City, where he may be served summons and other court
processes;
3. Plaintiff is the absolute owner and lessor of that certain townhouse

situated at Beverly Hills, Cebu City and now leased and occupied by
the Defendant;
4. The Defendant leases and occupies the said townhouse from March 1,
2014 until February 28, 2019 as agreed upon between the plaintiff and
the Defendant in the lease contract executed on March 1, 2014 under
the express obligation to pay a monthly rental of P20,000.00;
(Contract of Lease attached as Annex “A”)
5. The lease contract of the Defendant for the occupation of the building
has been terminated on February 28, 2019 and has not been renewed
or extended;
153
6. During the course of the Defendant’s occupation of the said
townhouse, Defendant has failed to pay his rentals for the months of
June 2018 to February 2019;
7. Defendant has continued to occupy the said townhouse

notwithstanding the fact that her contract of lease has been terminated
on February 28, 2017 thus depriving the plaintiff from having the said
townhouse leased by other persons;
8. Several demands to vacate was made by plaintiff to Defendant, both
oral and written (Demand letter attached as Annex “B”), but
Defendant refused to vacate the said townhouse and return possession
to the plaintiff;
9. Until now Defendant still refuses to vacate and restore possession and
pay her rentals for the months June 2018 to February 2018 during her
occupation of the townhouse;
10.Thus, Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the subject

townhouse from the plaintiff despite last and final demand, to the
damage and prejudice of the plaintiff;
11.Before filing of this complaint, the dispute has been referred to the
Lupong Tagamayapa of Barangay 143 but the parties failed to arrive
at an amicable settlement; (Certificate to File Action attached as
Annex “C”)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be
rendered in favor of Plaintiff:
1. For the restitution of the abovementioned townhouse;
2. For the payment of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND

(PhP180,000.00) PESOS, representing the arrears of rent now
overdue;
3. To pay the costs for this suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
BAYANI AND ASSOCIACIATES

LAW OFFICE
Heroes Street, Cebu City
154
By:
ATTY. JUAN C. DELA CRUZ

Roll No.: ____________
PTR No: ____________
IBP No.: ____________
MCLE Compliance No.: __________
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPPING
I, Moirah Jude Tag-iya, of legal age, Filipino, single, and a resident of W.

Claro Street, Cebu City
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby, depose and
say:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case and have caused this
complaint for unlawful detainer to be prepared; that I read and
understood its contents which are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic records.
2. That I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the

same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these
courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the fact to the
Court within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day

of March 2019
Moirah Jude Tag-iya

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_16th day of March, 2019.
NOTARY PUBLIC
155
Doc. No. 50;
Page No. 128;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
156
Complaint for Forcible Entry

REGION VII
CEBU CITY
Branch 19
PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH

Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE No. Q-12345

For: EJECTMENT (FORCIBLE ENTRY)
ARIADNA GUTIERREZ
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable

Court most respectfully submits this Complaint for Forcible Entry and in
support hereof makes the following assertions:
1. Plaintiff PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH, is residing at #1 Paseo

Anabelle Maria Luisa Estate Park, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, where he
may be served with court order and other processes;
157
2. Defendant ARIADNA GUTIERREZ is a resident of #2 Paseo
Anabelle Maria Luisa Estate Park, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, where he
may be served with summons, order and other court processes;
3. Plaintiff became owner of a certain parcel of land, through a Deed of

Sale from the original owner, PAULINA VEGA. (A copy of the
Deed of Sale is hereto attached as Annex “A”);
4. The parcel of land, situated in #12 Paseo Anabelle Maria Luisa Estate
Park, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, is covered by Transfer of Certificate of
Title No. 713618 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu City and is
more particularly described, as follows:
(Description)
(Copy of TCT- 713618 is hereto attached as ANNEX “B”);
5. Herein Defendant, through stealth and strategy, occupied the parcel of

land in question and refuses to vacate the same despite repeated oral
and written demands. (Copy of the written demand is hereto attached
as Annex “C”);
6. The same acts of the Defendant compelled the Plaintiff to incur

damages consisting of attorney’s fees in the amount of Thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000.00) pesos and filing fee, cost of
transportation and other miscellaneous accommodation of its lawyers
and other personal expenses to be incurred in attending the hearings of
this case in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php
25,000.00).
7. This action is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure;
PRAYER
158
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that, after the proceedings, judgment be rendered in favor
of the Plaintiff and ordering the Defendant and all persons claiming rights
under him to:
(a) Permanently VACATE the premises in question and give the

immediate right of possession to the Plaintiff;
(b) Pay plaintiff the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) by

way of attorney’s fees and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00), by way of other litigation expenses; and,
(c) Pay the cost of this suit.
Plaintiff prays for such other remedies and reliefs as may be deemed just
and equitable under the premises.
March 15, 2019, Cebu City, Cebu.
ATTY. RENATO G. BENIGAY JR.

Cebu City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
AGAINST NON- FORUM SHOPPING
I, PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH, of legal age, after being duly

sworn to in accordance with law, depose and attest:
That I am the petitioner in the above-titled case; that I have caused the
preparation of the foregoing petition and understood the contents thereof,
and I hereby declare that all the allegations contained therein are true and
correct according to my knowledge and belief.
159
Furthermore, I hereby certify that I have not filed nor caused to be
filed any other similar case involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency and that, should there be
any other such case/s that may have been filed, I hereby bind myself to
inform the Court of such fact within five (5) days from the discovery
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hand this 15th

day of March 2019, City of Cebu, Cebu, Philippines.
PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH

Affiant
CTC No. 1234567
Issued On: February 14, 2019
Issued At: Cebu City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Cebu, this

15th day of March 2019, City of Cebu, Cebu, Philippines, affiant having ex
habited to me his Driver’s License No. __1234567___, issued at Cebu City,
Philippines.
ATTY. RENATO G. BENIGAY

JR.
Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
Issued at Cebu City
On May 19, 2018
Doc. No. 51;
160
Page No. 131;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
Escheat

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 77, Quezon City
NAPOLEON C. GATMAITAN
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 588
For: Collection of a Sum of Money
EDGARDO A. SANTOS
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, thru the undersigned Counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully alleges:
1. That Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, married to Nancy A.

Gatmaitan, and with residence at #11 Bohol St., Barangay Horseshoe,
Quezon City;
2. That Defendant is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married and with
residence at #15 Bohol St., Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City, where he
could be served with summons and other processes of the Court;
3. That the above-named spouse of Plaintiff is the erstwhile business
partner of the Defendant from 2007 t0 2009;
4. That in the course of their business, the plaintiff’s spouse made
financial contributions through the requests and assurances of the defendant
that such amount will be repaid. That, however, after several months and
161
upon inquiry, plaintiff’s spouse found out that defendant misappropriated the
financial investment made for his own personal use. That, despite demands,
defendant failed to remit to and/or settle with the plaintiff’s spouse the
aggregate amount of Ninety-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Pesos (PHP
98,700.00);
5. That in recognition of defendant’s obligation in favor of plaintiff’s
spouse, the former executed an Acknowledgment of Debt in favor of the
plaintiff on January 26, 2008, a photocopy of which is attached hereto as
Annex “A”;
6. That by reason of the kindness and generosity of plaintiff’s spouse,
defendant’s obligation through the Acknowledgment was reduced to the sum
of Sixty Thousand Pesos (PHP 60,000.00), and transferred in favor of the
plaintiff as formalized in a duly-notarized Loan Agreement entered by and
between the plaintiff and the defendant on January 29, 2008, a photocopy of
which is hereto attached as Annex “B”;
7. The part of said Loan Agreement is the obligation of the defendant-
debtor to pay the plaintiff-creditor the amount of Two Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (PHP 2,500.00) in monthly installments for thirty six (36)
months, in the form of cash from February 2008 to March 2011, and in the
form of post-dated check from February 2008 onwards up to the full
satisfaction of said loan, including interest, set at two percent (2%) per
month;
8. That after paying Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP
2,500.00) in February 2008 and One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP
1,500.00) only on March 2008, the defendant-debtor has started defaulting in
the payment of his due accounts;
9. That plaintiff-creditor sent separated letters (dated April 7, 2008 and
May 21, 2008) to the defendant-debtor containing a demand for the payment
of his outstanding payable, photocopies of which are hereto attached as
Annexes “C ” and “C-1”;
10. That the continued refusal of the defendant to settle his account
prompted the plaintiff-creditor to lodge a complaint with the barangay
officials of Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City. A Certificate to File Action,
copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “D”, was subsequently issued for
failures of the parties to come to an Agreement.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed

before the Honorable Court to render decision in favor of the plaintiff and
order the defendant to pay the following:
a.The sum of Fifty Six Thousand Pesos (PHP 56,000.00) plus interest at
the rate of two percent (2%) per month as stipulated in the Loan
Agreement;
162
b. Moral and exemplary damages at the sum discretion of the Honorable
Court;
c.Attorney’s fees amounting to Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10, 000.00);
d. Litigation expenses amounting to Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,
000.00).
Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable under the
foregoing premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, June 8, 2008.
ATTY. RALPH ANTHONY P. LABRADO

Labrado-Caballero Law Office, Alta Tierra Village, Quezon City
PTR NO. 12345 12/15/2010, Quezon City
IBP NO. 85857 10/10/2010, Quezon City
MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009887, 10/23/2010
PROVINCE OF QUEZON CITY ) ss.
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
I, NAPOLEON C. GATMAITAN, of legal age, Filipino, married and

a resident at #11 Bohol St., Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City, Philippines,
after being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
(1) That I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled case;

(2) That I have caused the preparation of the above Complaint and I have
read the same and understood the contents thereof;
(3) That the allegations contained therein is true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and based on authentic records;
(4) That I further certify that I have not therefore commenced any other
action or proceeding or filed any claim involving the same issues or
matter in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best
163
of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending therein; if I
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to
report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency
wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated
herein have been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th

day of June 2008 at Quezon City, Philippines.
NAPOLEON C. GATMAITAN
Affiant TIN 98765-005, Quezon
City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me , this 10th day of June

2008, affiant exhibiting to me his Tax Identification Card as show above
below his name as competent evidence of his identity.
ATTY. ANTONIO P. CABALLERO

Commission No. 108
Expires on December 31, 2009
Labrado-Caballero Law Office, Alta Tierra Village, Quezon City
PTR NO. 12789 12/18/2009, Quezon City
IBP NO. 85857 10/23/2009, Quezon City
Doc. No. 52;
Page No. 134; MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009887, 10/23/2009
Book No. III;
Series of 2008;

Guardianship

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
City of Cebu
164
PEDRO Y. SY,
Petitioner,
Spec Pro No. __________________

For: Guardianship of a Minor
x---------------------------------------/
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF A MINOR
PETITIONER, by undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court

respectfully avers:
1. That the Petitioner, of legal age, and a resident of 12 Street, Lahug,

Cebu City, is the father of minor, CARA G. SY, (hereinafter
referred to as a “MINOR”);
2. That the MINOR is presently a resident of City of Cebu;
3. That the MINOR is ten (10) years of age;
4. That the MINOR is the owner of a parcel of land located in the

City of Cebu valued at One Million Pesos (P 1,000,000.00) and as
such minor can make no transactions regarding the same;
5. That the nearest kin of the MINOR are the following:
Carlo G. Sy 18 Brother 12 St., Lahug, Cebu City
Carissa G. Sy 14 Sister 12 St., Lahug, Cebu City
Pedro Y. Sy 45 Father 12 St., Lahug, Cebu City
Morteza O. Go 70 Maternal Grandmother 34 St., Lahug Cebu

City
165
Santiso P. Go 71 Maternal Grandfather 34 St., Lahug
Cebu City
6. That due to the minority of the said MINOR, it is necessary and

convenient that a guardian over her person be properly appointed;
7. That, as above stated, Petitioner is having the said MINOR in his

care, and that he possesses all qualifications of a person to who
letters of guardianship should issue;
8. That Petitioner has furnished a bond amounting to One Hundred

Thousand Pesos (P 100, 000.00) or Ten Percent (10%) of the value
of the property owned by the MINOR;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and

hearing petitioner be appointed guardian over the estate of the
MINOR.
Cebu City, 16 March 2019.
Atty. JUAN O. YU
PTR No. 235628/January 09, 2019/Cebu CITY
IBP No.52587926 /January 09, 2019/Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. Vi-0008220/march 22, 2018
Gaisano Capital Group Building
General Maxilom Ave. Ext. North Reclamation Area, Cebu City
Tel No.: 254-8888 loc. 17107
Doc. No. 52;

Page No. 137;
Book No. III;
Series of 2008;
166
Adoption of Minors

Seventh (7th) Judicial Region
Branch ___
Cebu City
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR

SASHA GREY
SP. PROC . NO. ___
SPOUSES FOR: ADOPTION
MARU POK and DINAMARU POK,
Petitioners.
X -------------------------------------------------/
PETITION
PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel and to this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states, THAT:
1. Petitioner MARU POK is a Filipino, of legal age, married, and a

resident of Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu. He is the paternal grandfather of the
minor child sought to be adopted. He may be served with orders, notices and
other legal processes of this Honorable Court through his undersigned
counsel at the address stated below.
2. Co-petitioner DINA MARU POK is a Filipino, of legal age, married,

and a resident of Talamban, Cebu City. She is the paternal grandmother of
the minor child sought to be adopted. She may be served with orders, notices
167
and other legal processes of this Honorable Court through her undersigned
counsel at the address stated below.
3. The minor child sought to be adopted by the Petitioner is Sasha Grey

(subsequently referred to as “Sasha” for brevity), born on February 26,
2014 in Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu, to parents Romula Grey and Ernesto
Pok. He is one year and eight months old as of this date of the Petition and a
resident of Talamban, Cebu City. A copy of the certificate of live birth of
Sasha is attached hereto as Annex A.
4. Sasha’s mother, Romula Grey (subsequently referred to as

“Romula” for brevity), abandoned him and has not been heard of since
deserting him on July 22, 2014. All possible efforts to contact Romula have
been exhausted but to no avail.
5. The minor’s father, Ernesto Pok (subsequently referred to as

“Ernesto” for brevity), is living with the minor and the petitioners.
6. The said minor’s parents, Romula Grey and Ernesto Pink, were
never married to each other but they lived with the petitioners upon Sasha’s
birth.
7. Ever since Romula left Sasha, Ernesto and the petitioners have taken
care of Sasha.
8. Petitioners are in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights; of

good moral character; has not been convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude; physically, financially, emotionally and psychologically capable
of caring for Sasha; at least sixteen (16) years older than Sasha; capable to
maintain, care for, educate, and support Sasha in keeping with the means of
the family; and physically healthy. Petitioner Maru earns his income by
working as a hospital physician. His wife, Dinamaru, is likewise gainfully
employed with the same hospital as a nurse.
9. Thus, Petitioners have all the qualifications and none of the

disqualifications under the law to adopt Sasha, who is not disqualified by
law to be adopted. It will be for the best interest of the minor child to be
adopted by his paternal grandparents.
168
10. In conjunction with this petition, Petitioners seeks that a Certificate
of Live Birth with the following details be issued, to wit:
Name of Child: Sasha Grey

Sex: Female
Date of Birth: February 26, 2014
Name of Mother: Romula Grey
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Occupation: N.A
Age at the time of this birth: 51
Name of Father: Ernesto Pok
Citizenship: Filipino
Occupation: Self-employed
PRAYER

of this Honorable Court, after due notice, publication, and hearing to issue a
decree of adoption declaring that the minor child Sasha Grey be considered
as the legitimate child of Petitioners, and that the Local Civil Registrar be
directed to issue a Birth Certificate with the following details:
Name of Child: Sasha Grey

Sex: Female
Date of Birth: February 26, 2014
Name of Mother: Dinamaru Pok
Citizenship : Filipino
Occupation: Nurse
Age at the time of this birth: 51
Name of Father Maru Pok
169
Citizenship: Filipino
Occupation: Hospital Physician
Other relief and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
BONIFACIO JO S. DEGAMO III

Notary Public
Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu
IBP NO. AP18720000-1/3/18 Cebu City
PTR No. 1643815-1/3/18 Cebu City
MCLE COM. CERT. NO. VI- 0010732
issued on 23rd day of July 2017 and
valid until April 14, 2021
09423821780
Doc. No. 52;

Page No. 139;
Book No. III;
Series of 2008;
170
Habeas Corpus

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
JAIME L. DOWA
Petitioner,
SP Case No. 4489
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus
of the minor JANE DELA CRUZ
PEDRO C. DELA CRUZ
Respondent.
x------------------------x
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, by counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully states:
1. Petitioner is the mother of the minor JANE DELA CRUZ who was
born out of the valid marriage between petitioner and respondent
Pedro C. Dela Cruz;
2. Petitioner and respondent have been separated de facto since 2014;
3. The minor has been living with the petitioner in the house of the
latter’s mother and the minor’s maternal grandmother since the
petitioner and the respondent separated;
4. Sometime in January 2016, the respondent, unknown to the petitioner,

went to the house where the minor was residing and abducted the
latter and has kept her incommunicado and out of petitioner’s reach;
5. Being below seven (7) years of age, custody of the minor is naturally
presumed to belong to the petitioner, as her mother. Consequently,
respondent’s refusal to allow petitioner to regain custody over the
minor is unlawful and unjustified.
171
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that a Writ of Habeas
Corpus be issued directing respondent to make a return showing his legal
authority to detain the minor child, subject of this petition, and thereafter,
present the minor child personally before the Court on a date and time it
chooses.
Cebu City, Philippines, April 21, 2016.

ATTY. MARIA SANTOS
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

(City of Cavite ) S.S.
I, JAIME L. DOWA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in

accordance with law, depose and state that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of
documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been

filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Cavite City, Philippines, April 21, 2016
__________________
JAIME L. DOWA
172
Amparo

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
VICENTE DE RAMOS
Petitioner CA GR No. ______________
For: Writ of Amparo and
-versus-
GILBERTO TEODORO JR., in his capacity as the SECRETARY OF

NATIONAL DEFENSE, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, in his capacity
as the CHIEF OF STAFF of the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
BRIG. GEN. ROMEO PRESTOZA, in his capacity as the CHIEF of the
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
PETITION
(With Application for Interim Reliefs)
NATURE OF PETITION
1. This is a petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus, filed
under A.M No. 07‐9‐12‐SC, known as the Rule on the Writ of Amparo,
promulgated on 25 September 2007 and which took effect on 24 October
2007, and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, respectively.
2. The purpose of the petition is to require the respondents to produce the

person of Danielle de Ramos, as well as to disclose and explain their
participation in the enforced disappearance and/or extrajudicial killing of
Danielle de Ramos.
PARTIES
4. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, and residing at 123 Cotabato

Street, New Manila, Quezon City. He is the father of the aggrieved party.
5. Public respondent Gilberto Teodoro Jr., is the Secretary of the Deparment
of National Defense, responsible for guarding against external and
internal threats to peace and security in the country. It exercises
executive supervision over the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the
Office of Civil Defense (OCD), the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office
(PVAO), the National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP), and the
173
Government Arsenal (GA). He may be served with orders and processes at
Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
6. Public respondent Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, is the Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the military defense
organization of the Republic of the Philippines. He may be served with
orders and processes at AFP‐GHQ, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo
Quezon City.
7. Public respondent Brig. Gen. Romeo Prestoza, is the current chief of the
Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines is a support
unit of the AFP engaged in intelligence and information gathering. He
may be served with orders and processes at AFP‐GHQ, Camp General
Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS
8. The aggrieved party, Daniella de Ramos, is a private individual, residing

at 123 Cotabato Street, New Manila, Quezon City and is an executive officer
at the Human Rights Organization.
9. She regularly travels from her place of residence to his place of work by
driving her own car.
10. She is regularly in contact with her parents especially the petitioner. It is
her practice to call or send a text message to petitioner before she heads
home from work.
11. Her family last saw her during the morning of 5 September 2008
and by co‐workers at the evening of the same date.
12. On 5 September 2008, at 8:00 in the evening, petitioner received a

text message from her, stating therein that she was on her way home from
work.
13. At 8:30p.m of the same evening, the security guard on tour of

duty in her office building witnessed her being forcibly taken by three
large‐built men with holstered guns forcibly inside a van and speedily left.
One of the men was wearing a fatigue pair of pants. This was duly logged
by the security guard on the logbook of the building.
14. Since then, no communication has been made to her family, friends, and
co‐workers.
15. She also owns a handbag with personal property such as keys,
wallet, etc., which properties were uncharacteristically left on the
parking lot of her office, together with her car, remain uncollected by
the aggrieved party since date of disappearance.
174
In support of the foregoing allegations, the affidavits of the petitioner and of
witnesses, namely Christopher Nepomuceno and Jeffrey Flores, are hereto
attached and made integral part of this Petition as Annexes A, B, and C,
respectively.
16. Shewas known to be presently engaged in an investigative project

against certain officers of the AFP and ISAFP for alleged corruption
practices and high crimes.
17. Since her disappearance, her relatives have tried to locate the aggrieved
party through inquiries at her usual places of destination.
18. Failing to find her, petitioner sought the help of local authorities
but they were not able to produce the person of the aggrieved party.
19. However, during the course of investigation, it was found out that
days before her disappearance, mysterious men were noticed to have been
conducting operations in the vicinity of the aggrieved party’s office.
20. It was also found out that on 4 September 2008, day before date of
disappearance, the office building’s security guard was asked by a
mysterious man who identified himself as an officer of ISAFP on whether
aggrieved party holds office in the area.
21. Petitioner now comes to this Honorable Court to seek relief for the
aggrieved party whose exact whereabouts remain unknown.
22. Considering the fact that the aggrieved party is a private individual
and that she has failed to communicate with any of her family,
friends, and co‐workers until this time, aggrieved party’s remaining in
the custody would have to be against her will and in violation of her
rights of liberty and security.
ISSUE STATEMENTS
1. The writ of habeas corpus shall entend to all cases of illegal

confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto.
The aggrieved party was witnessed by a security guard to have been

forcibly taken by their large-built men into a van which speedily left
thereafter last 5 September 2088. Since, then, her whereabouts is
unknown notwithstanding her relatives trying to locate the aggrieved
party through inquiries as her usual places of destination but failed to
find her. No communications has been made to her family, friends or
175
co-workers
2. A witness protection order is iussued fot the protection and safety of

the witnesses who helped in the investigation and witnessed the
enforced disappearance of the victim.
One security guard testified to being questioned by an alleged

ISAFP officer about the victim while he was on tour of duty last
4 September 2008. Another security guard witnessed on 5
September 2008, the abduction of the victim by three large‐built
men with holstered pistons, with one wearing fatigue attire. Given
the power and resources available to the respondents, the two
witnesses need protection and safety from them.
Should the witness protection order be issued?
3. A temporary protection order is issued for the safety and

security of the petitioner, victim’s immediate members of her
family, and even the co‐officers of the victim’s organization.
The aggrieved party was known to be involved in an investigative

project with respect to certain anomalies and atrocities of officials
of the AFP and ISAFP. On 5 September 2008, she was subject
to an enforced disappearance perpetrated allegedly by the ISAFP or
AFP. Petitioner is the father of the aggrieved party who presently
filed this petition against the said organizations. Given the power
and resources of respondents, petitioner and the rest of his
family are vulnerable to harm and danger.
Should the temporary protection order be issued?
4. A production order is issued for the production of designated

documents, letters, papers, books, accounts, photographs, objects or
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which
constitute evidence relevant to the petition.
Investigation showed that mysterious men, days before the

forced disappearance of the aggrieved party, conducted surveillance
on the premises of her office. On 4 September 2008, a man who
introduced himself as an ISAFP agent approached the security
guard on duty in her office and inquired about the aggrieved
176
party. Records may have been kept on these surveillance
activities.
Should the production order be issued?
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner prays that this

Honorable Court:
A. Immediately after the receipt of this petition.
1. Issue the writ of habeas corpus

2. Issue the writ of amparo
3. Declare all documents signed by the victim since the time of
disappearance unless proof is adduced that there has been
compliance with her constitutional rights;
4. Require res[pendent to produce all information his office
pertaining to the victim, the victim’s home, the victim’s family,
and victim’s correspondence;
5. Require respondent to disclose why such information has been
gathered and used;
6. Issue a temporary protection order in favor of the petitioner, his
family, and his witnesses by directing an agency or institution to
ensure their protection;
7. Issue a witness protection order in favor of the witnesses who
helped in the investigation regarding the aggrieved party’s forced
disappearance.
B. Upon notice and hearing
1. Issue a production order to person who may be un possession or

custody of other evidence in this case;
2. Issue an inspection order of properties which may contain
additional information or evidence regarding the enforced
disappearance an/or extrajudicial killing of the aggrieved party
3. Order respondent to immediately and without delay release the
victim to the care and custody of the petitioner.
177
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
September 10, 2018, City of Cebu, Philippines
By:
ATTY CARLITO DONQUE
No. 25 Woodrose St., Makati City
Telefax No. 1234567; Email:
email@email.com
IBP No. 78901
PTR No. 23456
MCLE Compliance No. 7890
Habeas Data

SUPREME COURT
Manila
ISAAC ASIMOVA,
Petitioner,
-versus-
MAJ. GEN. JOVITA PALPARA, G.R. No. _____________

Armed Forces of the Philippines For: Writ of Habeas Data
Respondent.
x ------------------------------------------- x
PETITION FOR HABEAS DATA
178
Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states that:
I.
NATURE OF PETITION
1. This is a petition for the writ of habeas data filed under AM No. 08-1-16
SC, also known as the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data to require the
respondents to produce and, if necessary update and rectify, or, in the
alternative, suppress or destroy information within its control and/or
contained in its database, which relates to petitioner, his family, his home
and his correspondence.
2. Petitioner respectfully submits that respondents obtained the information

through an unlawful act, has unjustifiably failed to disclose the
information to petitioner, and/or has unjustifiably refused to update,
rectify, suppress or destroy the information.
3. This act or omission of respondent to comply with petitioner’s demand is

a violation of, or poses a threat of violation to, petitioner’s right to
privacy in life, liberty and security.
4. In view of the foregoing, petitioner brings this petition before this

Honorable Court praying that the respondent be required to cause the
immediate production of the information requested so that the same may
be revealed to petitioner for proper updating, rectification or, in the
alternative, for its suppression or destruction, whatever may be necessary
to protect petitioner’s privacy.
5. Finally, petitioner respectfully submits that he is an indigent person and
prays that this Honorable Court exempt him from docket and other legal
fees in this case, subject to the submission of proof of his indigency
within fifteen days from the filing of this petition.
II.
PARTIES
6. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, and residing at Sitio Dos, Smokey

Mountain, Tondo, Manila. He may be served with notices from this
Honorable Court through his undersigned counsel.
179
7. Respondent is being impleaded in her capacity as a public officer or
employee, in charge of the information or database of AFP Central
Intelligence and Security Group, which office is engaged in the
gathering, collecting, and storing data. He may be served summons and
other processes of this Honorable Court at the Intelligence and Security
Department, Army Headquarters, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.
III.
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines whose right to

privacy is protected by the Bill of Rights found in Article III of the 1987
Constitution, especially Section 3, paragraph (1) and Section7.
9. On March 20, 2009, petitioner requested access to all information held

about him by the respondent, within fifteen days from respondent’s
receipt. A copy of the written request is attached as Annex “A”.
10. The period given to respondent to allow petitioner access to its database
has already lapsed.
11. As a result of respondent’s failure or unjustifiable refusal to allow access

to its database, petitioner’s right to privacy is being violated.
12. The use and possible dissemination of the information held by

respondent is an unlawful intrusion into petitioner’s privacy, which
intrusion threatens to ultimately violate petitioner’s right to life, liberty
and security.
13. Information which remains hidden from petitioner is in the database of

respondent located in the Office of the Intelligence and Security Group,
Armed Forces of the Philippines Headquarters, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig
City.
IV.
RELIEFS
180
WHEREOF, petitioner prays that this Honorable Court give due
course to this petition and issue the writ of habeas data and rule, as follows:
1. Upon the filing of the petition, ENJOIN respondent from
disseminating the information;
2. Upon notice and hearing, ORDER respondent to:
a. Produce the information in its possession regarding
petitioner’s person, his family, home and correspondence;
b. Correct, suppress or destroy the information in its database,
whatever may be applicable as determined by this Honorable
Court; and
c. Rectify the damage caused to petitioner’s reputation by
making a public apology to petitioner, which shall be
circulated in the manner and to such persons as the petitioner
may deem appropriate.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
April 9, 2009, City of Manila.
AYN RANDY
Counsel of Petitioner
34C The Columns, Ayala Avenue, Makati City
Telefax No. 123456, Email: email@email.com
IBP No. 123456
PTR No. 123456
MCLE Certificate of Exemption No. M-12345

NON-FORUM SHOPPING
181
(City of Manila ) S.S.
I, ISAAR ASIMOVA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in

accordance with law, depose and state that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the

same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been

filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Manila, Philippines, April 21, 2016
__________________
ISAAR ASIMOVA
182
Change of Name

7th Judicial Region
Branch 16
Cebu City
Re: IN THE MATTER OF THE

PETITION FOR THE CHANGE
OF NAME OF CHARMIANE E. ESTOYA
TO CHARMAINE ECHAVEZ,
DEODIVINA C. ECHAVEZ SP. PROC. CASE NO 28

Petitioneer
-versus-
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
CEBU CITY AND THE NATIONAL
STATISTICS OFFICE,
Respondent.
X…………………………………../
PETITION
PETITIONER, DEODIVINA C. ECHAVEZ, by the undersigned

counsel unto this Honorable Court respectfully states that:
1.Petitioner Deodivina C. Echavez (Deodivina for brevity) is of legal
age, Filipino, single and a resident of Barangay Guba, Cebu City and she
may be served with notices, orders and other processes of the Honorable
Court at her counsel address at UV Law Building Colon St. Cebu City;
183
2.Minor child Charmaine Echavez (Charmaine for brevity) is a
resident of Barangay Guba, Cebu City together with her mother since the
day she was born as evidenced by the Barangay Certification hereto attached
as Annex “A” and is made an integral part of this petition;
3.Respondents herein are being sued in their official capacities being

the concerned agencies and official custodian of the Certificate of Live Birth
of the subject minor child with office addresses at Ground floor, City Health
Building, Gen. Maxilom Ave., Cebu City and Solicarel Bldg., Ramon
Magsaysay Blvd., Sta. Mesa Manila respectively where they may be served
with notices, orders and other processes of the Honorable Court;
4.Charmaine was born in the City of Cebu on May 8, 2010 and

registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cebu City as evidenced by her
certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office here to
attached as Annex “B” and is made an integral part of this petition;
5.Charmaine was born to parents to Deodivina C. Echavez and

Bonifacio P. Estoya (Bonie for brevity). Her mother was never married to
his father at the time she was born and has never been married as evidenced
by a certification issued by the National Statistics Office hereto attached as
Annex “C” and is likewise made an integral part of this petition;
6.Since Charmaine was born out of wedlock then she is an illegitimate

child of Deodivina and Bonie;
7.However, at the time of Charmaine’s birth, she was acknowledged

by her father. Hence, the surname indicated in her birth certificate is the
same as that her father;
8.However, Bonie and Deodivina’s relationship turned sour and did

not consummate into marriage. Charmaine was barely two months old when
Bonie decided to leave Deodivina and his child;
9.After such time and up to the present, Bonie failed to take up his
responsibilities as a father to his child on matters of financial, physical,
emotional and spiritual concerns and doesn’t even acknowledge his own
child in public as though he was ashamed of her. They are only related by
blood and ends in that, and he was never been a father to Charmaine in every
sense of the world;
184
10.It is of common knowledge to the people who knew Deodivina that
she was never been married and that there was no one who stood as a father
to his child all this year. The child was raised by Deodivina alone. They
never knew or only few of them knew the identity of her child’s father and
even the child herself doesn’t even know him;
11.Hence, it bears a great confusion to the general public as to why

the child bears a different surname from her mother. The child felt like an
outcast from her mother and the rest of her relatives as though she does not
belong to the family because the difference in the surname;
12.The mother and the child was and will always be propelled with
questions as to why their surnames are different and you could only imagine
the great deal of embarrassment and ridicule that may be felt by both the
mother and the child every time the circumstance is being explained to other
people;
13.They had to explain, with utmost awkwardness and discomfiture,

as to why the child is bringing a different surname when she has no father.
This brings a negative impact on the child emotionally and not to mention
the legal implications and troubles she may encounter in the future because
of her different surname;
14.If only Charmaine will have a surname the same with that of her
mother, all of these will be avoided and may other legal complications in the
future will be evaded;
15.In the case of the Republic of the Philippines vs. Julian Edward
Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011, the
Supreme Court ruled that:
“ A person can effect a change of name under rule

103 ( CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious
ground including (a) when the name is ridiculous,
dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
(b) when the change results as a legal consequence such
as legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid
confusion (d) when one has continuously used and been
known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a
185
Filipino to erase former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing everybody; and (f) when the
surname causes embarrassment and there is no
showing that the desired changed of name was for a
fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would
prejudice public interest.” emphasis supplied.
16.Avoiding confusion and undue embarrassment on the part of both

the mother and especially the child in the main thrust of this petition and
solely filled furtherance of the best interests of the minor child Charmaine.
Thus, it is covered under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court;
17.This petition is not in any way filled to mislead the public or for
any other fraudulent purposes and does not in any way prejudiced public
interest.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court, after due notice, publication and hearing
to grant this petition and render a decision ordering the public
respondents to cause the change of name of minor child from
CHARMAINE E. ESTOYA to CHARMAINE ECHAVEZ.
Such other relief just and equitable under the premises is likewise
prayed for.
March 15, 2019. Cebu City Philippines
UV Law Building Colon St. Cebu City

(032) 252- 1888
Larschrisstianechavez@yahoo.com
186
By:
Atty. LARS CHRITIAN ECHAVEZ

PTR No. 12225; 07/08/2018; Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. IV- 101010; 8/19/18
Attorney Roll No. 12345
187
Change of First Name and Civil Entries

Office of the City Civil Registrar
Province: Cebu
City/Municipality: Cebu City

City of Cebu ) S.S.
PETITION FOR CORRECTIONAL ENTRY
I, CLARK JOSEPH O. MARTINEZ, of legal age, Filipino, and a

resident of Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby declare that:
1. I am the petitioner seeking correction of the clerical and typographical

errors in my Certificate of Birth.
2. I was born on December 21, 1994 in Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.
3. The birth was recorded under registry no. 90-8908.
4. The errors to be corrected are:
Item No. Description From To

1 First Name KLARK JOSEPH CLARK YOSEPH
2 Gender FEMALE MALE
188
5. The grounds for filing this petition are the following:
a. I have habitually and continuously used Clark Yoseph as a first name
and I have been publicly known in the community with the first
name;
b. I have been born as male and have been known as a boy in the
community; and
c. For purposes of legal matters.
6. I submit the following documents to support this petition:

a. Transcript of Records;
b. Medical Records;
c. Baptismal Certificate;
d. Medical Certificate;
e. Certificate of Employment;
f. NBI Clearance;
g. Police Clearance.
7. I have not filed any similar petition and that, to the best of my
knowledge, no other similar petition is pending with any LCRO, Court
or Philippine Consulate.
8. I have no pending criminal, civil or administrative case in any court or
any quasi-judicial body;
9. I am filing this petition at the LCRO of Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.
CLARK JOSEPH O. MARTINEZ

Petitioner
VERIFICATION
I, CLARK YOSEPH O. MARTINEZ, the petitioner, hereby certify

that the allegations herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
189
CLARK JOSEPH O. MARTINEZ
Petitioner
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of March

2019 in the City of Cebu, petitioner exhibiting his Community Tax
Certificate No. 002A123 issued at Cebu City on March 11th 2019.
LADY JEN DELITA

Administrator
Doc. No. 57;

Page No. 157;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
190
III. Provisional Remedies
Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA
Branch ____, Iloilo City
JUANITA ALANDUNON, Civil Case No. _____

Plaintiff, For: Collection of Sum of
Money with Prayer of writ
for the issuance of
Preliminary Attachment
-versus-
PEDRO MAIRITA,
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through counsel, most respectfully avers:
(1.) That plaintiff, JUANITA ALANDUNON is a Filipino

citizen, of legal age, single and a resident of 111 Libertad
St. Sampaloc Manila, whereas, defendant Juan Jamero is
likewise a Filipino, of legal age, single, and residing at 222
Juan Luna St., Tondo Manila, at which address the party
herein may be served with summons and other court
processes;
191
(2.) That on January 3, 2008, defendant borrowed from plaintiff
the amount of one million pesos (Php. 1,000,000.00) ,
which indebtedness is due and payable on or before January
3, 2009, with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum
within one (1) year, in accordance with the promissory note
executed by the defendant on the said date. Photostatic
copy of said promissory note is attached and marked as
Annex “A” and made as a integral part hereof;
(3.) That the defendant has failed and refused and still fails and
refuses to pay the said indebtedness on due date, with
corresponding interest thereon to the herein plaintiff,
despite repeated requests and demands.
(4.) That the plaintiff served several demands to the defendant,

attached is the last demand letter executed on July 01, 2009
by the plaintiff as annex “B” and made as an integral part
hereof;
(5.) That the defendant shall pay for the attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation in the amount of Php. 75,000.00 and a
fee of P3,000 for every appearance in court, and to pay the
cost of this suit;
(6.) That the plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance
of a preliminary attachment in an amount to be fixed by the
court, not exceeding the sum of one million pesos which is
the plaintiff’s claim herein;
Allegations for the Issuance of for Preliminary Attachment
Plaintiff further states and alleges:
(7.) That Plaintiff has a valid and sufficient cause of action

against the herein defendant regarding the collection of sum
of money which is already due and demandable;
(8.) Defendant has removed or disposed of or is about to remove

or dispose of her property, with intent to defraud her
creditors thereby rendering nugatory and ineffective
192
whatever money judgment this honorable court may render
in the above entitled case;
(9.) That the defendant does not have sufficient security for the
claim sought for the plaintiff against him;
(10.) That the plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance
of a preliminary attachment in an amount to be fixed by the
court, not exceeding the sum of one million pesos which is
the plaintiff’s claim herein;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that pending hearing of this case a writ of
preliminary attachment be issued against the property of the
defendant to serve as security for the satisfaction of any
judgment that may be recovered herein; and that after due
hearing on the principal cause of this action, judgment be
rendered against the defendant for the sum of the following:
(1.) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of one

million pesos (Php. 1,000,000.00) plus interest thereon at
the rate of 12% per annum from January 3, 2009, and until
the same is fully paid; and
(2.) Ordering defendant to pay the attorney’s fees and expenses

of litigation in the amount of Php. 75,000.00 and a fee of
P3,000 for every appearance in court, and to pay the cost of
this suit;
Plaintiff likewise prays for such other and further relief or
reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable
under the premises.
Manila, Philippines, September 01, 2009.
193
GERICHO CAGAANAN
4321 suite, Makati Manila

MANILA PHILIPPINES) S.S.
x-------------------------------------------x
194
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, JUANITA ALANDUNON,Filipino, of legal age, single, after

having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes and states
that:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-stated case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. I have read and understood the allegations therein contained and
the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and
based on authentic records;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge and belief,
no such action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or other tribunal or
agency; that I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court ,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I under take
to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable
Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st

day of September, 2009 in Manila, Philippines.
JUANITA ALANDUNON
Affiant
SSS ID no. 1234567
Issued at: Manila, Philippines
Issued on: January 09, 2006
SUBSCIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1st day of

September, 2009, in Manila after showing to me his competent
evidence of identity indicated below his name. I HEREBY
CERTIFY that I personally examined the affiant and I am satisfied
that she voluntarily executed and understood his declaration on the
place and date above written.
Doc. No. 58; Notary Public

Page No. 159;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
195
Complaint with Application for Preliminary Injunction

7th Judicial Region
Branch 7, Cebu City
Juan Tamad
Plaintiff,
Civil case no. 11111
For: Sum of Money
-versus-
Maria Makiling
Defendant
x-------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel respectfully states that:
1. Plaintiff Juan Tamad, of legal age, residing at 22 San Miguel St.

Cebu City; while defendant Maria Makiling is of legal age, residing
at 42 San Antonio St. Cebu City;
2. Plaintiff is engaged in the exclusive distribution of Nike products in
the Philippines;
3. Defendant is also engaged in the sale of Nike products in the
Philippines;
4. As a result of defendant’s acts, plaintiff suffered damage amounting to
P500,000 a month starting January 20, 2010;
5. Defendant continues to commit the act of illegally interfering with the
agreement between plaintiff and Nike;
6. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded in whole or part, such relief
consists in the discontinuing of the acts complained of for a limited
time or perpetually;
7. Plaintiff hereby applies for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain
the defendant from the act herein complained of, and for the purpose
offers a bond in such sum this Honorable Court may fix;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and

having a preliminary injunction be issued forthwith to restrain defendant
from doing the act complained of, to cease and desist from selling products
196
of Nike in the Philippine, and that after trial, said injunction be made
permanent, with costs and such orders which are deemed equitable.
City of Cebu, March 3 2010.
ATTY. ROSANA A. GO
Legal Counsel
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPPING
I, Juan Tamad, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of 22 San

Miguel St. Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby, depose and say:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case and have caused this
COMPLAINT WITH APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION to be prepared; that I read and understood its contents
which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records.
2. That I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the

same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these
courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the fact to the
Court within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREFOR, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st

day of March, 2019.
JUAN TAMAD
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of March,

2019.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. 59;

Page No. 163;
Book No. III;
197
Series of 2019.
Complaint with Application for Receivership

Municipal Trial Court
Branch 5
Cebu City
Juan Dela Cruz,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 2
for:Unlawful Detainer
-versus-
Ryan Bangos,
Defendant
x-----------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned

counsel to this most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY
STATES THAT;
1. The Plaintiff is of legal age, single and a resident of Brgy. Pari-an Cebu
City. The Defendant is likewise of legal age, single and residing at
Petersville Subdivision, Cebu City.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the two-storey house unit located at the
Petersville Subdivision, Cebu City, and having the residential address of PV
123 as evidenced by pertinent documents like tax declaration and deed of
sale. ( EXHIBIT “A” )
3. The Defendant is the lessee of the house unit that is owned by the Plaintiff
as evidenced by the written contract of lease that both parties signed.
(Exhibit “B”)
4. The Plaintiff and the Defendant came up with a written agreement of

Lease on June 26, 20017, which they both agreed upon and was duly signed
by the two parties as shown in their contract of lease. (Exhibit “B”)
5. Item No. 16 of the contract which the defendant signed expressly provides
that he will only be occupying the property for one (1) year, after which, he
will vacate the house when that term expires. (Exhibit “B”)
198
6. The contract also provides that the defendant should also take care of the
property and its premises” with the utmost diligence”.
7. On June 28, 2008, the plaintiff, after returning from Japan, was surprised
to discover that the defendant did not vacate the property as he expected.
Worse, he installed a “sari-sari store” in the original building structure of the
house unit.
8. The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant claimed
that it was a “DEED OF SALE” which they signed and not a “CONTRACT
OF LEASE” and therefore, the defendant is the new owner of the house unit.
9. On August 20, 2008, after continuous demands, the defendant constantly

refuses to vacate the house unit and even invited relatives to stay with him.
10. The defendant willfully and maliciously violated the agreement which they
mutually agreed upon, and which the defendant signed.
APPLICATION FOR RECEIVERSHIP
I, Juan Dela Cruz, of legal age, single and a resident of the City of Cebu,
Philippines, after having duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby deposes
and says:
That I am the Plaintiff in the above titled case and that he has read the
foregoing complaint and that the facts therein stated are true and correct;
That I am the owner of the property as pro-indiviso owner of the

same with the defendant;
That the defendant is in actual physical possession of the property in

litigation and as such, he is in control of the produce of the said property
pending litigation;
That the produce or income from said property are in danger of being
lost, removed or materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to guard
and preserve the same, and the defendant is not only hostile to the plaintiff
but also shows his demands to exclude said plaintiff from all the products or
proceeds coming from the said property;
That the defendant is hopelessly insolvent for he is heavily indebted

to various persons;
That I am willing and ready to file a bond in the amount which this
Honorable Court may fix in favor of the defendant against whom this
receivership is presented to the effect that he, the plaintiff will pay to the
said defendant all damages which he will sustain by reason of the
appointment of receiver in case the plaintiff shall have procured such
appointment without sufficient cause, and such other bonds which this
199
Honorable Court may require him to file hereafter, as security for such
damages.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Juan Dela Cruz

Affiant
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that the application for RECEIVERSHIP be approved and
the judgement be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement;
a. The defendant shall vacate the house unit owned by the plaintiff.
b. The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 120, 000 for the Attorney’s
Fees.
Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Cebu City, Philippines, this 15th day of March 2019.
Cesar Pasigna Gulang

PTR No. 188118:1-04-18:B.C.
IBP No, 696969:1-04-18:B.C.
Roll No. 424242:5-10-97: Manila
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, Mr., Juan Dela Cruz, of Legal age, single, Filipino Citizen and a resident
of Cebu City, after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state
that;
1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true
and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of
200
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Juan Dela Cruz

Complainant
In witness thereof, I, Mr.Cesar Pasigna Gulang, counsel of the plaintiff, have

herunto set my hand this 18th day of March 2019 at Cebu City.
Cesar Pasigna Gulang

PTR No. 188118:1-04-18:B.C.
IBP No, 696969:1-04-18:B.C.
Roll No. 424242:5-10-97: Manila
201
Replevin
REPLEVIN
7th Judicial Division
Cebu City
Armando Tuazon,
Complainant Civil Case No. 204
For: Replevin
- versus
Erlinda Tomarong
Accused
x ------------------------------------------------- x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff by the undersigned attorney, and unto his Honorable Court,

respectfully avers that;
1. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are of age, and residents of
Consolacion Cebu.
2. Plaintiff is the owner of a certain personal property namely: an

automobile valued at Php 250,000.00, and more particularly
described as follows to wit:
Make: Toyota Corolla

Plate no.: TYU 268
Body no. CM – 312 – 3160
202
Model: 2014
Color: Blue
And was wrongfully detained due to a unwarranted traffic violation

but has been already settled thereof.
3. The said property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment
or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or
preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodial legis, or
is so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody;
4. The plaintiff has demanded of the defendant the delivery of said

property but the latter refused and continues to refuse to do so; and
5. Plaintiff hereby executed a performance bond in double the value of
the subject property, in favor of the defendant, for the return of the
property to the latter if such return be adjudged, and for the payment
of such sum as the defendant may recover in this action.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed:

(a) That the property in question be ordered delivered to the plaintiff;
(b) That defendant be made to pay the costs of this suit;
(c) And that plaintiff be granted such further relief consistent with law
and equity.
Done this 19th day of March. 2019 at Consolacio Cebu Philippines.
AXSEL HATAMOSA
Attorney – at – Law
Roll # 2148156
IBP # 0003 – 01010
PTR # 105001501
June 24, 2017
203
VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines]

City of Cebu ] S.S.
I, ARMANDO TUAZON Filipino, of legal age residing at

CONSOLACION, CEBU PHILIPPINES, after being sworn to in
accordance with law, deposes and says that:
1. I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case;
2. The facts stated in the above complaint are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and authentic records;
3. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending in
them; and
4. If a should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed
or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five days (5)
from notice to the court or where the complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
Done this 19th day of March. 2019 at Consolacio Cebu Philippines.
Sgd. ARMANDO TUAZON
JURAT
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 19TH day of March 2019,
in the City of Cebu by affiant Armando Tuazon his Passport No. 3128-000-
10 issued on November 18, 2018 at Mandaue City Philippines.
ANALIE HATAMOSA
Notary Public
Roll # 183156284
204
IBP # 00313852
PTR # 313202 – 00 June 23 , 2018
Doc. No. 61;

Page No. 169;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
205
Complaint for Separate Support with Application for Alimony Pendente Lite

Municipal Trial Court
Cebu City, Cebu
Juanita dela Cruz

Plaintiff
- versus-
Juan dela Cruz

Defendant.
x x
COMPLAINT
(With Application for support pendent lite)
PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

alleges:
1. Plaintiff is of legal age and with residence at Cebu City, while
defendant is also of legal age and at present residing at Cebu City, where
hemay be served with summons and other legal processes.
2. Plaintiff’s is the wife of defendant, they having been married on
February 14, 2014 and the marriage having been solemnized by Father John
Balweg of the Cathedral Church in Cebu City, Cebu. Certified true copy of
their marriage certificate is attached hereto as Annex “A”.
3. Plaintiff and defendant have two (2) minor children, aged 1 and 2
years old, named Jose and Joyce, who are living with plaintiff at the above
indicated address. Enclosed here with are their respective birth certificates,
marked Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively.
4. On or about February 15, 2019, defendant, without any valid reason,
abandoned plaintiff and his two children. Plaintiff later learned that he was
and still is living with another woman. Since then, defendant had failed and
refused and continues to fail and to refuse to provide financial support and
maintenance to plaintiff and to his two children.
5. Plaintiff is without any source of income, as she stopped working
when she and defendant got married, to devote her time to her children,
while defendant is gainfully employed as Vice-President of XYZ Company,
where he earns a monthly salary of PHP 45,000, apart from commissions of
10% for real properties he sold.
6. To enable plaintiff and her two children to eat three times a day, she
relied on the benevolence of relatives and friends.
7. Considering defendant’s monthly income and earnings and the cost of
living, plaintiff and her two children require a monthly support of PHP
206
25000, PHP 7000 a month of which will be used to pay rentals for the
apartment in which they stay and the balance for daily needs, which
financial requirements will correspondingly increase as the children grow
older and their requirements increase.
8. In support of plaintiff’s claim for support pendent lite, enclosed
herewith are plaintiff’s affidavit, detailing their daily expenses, lease
contract for PHP 7000 a month for the apartment in which she and her
children live, and other authentic documents, apart from the documents
attached as Annexes hereof, which are attached as Annexes “D”, “E”, and
“F” respectively.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
a) Ordering defendant provide plaintiff and his two children monthly
support pendent e lite in the amount of PHP 25000 a month, payable within
the first (5) days every month starting April 1, 2019.
b) After trial, making defendant’s monthly support permanent, without
prejudice to its upward adjustment, depending upon plaintiff’s and the two
children’s needs and the increasing financial earnings of defendant.
c) Ordering defendant to reimburse plaintiff the amount of PHP 5000 as
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.
Cebu City, Cebu on March 15, 2019.
Crisanto B. Hermosilla
Adreess: Lamak, Consolacion, Cebu
Roll No. 8896745
IBP No. 34567, issued on January 20, 2019
at Metro Manila.
PTR No. 7895 issued on Dec. 31, 2018
at Metro Manila
207
IV. Miscellaneous Civil Pleadings
Notice of Appearance as Counsel

City of Cebu
Branch ___
TULFO DELA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 12345
-versus- FOR: Collection of Sum of Money
RAYMART REYES,
Defendant.
x—————————————————-x
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

City of Manila – Branch 1
Please enter appearance of the undersigned as counsel for the

defendant RAYMART REYES, with his express conformity as indicated
below, in this case. Henceforth, kindly address all pertinent notices to the
undersigned at the address given below.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
City of Cebu, Philippines, September 25, 2012.
CRUZ, LANUGON AND TOLENTINO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 405 Elizabeth Center
Cebu City, Cebu
208
By:

Roll No. 23456
IBP No. 22345/1-3-12/Manila
PTR No. 33456/1-3-12/Manila
With conformity:
RAYMART REYES
Copy furnished:
FRETTI LAUREL
Unit 1234 Laurel Building
Sampaloc, Manila
209
Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel

City of Cebu
Branch ___
TULFO DELA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 12345
-versus- FOR: Collection of Sum of Money
RAYMART REYES,
Defendant.
x—————————————————-x
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

City of Manila – Branch 1
COMES NOW the undersigned counsel for the Defendant, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states that due to professional and
personal reasons, undersigned respectfully requests that he be allowed by
this Honorable Court to withdraw his appearance in this case as counsel for
the Defendant.
Henceforth, undersigned respectfully prays that future

notices/processes of this Honorable Court and
pleadings/motions/correspondence from the prosecution in this case be sent
directly to the Defendant or to any counsel who may subsequently enter his
appearance for the Defendant.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
City of Cebu, Philippines, September 25, 2012.
210
CRUZ, LANUGON AND TOLENTINO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 405 Elizabeth Center
Cebu City, Cebu
By:

Roll No. 23456
IBP No. 22345/1-3-12/Manila
PTR No. 33456/1-3-12/Manila
211
Complaint for Damages

Municipality of Consolacion
Branch 13
SHEGI SIA PASIENCIA

Plaintiff,
-versus- Civil Case No. 8

For: Unlawful Detainer
DELLY MAYO ATAG ABANG,

Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully allege: -THAT-
1.) Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, with residence and postal address at 123
V & G Homes Subdivision, Cansaga, Consolacion, Cebu, where he may
be served notices and other court processes;
2.) Defendant is of legal age, Filipino, with residence and postal address
at 178 Highway, Tipolo, Mandaue City, Cebu, where he may be served
summons and other court processes;
3.) Plaintiff is the absolute owner and lessor of that certain townhouse situated
at Golden Ville Townhouses, North Road, Pitogo, Consolacion,
Cebu and now leased and occupied by the Defendant;
4.) The Defendant leases and occupies the said townhouse from June 1, 2013
until July 31, 2018 as agreed upon between the plaintiff and the Defendant
in the lease contract executed on June 1, 2013 under the express obligation
to pay a monthly rental of P25,000.00; (Contract of Lease attached
as Annex “A”)
212
5.) The lease contract of the Defendant for the occupation of the building has
been terminated on July 31, 2018 and has not been renewed or extended;
6.) During the course of the Defendant’s occupation of the said townhouse,
Defendant has failed to pay his rentals for the months of August 2016 to July
2018;
7.) Defendant has continued to occupy the said townhouse notwithstanding the
fact that her contract of lease has been terminated on July 31, 2018 thus
depriving the plaintiff from having the said townhouse leased by other
persons;
8.) Several demands to vacate was made by plaintiff to Defendant, both oral
and written (Demand letter attached as Annex “B”), but Defendant refused
to vacate the said townhouse and return possession to the plaintiff;
9.) Until now Defendant still refuses to vacate and restore possession and pay
her rentals for the months August 2016 to July 2018 during her occupation
of the townhouse;
10.) Thus, Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the subject

townhouse from the plaintiff despite last and final demand, to the damage
and prejudice of the plaintiff;
11.) Before filing of this complaint, the dispute has been referred to the
Lupong Tagamayapa of Barangay Pitogo, Consolacion, Cebu but the
parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement; (Certificate to File Action
attached as Annex “C”)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered
in favor of Plaintiff:
1.) For the restitution of the abovementioned townhouse;
2.) For the payment of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP180,000.00)

PESOS, representing the arrears of rent now overdue;
3.) To pay the costs for this suit.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines, this 16th day of March 2019.
213
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, Ms. Shegi Sia Pasiencia, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and a
resident of 123 V & G Homes Subdivision, Cansaga, Consolacion, Cebu,
after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;
1.) I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;

2.) I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3.) I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
4.) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;
5.) To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
6.) If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been
filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Shegi Sia Pasiencia

Complainant
In witness thereof, I, Myrna Orque Luyao, counsel of the plaintiff, have

herunto set my hand this 16th of March 2019 at Consolacion, Cebu.
214
PTR No. 9876543, Mandaue City, 01/13/2019
IBP No. 85738, Cebu City, 08/23/2018
MCLE Commission No. 3456789,Cebu City,07/08/2018
TIN 123-456-789
V. Other Civil Pleadings

Answer

CEBU CITY
BRANCH 12
CHRISTOPHER DIWA
Plaintiff
Civil Case No. 123456
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
- Versus –
RAMON SOLIS
Defendants.
x---------------------------------x
ANSW ER
(In re: Summons, Received on
JULY 15, 2018)
The DEFENDANT xxx, by counsel, respectfully states:
I. ANSWER
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint are admitted.
215
2. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the Complaint are denied for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity thereof,
the allegations therein being matters known only to, and are within the
control only, of the plaintiff.
3. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Complaint are admitted.
4. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge and

information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the
alleged amounts of attorney’s fees agreed upon between the plaintiff and her
lawyer. The said paragraph is likewise denied insofar as it alleges that the
defendant has no basis or justification to occupy the subject property, the
truth being those alleged in the special and affirmative defenses part herein
below.
II. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
5. The title to and ownership in fee simple over the subject property is in
the name of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), its registered
owner, and not the plaintiff. (See Annex “A”, Par. 3, Complaint).
6. The plaintiff is not “the owner” in fee simple of the subject property,
contrary to her allegation in Par. 3 of the Complaint.
7. The alleged Deed of Conditional Sale between the GSIS and the
plaintiff is not annotated on the title on the property. (See dorsal side of the
title of the property, marked as Annex “A”, Par. 3, Complaint).
8. Although the GSIS has given the plaintiff the right of possession of the
property under Par. 4 of the Deed of Conditional Sale (Annex “B”, Par. 4,
Complaint), the plaintiff knew or was supposed to know or was deemed by
law to be obligated to know and to investigate the fact that at the time of her
purchase of the property, the xxx Family were in possession of the
property and that it had a vested, beneficial and equitable right thereto by
reason of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed in 1975 between its
original purchaser xxx, represented by xxx, on the one hand, and the
matriarch of the xxx Family, i.e., xxx, on the other.
A copy of the said MOA is attached as Annex “1”.
A copy of the Special Power of Attorney of xxx (1974) is attached as Annex
“2” hereof.
9. Since 1975 up to the present time, the xxx Family has been in
possession of the subject property by reason of the said MOA. This fact was
known to plaintiff when she investigated the background property until the
time she closed her purchase thereof with the GSIS. There is no proof that
plaintiff had reported the real situation of the property to the GSIS for a
solution or amicable settlement between the parties prior to her purchase
216
thereof. Likewise, the GSIS did not send any investigator to investigate the
situation of the property prior to and at the time of its sale to the plaintiff. It
did not issue any formal notice to the defendant or the xxx Family about the
impending attempt of the plaintiff to purchase the property. Had the xxx
Family been notified thereon, they would have taken urgent steps to acquire
the same instead of the plaintiff.
10. In 2002, Sps. xxx, the parents of the herein defendant xxx,
executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of the herein defendant, a
copy of which is marked as Annex “3” hereof.
11. The defendant had answered the demanded letter, dated xxx 2011, of the
plaintiff through a letter, dated xxx 2011, of defendant’s counsel, a copy of
which is attached as Annex “4” hereof. It requested plaintiff’s lawyer for a
special conference to discuss a serious extrajudicial compromise, without
admission of guilt on the part of the defendant. It was not formally answered
by the plaintiff.
12.GSIS is an (if not “the”) indispensable party in the suit being

the registered owner in fee simple of the subject property. The ownership
rights of plaintiff under her unannotated Deed of Conditional Sale with the
GSIS are merely inchoate and contingent. The Complaint shows no Board
Resolution from the Board of Trustees of the GSIS empowering the plaintiff
to sue the defendant in behalf of the GSIS in the instant case.
III. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
13.By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by reason
of the instant precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant was constrained
to hire the services of a lawyer to defend his rights and interests for a
professional fee of P20,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per court appearance;
14. Similarly, the plaintiff’s unfounded suit has caused the defendant mental
anguish and suffering and public humiliation and embarrassment, for which
the defendant claims moral damages of P100,000.00.
IV. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

parties be given ample time to reach an amicable settlement before the Cebu
City Mediation Center; and that in case of a failure thereof, and after trial,
the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the defendant’s compulsory
counterclaim be granted, i.e.. attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 plus moral
damages of P100,000.00, plus costs of suit.
The defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Cebu City, July 20, 2011.
217
JUN CARLO FUELLAS MAHINAY LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Defendant xxx
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V Starr Avenue
Pure life Village, Cebu City 1740
VERIFICATION AND
ANTI-FORUM SHOPPINFG CERTIFICATION
I, Ramon Solis of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address
Barangay Tisa, Roose Village, Cebu City, under oath, depose:
I am the defendant in the foregoing case; that I caused the preparation of the
foregoing Answer; that I have read its contents; and that the same are true
and correct of my own direct, personal knowledge.
Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and
existing Supreme Court circulars, I hereby certify that I have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to
the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and
that if I should hereafter learn that other similar or related actions or
proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court.
Cebu City, July 20 2018.
RAMON SOLIS
Affiant/Defendant
SSS Member ID No. 456987
Issued on JANUARY 12. 1990
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Cebu City on July 20

2018, the affiant showing his SSS Member ID Card as stated above as
competent proof of his identity.
JUN CARLO FUELLAS MAHINAY

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. 66;

Page No. 181;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
218
Cc :
Atty. Angelica Delposo

Rm. 144
Star Bldg.
Brgy. Labogon, Cebu City
EXPLANATION
A copy of this pleading is served via registered mail, instead of via

personal service, on the adverse counsel due to the distance of his law office
address and the lack of field staff of undersigned counsel at this time.

Petition for Trial by Commissioner

7th Judicial Region
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
PETITION FOR TRIAL BY A

COMMISSIONER FOR THE CASE
OF ALEJANDRO ARAGON TELCH
AGAINST MARIA ARAGON INEZ
ATTY. GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON

Petitioner
x--------------------------------------------------------/
(FACT OF ACCOUNT OF MR. ALEJANDRO TELCH)

PETITION
219
Plaintiff, thru, counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, alleges that:
1. One of the important issues involved in the above-entitled case is
one of fact requiring the examination of a long account;
2. The taking of this account is necessary before judgement;
3. Mr. FERNANDO JOSE ALTAMERANO is an independent

certified public accountant, reputable, competent, and is willing to
act as commissioner to examine and render a true and correct
report of the issue of account in this case;
PRAYER
WHEREOF, in view of the foregoing premises, it is most

respectfully prayed that an order be issued by this Honorable Court referring
to the issue of fact of account to Mr. FERNANDO JOSE
ALTAMERANO, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Most respectfully submitted.

GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON

Petitioner
CITY OF CEBU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) S.S.
VERIFICATION
I, GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON, Filipino, of legal age, single and

a resident of 08- Noli Me Tangere St. Brgy. Ermita, Cebu City 6000,
Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law do hereby
depose and say that:
1. I am the Petitioner of the above-entitled Petition; and
2. I have personally prepared the foregoing Petition and that all the
allegations therein are true and correct to my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic documents.
220
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of
March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines.
GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 16th day of March

2019 in Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his IBP ID issued by
IBP Cebu City with Roll No. 56281 as proof of identity.
ATTY. GUSTAVO ALMEDRAS MONTELEBANO

NOTARY PUBLIC FOR CEBU CITY, CARCAR CITY
SAN FERNANDO, CEBU UNTIL DEC. 31, 2019
COMM NO. 0281 11/25/2010 CEBU CITY
PTR No. 8894089, 1/10/2018 CEBU CITY
LIFE TIME IBP No. AR001264, IBP Cebu City, 1/10/18
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 56281
D JAKOSALEM STREET, CEBU CITY
Doc. No. 67;

Page No. 185;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.

Complaint Based on an Actionable Document

221
Branch 1, Cebu City
CUPIDO GWAPO
Plaintiff,
-versus - Case No. 100
CUPIDA GWAPA
Respondent.
x--------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel, and to this

Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:
1. That the plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino citizen and resident of

No. 7 Agoo Street, Cebu City and the defendant is also of legal age, Filipino
citizen and a resident of No. 19 Dagupan Street, Cebu City where he may be
served with summons;
2. That on or about January 1, 2018, defendant obtained a loan of

₱20,000.00 from the plaintiff payable within 90 days from date of receipt at
6% per annum;
3. That said loan, now overdue, is evidenced by a promissory note

signed by the defendant, a copy of which is hereto attached as “Annex A”
and made part of this complaint;
4. That despite repeated demands, both written and oral, defendant

has failed, continues to fail and refused to pay said loan;
5. That due to the unjust and unlawful act of the defendant to

comply with the said demands, the plaintiff was compelled to institute this
action engaging the services of counsel in the amount of ₱1,000.00.
222
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered
against the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of ₱20,000.00 plus interest
of 6% from the date of the instrument until full amount is paid and
attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱1,000.00 and costs of the suit.
Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto set their hands below,

this 16th day of March 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.
(Sgd.) ATTY. BRIAN C. MONTECILLO

P.T.R. No. 765532, January 3, 2013, Cebu City
IBP No. 918225, Roll No. 14344
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. 66587
G/F J King Bldg., Jose L Briones St.,
North Reclamation Area, Cebu City
Mobile No.: (+63) 933 8650 903
Email: brianmontecillo@live.com
223
Complaint in Intervention

7TH Judicial Region
Branch 17
Talisay City, Cebu
LEONARDO BASTARDOS
Intervenor, CIVIL CASE No. 128-9456
For: INTERVENTION
VS.
DEREK MARTINEZ
Plaintiff
-x------------------------------------------- x
COMLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
INTERVENOR, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully

states and prays that:
1. Intervenor, a Russian but naturalized Filipino citizen, of legal age,
married to Jessica Sotto, a Filipino citizen and a resident of 456 St.,
Linao, Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines.
2. Herein Intervenor is the true owner of the property which is the
subject of controversy in Civil Case No. 128-9456, embraced in the
alleged new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11919, originally under
TCT No. 12345, (hereto attached as Annex “A-1”) with an area of
five thousand square meters (5,000 sq m) located at Brgy. San Isidro,
Talisay City, Cebu Philippines.
3. Said property in question, was acquired by the Intervenor from Fidget
Travola on June 7, 2005 in consideration of P1,500,000.00 as stated in
the Deed of Sale registered under the name of Fidget Travola and
224
Jessica Sotto, recorded in the Registry of Deeds in the Province of
Cebu. (copy attached as Annex” A-2”)
4. The litigants in this case, (plaintiff) as claimant and (defendant) who
is in actual used and possession of the property in question, have no
legal standing of their claims on the basis that all transactions and
performances subsequent to the transaction executed between herein
Intervenor and Ms. Fidget Travola in relation to the property in
question described in the original title TCT 12345 and in TCT 11919
is presumed to be void considering that said property was already sold
to Intervenor and now is the subject of this complaint.
5. The Intervenor deeply affected of the fraudulent transactions initiated

by the irresponsible vendor (Fidget Travola) of the questioned
property, which is the subject matter in this case, that caused him to
initiate legal remedy for the relief and recovery of damages inflicted
to his person, and bring the matter to this honorable court in a way of
intervention.
WHERFORE, it is prayed:
(d) That all transactions and performances executed by the litigants in
relation to the property-in-question, including related documents in
their possession shall be declared void.
(e) That the litigants be ordered by this Honorable Court to voluntarily
turn-over the questioned property to the rightful owner who is the
Intervenor in this case.
(f) That if voluntary turn-over of the property or waiver of the claim
by both plaintiff and defendants is not possible, order be made
against the litigants to pay for the damages and other litigation
expenses plus attorney’s fees in favor of the Intervenor.
(g) Further it is prayed that Intervenor be granted such relief found to
be consistent with law and equity.
Signed this 4th day of March 2019 in Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines.
LEONARDO BASTARDOS
Intervenor
Assisting Counsels:
Chennie Lynn O. Nedia
225
Cebu City
226
Third Party Complaint

7th Judicial Region
Branch 1, Cebu City
PETER DELA CRUZ, Civil Case No. 9999999-88
Plaintiff,
-versus-
JOHN DELA RAMA,
Defendant
Third Party Plaintiff,
-versus-
ISABELLE DELA PENA,
Third-Party Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Third-Party Plaintiff, JOHN, by and through his

undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 6, Section 11 of the Rules of
227
Court, hereby impleads the Third-Party Defendant, ISABELA and alleges as
follows:
1. PETER, Plaintiff filed a complaint against JOHN, Defendant and Third-

Party Plaintiff.
2. PETER alleges that the SALE of a parcel of land covered by TCT No.
T-12345 with JOHN caused damaged to him.
3. JOHN in GOOD FAITH, bought the parcel of land covered by TCT

No. T-12345 from ISABELLE.
4. JOHN in GOOD FAITH considering that the SALE between JOHN

and ISABELLE is free from any impediment sold the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. T-12345 to PETER.
5. The parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345 was foreclosed by

the Land Bank of the Philippines for the reason that it was mortgaged
by LUISA, co-owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-
12345.
6. If PETER recovers against JOHN any judgment for the damages the
JOHN is entitled to judgment against ISABELLE for all such sums
since the SALE of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345
was the sole cause of PETER’s damages and injuries.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that JOHN, Defendant and

Third-Party Plaintiff, can demand judgment against ISABELLE,
Third-Party Defendant, for all sums that may be adjudged against
JOHN, as Defendant, in favor of PETER, as Plaintiff, together with all
costs incidental to the defense of the principal suit.
228
ATTY. RENIL B. OLIVA
229
Petition for Consolidation of Ownership (Pacto de Retro)
Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership in Pacto de Retro

CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S.
x-------------------------------------x
AFFIDAVIT OF CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP
I, MARIE B. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, single and a

resident of 2223 Washington Street, Pio del Pilar, Makati City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That on June 10, 2011, Mr. Pedro Penduko, of legal age, Filipino,
single, residing at 2222 Teresa Street, Makati City, sold to me a
certain parcel of land under pacto de retro, executed before
Notarial Public Juan Tamad and bearing Not. Reg. No. 2, Page 2,
Book II, Series of 2011 of his Notarial Register (copy of the
said pacto de retro sale is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”);
2. That pursuant to the deed of sale with pacto de retro, the said
vendor, Mr. Pedro Penduko, should have exercised his right to
repurchase the said property within the period of two (2) years;
3. That the period expired on June 10, 2013 without the said vendor,
by himself or by any other person in his behalf complying with the
condition and stipulation required for the repurchase of the said
property;
4. That the said period of repurchase has not been extended, either
expressly or impliedly, by affiant vendee a retro;
5. That by virtue of the said deed of sale with pacto de retro, and by
the failure of the vendor, Mr. Pedro Penduko, to duly repurchase
the property within the period stipulated, there was consolidated in
the affiant, as vendee a retro, the absolute ownership of the said
property. Attached hereto, as ANNEX “B,” is an order of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City issued on August 11, 2013,
approving and confirming the above consolidation of ownership in
the name of affiant.
230
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day
of September 2013 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
MARIE B. DELA CRUZ

Affiant
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of September

2013 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her
Philippine Passport No. 123456 issued in Manila on January 12, 2012 and
valid until January 12, 2017.
Doc. No. 71;

Page No. 193;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
231
Motion for Leave to Effect Service of Summons by Publication

City of Cebu
Branch 1
OLIVE OLIVIA,
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 23456

FOR: Recovery of Possession
LUCKY AWANGANON, with Damages
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO SERVE SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1. That on January 25, 2019, copy of the summons was served by the
process server of this Honorable Court to the defendant on his given address,
but defendant is no longer residing on his given address;
2. That considering that the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown
and this case affects the property of the defendant, plaintiff most respectfully
move with leave of court to serve summons by publication.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by
publication based on the above reasons.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Cebu, March 14, 2019.
PANANGANAN AND GULANG LAW OFFICES

Unit 314 The Tower
Crown Regency, Cebu City
BY:
ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE PANANGANAN
Roll No. 45678
IBP No. 23456/2-4-
19/Cebu
232
NOTICE OF HEARING
LUCKY AWANGANON
Defendant
GREETINGS:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on April 9, 2019 at 2:00 PM.
ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE

PANANGANAN
Copy furnished:
LUCKY AWANGANON
345 Brgy. Labangon
Cebu City
EXPLANATION
Copy of the Motion to Serve Summons by Publication was served to

defendant by registered mail due to time and distance constraints, and for
lack of the undersigned’s staff who can serve the same in person.
ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE PANANGANAN
233
Motion for Leave for Extraterritorial Service

Province of Cebu
Branch 00000
Lelanie Rubia,
Plaintiff
-versus-
XYZ CORPORATION
Defendant
Motion for Leave for Extraterritorial Service
Plaintiff thrue councel, and unto this Honorable court, respectfully avers:
1. That the subject matter in the above-entitled case is a property
located within the Philippines;
2. That the relief demanded consists in excluding the defendant from

any interest therein;
3. That the defendant does not reside in the Philippines but now resides
in 786 Rose St. Vancouver, Canada;
4. That attached hereto and made an integral part of this motion is the
affidavit of the plaintiff himself marked Annex “A”, setting forth the
grounds for the application for extraterritorial service in this case.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed that service of summons in the above-entitled case be served on the
defendant at the abovenamed address out of the Philippines by publication.
Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.
City of Lapulapu, Philippines, 15th day of March, 2019
234
___________________
Lelanie Rubia
ATTY. MABINI O. PELAGIO

2nd Floor Patalinghug st., Pajo, Lapulapu City
Roll no. 98289
PTR NO. 78921, 6 Jan 2019
IBP no. 89892, 8 May 2o18
Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading

CEBU CITY )S.S
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE

COMMENT (ANSWER), DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2019 OF THE
DEFENDANTS
THE DEFENDANTS, by counsel, respectfully state:
1. On THE 22nd of February 2019, the Defendants, pro se (by and for
themselves and without assistance of a Counsel), filed their Responsive
Pleading to the main case which was denominated as a “COMMENT
(ANSWER)”, dated 21st of February 2019.
1.1. It was apparently originally intended as the Comment of

the Defendants to the incidents pending at that time, i.e.,
Plaintiff’s Motion/s for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction.
1.2. The Defendants, pro se, subsequently intended the said

Comment as their ANSWER to the main case, as shown by
thehandwritten words “Answer” in parenthesis on the title of the said
Comment, dated dated 21st of February 2019.
235
2. Although the said Comment (Answer) contained
“admissions/denials/defenses” and a valid “prayer”, and although
voluminous documents were attached thereto in support of the pro
secounter-allegations of ultimate facts by the Defendants, nonetheless, the
undersigned new Counsel for the Defendants feel that, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, there is a great need for him to AMEND,
MODIFY, CLARIFY, IMPROVE, AND STRENGTHEN the said
“Comment (Answer)” of the Defendants:
(a) to better protect their rights and interests,
(b) to more clearly present their legal theory of the case,
(c) to strengthen the legal and factual position of the Defendants and
the supporting evidence in support thereof, and
(d) to allege their compulsory counterclaim.
3. This Motion is not intended to delay this case but is being

presented solely to serve the best interest of justice and fair play by
improving the pro se Responsive Pleading of the Defendants without the
assistance of a Counsel.
4. Please note that the main case is yet to undergo Mediation Phase,
Pretrial Phase, and Judicial Dispute Resolution Phase.
4.1. It has not yet reached the Main Trial On The Merits Phase.
5. The rights of the Plaintiff and will not be injured by this fair and
reasonable Motion.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the legal and factual reasons
cited hereinabove, it is respectfully prayed that, after notice and hearing, an
Order be issued giving the undersigned new Counsel for the Defendants 30
days to file an AMENDED/MODIFIED ANSWER for the
Defendants, counted from receipt of the Order granting this Motion.
FURTHER, the Defendants respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as
may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Xx x Cebu City, xxx, 2019.
ATTY. NINF QUENNIE Q. PLANDO
236
237
Motion for Bill of Particulars

7th Judicial Region
CEBU CITY
BRANCH 15
PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES
-versus- FOR: Other Light Threats

Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code
JUAN DELA CRUZ
X-------------------------------------------------X
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable Court
respectfully averse:
1. That the plaintiff’s complaints in paragraph 3 Pedro Dela Rosa and
paragraph 5 Maria Santos alleges:
Dela Rosa:
However, on the evening of the same day, at around10:30, I
heard Juan Dela Cruz shouting, and I peeped through the
window, I saw her standing just outside her house with her
friends, facing our house and I loudly uttering slanderous and
threatening words.
Abad:
That at around 10:30 o’clock in the evening of the same day, I
was already is in my mom when I heard someone is shouting
outside, I suddenly went out of my room
Saw Sir Pedro peeping the window, I in turn, did the same and
peeped on the window, I saw Juan and 3 other people standing
outside her house, facing towards the direction of our house,
while she was uttering slanderous and threatening words.
2. The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and
particularity, specifically it does not mention to whom are the words
directed;
238
3. That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is
necessary in order to enable the defendant to prepare its responsive
pleading because from the very onset of this controversy, the main
dispute was to whom was actually and exactly are the words directed.
4. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars
of the said act which was allegedly done by the defendant would
definitely simplify the issue in the case, and uncomplicated the
matters for the defendant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully pays that an order be issued by
this Honorable Court requiring plaintiffs to make more definite statement as
to the particulars of the act mentioned in paragraph 4 and 3 in their
complaint, particularly to whom are the words uttered directed.
By
ATTY. MARCY JO RABILLAS
IBP NO. 533435
ATTORNEY’S ROLL NO. 65211
Copy furnished:
Atty. Anna LIM

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Pedro Dela Rosa

Maria Abad
NOTICE OF HEARING
239
To Hon. Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Cebu City, Branch 25
Atty. Anna Lim

Please take note that the foregoing motion will be submitted, and is
requested to be submitted for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court on March 15,1992, at 9:30 AM or soon thereafter as matter
and counsel may be heard on notice.
Marcy Jo Rabillas
Counsel of the Defendant
240
VI. Appeals
Notice of Appeals

Branch 5
CEBU CITY, PHILIPPINES
SPS. EMERSON ARCEO, and CIVIL CASE NO. 01-143143-99

BOJOY ALAD-AD ARCEO, FOR: DAMAGES
Plaintiffs,
-versus-
JACINTH DELA CERNA, and

DANE PAULINE ADORA,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT,

COMES NOW Jacinth Dela Cerna and Dane Pauline Adora, the Defendants
in the above-entitled case, through counsel, hereby file this notice and make
known that they are appealing to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of
this Honorable Court dated February 14, 2019 which was received by them
on February 28, 2019, the said decision not being in accord with evidence
adduced and jurisprudence applicable.
Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, this 12th day of March, 2019
VINCENT LOUIE A. RAOTRAOT

Counsel for the Defendants
7th Floor, Gullas Building
Roll No. 81956
PTR No. 1941888, 01-05-19
IBP No. 905467, 04-28-18
MCLE Compliance No. VII – 00014344, July 5, 2018
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. CRISANTO HERMOSILLA
241
Room 69, Prince Court Building
Mandaue City, Cebu
VI. Appeals
Record on Appeal

7th Judicial Region
Branch 66
Oslob, Cebu
JOSEPH STALIN
Petitioner,
-versus- Sp. Proc. No. 143
(Claims Against the
Estate)
ESTATE OF ADOLF HITLER,
EVA BRAUN, Administratix
Respondent,
RECORD ON APPEAL
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the dates herein respectively mentioned,

the following proceedings were had in the Regional Trial Court of Oslob,
Cebu:
1. That on September 26, 2018, the plantiff-appellant filed a claim
against estate of the defendant-appellee, represented by his
administrator, in the following tenor:
1.1.That his claim is evidenced by a promissory note, a true copy of
which is hereto attached as Annex "A", the original to be
exhibited in due time;
1.2.That the promissory note was conditioned that if the debtor
passes the bar exam, the loan stated in the promissory note would
be demandable;
1.3.That the debtor was able to pass the bar exam on April 11, 2016;
1.4.That since the condition was complied, the loan becomes
demandable;
242
1.5.That the demandable loan amounts to 1 MILLION PESOS
(1,000,000.00), as stated in the promissory note, and payment has
not been made since the debtor's admission to the bar.
1.6.That there are no offsets to the same to the knowledge of the
claimnant.
2. That on September 27, 2018, the defendant-appellee filed his Answer
to said complaint, as follows:
2.1.That he admits the existence of a promissory note and he also
admits that he was the one who executed it on October 19, 1992;
2.2.That the condition, which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint, is
not written in the promissory note;
2.3.That upon the maturity date of the loan, October 19, 1993, as
stated in the promissory note, the plaintiff did not make a demand
for payment;
2.4.That since the date of the maturity of the loan, the plaintiff did
not anymore bother to make a demand for payment.
3. That after due hearing, the court, on March 3, 2019, rendered the
following decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the claim of Joseph Stalin

against the Estate of Adolf Hitler amounting to 1 MILLION PESOS
(1,000,000.00) is now PRESCRIBED, thus, not anymore
demandable.
SO ORDERED.
4. That on March 4, 2019, the plaintiff-appelant filed a motion for

reconsideration of the following tenor:
This motion for reconsideration respectfully submits that the

Honorable Court ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF
JOSEPH STALIN AGAINST THE ESTATE OF ADOLF HITLER
because the contract of loan, as evidenced by a promissory note did
not reveal the true intention of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
5. That on March 8, 2019, the court issued an order denying said motion
for reconsideration;
6. That on March 10, 2019, the plaintiff-appellant received notice of the
said order denying his motion for reconsideration, and on March 14,
2019 filed his Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals as follows:
243
PLAINTIFF by the undersigned counsel, hereby files a notice of
appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in the above-
entitled case, dated on March 3, 2019, a copy of which was received
by counsel on March 4, 2019, and appeals the same to the Court of
Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff-appellant prays for the approval of this

Record on Appeal and that the same be transferred to the Court of Appeals,
together with all the oral and documentary evidence given and presented at
the trial of the above-entitled case.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto to set my hand at Barangay

Poblacion, Santander, Cebu, Philippines, this 14th day of March, 2019.
SGD: JOSEPH STALIN
244
VI. Appeals
Petition for Review on Certiorari

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
LOVELY LIM, Petitioner,

vs.
ARLYN SANCHEZ, Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW
PETITIONER in the above-entitled case, and unto this Honorable

Court, respectfully avers:
1. That the petitioner is LOVELY LIM ; that the respondent is ARLYN

SANCHEZ;
2. That the following, in brief, are facts of this:
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The respondent engaged in a buy and sell business dealing with

different kinds of jewelries;
2. That the abovementioned petitioner is one of the agent in the jewelry

business of the respondent;
3. That on July 22, 2017 the petitioner was allowed to act as an agent of
the respondent and owed jewelries worth 10,000.00;
4. The Respondent then issued receipt signed by Maureen corresponding

to the jewelries of which the petitioner owed herein marked as exhibit
A and the signature of Maureen, daughter of the Respondent herein
marked as exhibit A-1;
245
5. That the respondent only made a demand of payment from the
petitioner verbally after the latter failed to pay, and that pushed the
respondent to file a case of ESTAFA against the petitioner; and
6. That the business requirements of the respondent which are the

Mayor’s Permit, hereinafter marked as Exhibit B, The BIR Tax
Declaration marked as Exhibit C and DTI Permit as Exhibit D.
3. Aggrieved, petitioner comes directly before the Court in this petition for
review on certiorari with the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, BRANCH 10,
GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
FILED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
II.
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN
PETITIONER-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA.
III.
GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND/OR NEW TRIAL FILED BY THE
HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
4. That there are special and important reasons consisting mainly of

questions of law justifying a review by this Honorable Supreme Court of the
decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (or Regional Trial Court, Etc.,
as the case may be). Among said reasons are the following:
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF WRIT
5. Here raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set, Forth. It is
a well-settled rule that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions
of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.
246
This Court has, on many occasions, distinguished between a question of law
and a question of fact. We held that when there is doubt as to what the law is
on a certain state of facts, then it is a question of law; but when the doubt
arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, then it is a question of
fact. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether
or not the conclusion drawn there from is correct, is a question of law. To
elucidate further, this Court, in Hko Ah Pao v. Ting said:
One test to determine if there exists a question of fact or law in a given case
is whether the Court can resolve the issue that was raised without having to
review or evaluate the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law;
otherwise, it will be a question of fact. Thus, the petition must not involve
the calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented. In
addition, the facts of the case must be undisputed, and the only issue that
should be left for the Court to decide is whether or not the conclusion drawn
by the CA from a certain set of facts was appropriate
6. That attached to this petition is certified copy of the decision of the Court
of Appeals ( or RTC, etc., as the case may be) herein sought to be reviewed,
marked “Annex C,” together with twenty (20) printed copies of the record of
appeal.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this petition for on writ of

certiorari be granted.
Signed this 15th day of March 2019 at Cebu City Philippines.
ATTY, MARY GRACE REQUINTO

Roll No. 51379-2008
IBP No. 808787-3/24/18
PTR No. 4128464- 3/24/18; Cebu City
MCLE Compliance III No. 0043609
Issued on April 22, 2018
247
VI. Appeals
Appellant’s Brief

COURT OF APPEALS
Makati
FEDERAL PHOENIX
ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus Civil Case No. 12346

For: DAMAGES
DSR-SENATOR LINES and

C.F. SHARP AND COMPANY, INC.
Defendant-Appellant,
x----------------------------------------------------------x
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Defendant-Appellants, DSR-SENATOR LINES andC.F. SHARP

AND COMPANY, INC (CF Sharp), by undersigned counsel and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully submit that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On March 11, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellee, FEDERAL PHOENIX

ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (Federal Phoenix) filed with the RTC a
248
complaint for damages against Defendant-Appellants DSR-Senator Lines
and CF Sharp.
2.Subsequently on August 22, 1995, the RTC ruled in favor of Plaintiff-

Appellee, the dispositive part of which states:
“WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, judgment is

hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.
The Defendant DSR-Senator Lines and CF Sharp and all
persons claiming rights under him are hereby ordered to pay the
plaintiff the following:
1. The sum of P941,429.61 on the basis of the

subrogation receipt issued in favor of the plaintiff for
actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs occasioned
by the loss of the cargo; and
2. The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED.”
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
3. Berde Plants, Inc. (Berde Plants) delivered 632 units of artificial trees to
Defendant-Appellants, C.F. Sharp and Company, Inc (CF Sharp) and DSR-
Senator Lines. It was agreed that Defendant-Appellant would deliver the
artificial trees to the consignee, Al-Mohr International Group, in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia.
4.Plaintiff-Appellee, Federal Phoenix Assurance Company, Inc. (Federal

Phoenix) insured the cargo against all risks in the amount of P941,429.61.
5. On June 7, 1993, M/S "Arabian Senator" left the Manila South Harbor for
Saudi Arabia with the cargo on board. When the vessel arrived in Khor
Fakkan Port, the cargo was reloaded on board DSR- Senator Lines’ feeder
vessel, M/V "Kapitan Sakharov," bound for Port Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
However, while in transit, the vessel and all its cargo caught fire.
249
6. On July 5, 1993, Defendant-Appellant DSR-Senator Lines informed
Berde Plants that M/V "Kapitan Sakharov" with its cargo was gutted by fire
and sank. On December 16, 1993, Defendant-Appellant CF Sharp issued a
certification to that effect.
7. Consequently, Plaintiff-Appellee Federal Phoenix paid Berde Plants

P941,429.61 corresponding to the amount of insurance for the cargo. In turn
Berde Plants executed in its favor a "Subrogation Receipt" dated Jan. 17,
1994.
8. On Feb 8, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellee sent a letter to Defendant-Appellant

demanding payment of P941,429.61 on the basis of the Subrogation Receipt.
Defendant-Appellant denied any liability on the ground that such liability
was extinguished when the vessel carrying the cargo was gutted by fire.
9. Thus, on March 11, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellee filed with the RTC a

complaint for damages against Defendant-Appellants DSR-Senator Lines
and CF Sharp.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
10. The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain

defendant-appellant’s defense in light of the provisions found in law.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
11. The issue in the case at bar is whether defendant-appellant should be

held liable for the loss of the cargo resulting from the fire that gutted and
sank the ship during the voyage.
ARGUMENT
12. The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain

Defendant-Appellant’s defense that under the New Civil Code provision on
Common Carriers [1734], common carriers are not responsible for the loss,
250
destruction or deterioration of the goods when the same is caused by a
natural disaster or calamity.
13. Article 1734of the Civil Code provides that:
“Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of

the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(1)Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or

calamity
xxx”1
14. Thus, it can be seen from the provision of the law on common carriers
that the common carrier cannot be held responsible for any loss, destruction
or deterioration of the goods as a result of other natural disasters or calamity.
Corollary to this is that the common carrier cannot be held liable for any
fortuitous event causing the loss of the cargo.
15. Article 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous event:
“Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise

declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which
could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
(1105a)”2
16. Thus, the requirements in order that an occurrence may be classified as a

fortuitous event is that it must be an event which could not be foreseen or
which, though, foreseen, was inevitable.
17. Furthermore, Article 1680 of the Civil Code provides that:
“xxx
1
An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Republic Act No. 386, art.
1734 (1950).
2
CIVIL CODE, art. 1174.
251
Extraordinary fortuitous events are understood to be: fire, war, pestilence,
unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or others which are uncommon, and
which the contracting parties could not have reasonably foreseen.”3
18. The law is therefore clear that a fire is one instance that can be
considered a fortuitous event.
19. In the case at bar, there was absolutely no way that defendant-appellant
could have anticipated or prepared for such a disastrous fire which gutted the
ship and destroyed the cargo along with the ship. There was also no way the
defendant-appellant could have foreseen the fire since it diligently inspected
all the cargo and the ship before setting sail at sea. The fire was nowhere
within the ambit of control of the defendant-appellee and thus it was error
for the Honorable Court to adjudge the defendant-appellee liable for
damages which it did not cause and could not have controlled or prevented.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this

Honorable Court that the Decision dated 22 August 1995 of the lower court
be REVERSED with costs against the appellee.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
Makati City, 27 August 1995.
Atty. Lebene Marie G. Santiago

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Copy Furnished:
Hon. Judge Mickey Mouse

Regional Trial Court Branch 38
3
CIVIL CODE, art. 1680.
252
Makati
Atty. Brian Sabalo

Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee
Unit 203aN Joya Lofts & Towers

Rockwell Drive,
Makati City
VI. Appeals
Appellee’s Brief

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus- CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05779
ROMEO ALDUEZA y DUBLAS
Accused-Appellant.
x---------------------------------------------x
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant Romeo Aldueza y Dublas (hereinafter referred to

as “appellant”) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
branch 12, Lipa City, along with Guillermo Aldueza y Dimaandal, with
the crime of Murder in an Information which reads:
“That on or about the 30th day of March 2008 at about

6:30 o’clock in the evening , at Tenyente C. Pesa St.
Purok 5B, Brgy. Talisay, Lipa City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused while armed with a gun, conspiring, and
confederating, and mutually aiding each other, with intent
to kill and without any justifiable cause, with the
qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength, did then and willfully,
253
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the
use of said gun and suddenly and without warning, one Joey
Mayor y Banduhan thereby inflicting upon the latter
gunshot wound abdomen (sic) which directly caused his death.
Contrary to Law.”
When arraigned, the appellant pleaded “NOT GUILTY”. On August 1,

2012, after trial on the merits, the trial court convicted appellant of the crime
of Murder in a decision, to wit;
“WHEREFORE, FINDING ACCUSED Romeo Aldueza y Dublas

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Murder as
defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as a co-conspirator of
Guillermo Aldueza, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Accused Romeo Aldueza is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Joey

Mayor the amount of P39, 124.60 as actual damages representing burial
expenses and the amount of P75, 000.00 for the death of Joey Mayor.
The period of his detention shall be credited in the service of his

sentence.
SO ORDERED.”
Appellant now challenges the aforequoted decision of the trial court

raising the following grounds:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE
TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT
TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND ABUSE OF
STRENGTH ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
(Appellant’s Brief, 20 March 2013, page 1).
COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the night of March 30, 2008, at around 6: 30 pm, the celebration

for the graduation of Benjamin Aldueza’s daughter was in full swing. Seated
in a table located between the houses of Benjamin Aldueza and Cesar
Aldueza and having a drinking spree are the appellant, Joey Mayor
254
(hereinafter referref to as the victim), Eddie Olave and four to five other
persons (TSN, 6 August 2009, pp. 4-5).Eddie Olave testified that during the
drinking session, an altercation broke out between the appellant and the
victim when the latter broke a glass. The altercation degenerated into a
fistfight between the appellant and the victim which Olave and the others
seated in the table were able to pacify. After the commotion, the appellant
and the victim returned to their respective seats
Olave then noticed that the appellant is no longer seated with

them at the table and that the latter went to his cousin Guillermo
Aldueza’s house located nearby.The appellant stayed there for two (2)
minutes. The appellant thereafter returned to the table with Guillermo
Aldueza, the co-accused in this case
Guillermo suddenly pulled out a revolver and shot the victim

twice. The first bullet hit the victim in the stomach which caused him
to fall down from his seat while the second bullet hit him on the left
shoulder. The appellant, who was standing right beside Guillermo the
whole time, did not do anything. Immediately after the shooting,
Guillermo and the appellant disappeared from the scene.
The victim managed to walk for three (3) meters towards a pathway
but eventually fell down. He was taken to a hospital where eventually
he expired.
ARGUMENTS
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MURDER WERE PROVEN BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.
II
THE APPELLANT’S PARTICIPATION AS CO-CONSPIRATOR TO

THE OFFENSE WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.
III
THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CITED BY THE RTC IS

SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF THE
APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED.
IV
THE QUALIFYING CICUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WAS PROVEN

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.
255
DISCUSSION
All the elements of murder

were proven beyond
reasonable doubt by
the prosecution.
x-----------------------------------x
The case of People v Dela Cruz enumerates the elements of murder,

thus;
1. That a person was killed.

2. That the accused killed him.
3. That the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The qualifying circumstances for murder under the Revised

Penal Code (RPC) are as follows;
Art. 248.Murder—Any person who, not falling within the

provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, if committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with

the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,

stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding

paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting

the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse.
256
All the elements of murder were successfully proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
The killing of Joey Mayor by appellant’s co-accused Guillermo

Aldueza as well as the appellant’s participation as conspirator was
sufficiently established by the testimony of prosecution witness Eddie
Olave, to wit;
Q: On that drinking session at the house of the Alduezas which

according to you was owned by a certain Benjamin, was there
any unusual incident that happened?
A: There was ma’am.
Q: And what is this incident Mr. Witness?

A: A glass was broken and Romeo and Joey had an altercation
because of the broken glass, ma’am.
Q: You are referring to whom?

A: Joey, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You made mentioned that because of the breaking of the

glass, Joey and Romeo had an altercation, how did you know?
A: Because we were beside each other, ma’am.
Q: What happened after the glass was broken? What did Romeo
Aldueza do if he did any?
A: They have a fistfight, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the fistfight both Romeo and Joey joined the same table
where they were drinking prior to the incident?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Until when did the drinking session lasted?

A: For a long time ma’am until Romy disappeared.
Q: What do you mean Romy disappeared?

A: He disappeared from the drinking session until after sometime
he went back with another person, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who was this person with whom Romy came back in the place
where you were drinking?
A: Guillermo, ma’am.
257
Q: And what is the family name of Guillermo?
A: Aldueza, ma’am.
Q: Is this the same person who was the co-accused of Romeo Aldueza
in this case?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: So what happened when the two came back to where you

were drinking?
A: I was surprised when Gullermo pulled out a gun, ma’am.
Q: From where did he pull out the gun?

A: From his waist, ma’am.
Q: And what happened after he pulled out the gun from his waist?
A: He shot Joey, sir.
Q: And do you still recall where the shot landed on the body of...did it
hit Joey?
A: Yes, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And do you still recall how many shots was made by

Guillermo Aldueza?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: How many?
A: Two, ma’am.
Q: And the two gun shots both landed in the body of Joey
Mayor?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: When Romeo Aldueza and Guillermo Aldueza arrived at the

place where you were drinking, did you here Romeo and Guillermo
say anything?
A: None, ma’am.
Q: So when the gun was fired on Joey Mayor where was Romeo then?
A: They were together, ma’am.
Q: What was he doing then?

A: None, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
258
Q: And when Joey run towards the pathway, do you still recall where
Romeo and Gullermo were?
A: They both disappeared, ma’am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: By the way, this Romeo Aldueza disappeared from the place

where you have your drinking session and when he returned he
was with Guillermo Aldueza already, how long was Romeo Aldueza
absent from that drinking session before he returned with
Guillermo Aldueza?
A: Just for a while, Your Honor.
Q: In terms of seconds and minutes, how long was that?

A: Maybe about two (2) minutes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you know the house of Guillermo Aldueza?

A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: How far was the house of Gulklermo from the place where
you have your drinking session?
A: About two (2) arm stretches, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the first shot was fired, did you notice Romy beside
Guillermo?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And when your attention was caught by Romy, did you s

ee him do anything to stop Guillermo from firing another shot?
A: No, ma’am.
The testimony of Olave, who was in a position to observe the

events which led to the killing of the victim, sufficiently
established the manner by which the offense was carried out and the
respective participations of the appellant and his co-accused Guillermo.
Such facts constitute the elements of the crime of murder.
The appellant’s participation as

co-conspirator to the offense
was sufficiently
established.
x-----------------------------------x
Anent the finding of conspiracy, the People sustains the decision

of the RTC, thus;
259
“The Court believes that conspiracy exists as shown by the following
circumstances:
1. Joey Mayor and Romeo Aldueza engaged in a fist

fight when Joey Mayor accidentally broke a glass.
2. Although they were pacified, and both returned to the
drinking session, Romeo left the place and entered the house
of Guillermo.
3. After two (2) minutes, Guillermo emerged from his
house with Romeo following him.
4. The two directly proceeded to the table were Joey was
seated
5. Without uttering any word, Guillermo pulled out a gun
and fired two (2) successive shots at the unsuspecting victim.
6. All the time, Romeo was beside Guillermo. Romeo
could have prevented the latter from firing at the victim but
he did nothing.
7. Guillermo has motive to shoot at the victim.
8. Guillermo and Romeo are first cousins as their
fathers are brothers.
From these circumstances there can be no other conclusion to

arrive at except that Guillermo would not have shot Joey Mayor if not
for Romeo having fetched him from his house to do the dastardly act.
Conspiracy therefore exists between the two accused hence the act of
one is the act of all. Although it was only Guillermo Aldueza who fired
the fatal shots on Joey Mayor, Romeo Aldueza being a co-conspirator is
also liable for the death of the victim.”
The circumstances cited by the RTC clearly show the oneness of

purpose which characterized the acts of appellant and his co-accused
Guillermo in killing the victim which is the very foundation for the finding
of conspiracy.
The effects of conspiracy were discussed by the Supreme Court

(SC) as follows:
“For indeed, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence

that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and
all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as
principals. It is of no moment that not all the accused took part
in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime. Each
is responsible for all the acts of the others done in the furtherance
of the conspiracy.”
(People v Hasan et al., 199 SCRA 421, [1999], citing the case of
People v Obando).
260
With the aforementioned rule, the fact that it was not
appellant who pulled the trigger of the gun which killed the victim is no
longer relevant. This is because as co-conspirator of Guillermo, the
actual shooter in this case, the appellant is criminally liable for the acts of
Guillermo
.
The circumstantial
evidence cited by the RTC
is sufficient to establish
appellant’s liability for the
offense charged.
x-----------------------------------x
The appellant, however, is of the argument that the

circumstances cited by the RTC were not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The appellant argued as follows:
“The record shows that the initial investigation of the police

at the scene of the crime reveals that Joey and Guillermo had a
fistfight; that the latter fatally shot the former; and that Guillermo
alone was implicated in the killing of Joey on March 30, 2008.
In fact, it was only on April 9, 2008,that Eddie Olave

gave a statement to the police that accused-appellant had a
fistfight with the Joey prior to the latter’s shooting by Guillermo.
He further stated that Romeo went inside the house of Guillermo
and both of them came out after two (2) minutes. Thereupon,
Guillermo shot Joey causing the latter’s death and that accused-
appellant did not do anything and both of them disappeared. After
Olave gave his statement, the police did not conduct any further
investigation. Thus, the police were not even able to reconcile
the conflicting accounts of the persons they interviewed. Hence,
the testimony of Olave does not deserve full faith and credence.
xxx xxx xxx
In the present case, Olave testified that accused-appellant

entered the house of Guillermo and came out after two (2)
minutes. It was, however, established that there were many
people inside the house at that time, since it was the graduation party
of accused-appellant’s niece. It is, therefore, possible that the
accused-appellant merely talked with the visitors or relived
himself during the two (2) minute period. Thus, it is speculative
for the trial court to infer that accused-appellant and Guillermo
planned the killing of Joey in that short span of time. Besides, there
was no witness who testified as having seen accused-appellant
261
talked with Guillermo while they were inside the house,
muchless, conceive, plan and deliberate on how tokill Joey.
Speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof

required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring the
innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account.”
The arguments of the appellant fail to persuade. The rules on

evidence provide the basis for conviction by way of circumstantial
evidence, thus;
Rule 133, SEC. 4.Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.—

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In People v Pajares, the SC further explained the rule as follows;
“For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a

conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at
the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent,
and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In other
words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence
can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken
chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.”
It is therefore clear from the foregoing that it is the totality of the

circumstances which should be taken into account in determining the
sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a ruling of
conviction. In this case, such circumstances were provided for by the
prosecution witness Eddie Olave who personally witnessed the events
leading to and the actual killing of Joey Mayor.
The appellant’s arguments attack the sufficiency of Olave’s

testimony. The appreciation of Olave’s testimonial evidence lies, however,
with the sound discretion of the RTC. In the case of Magdiwang Realty
Corporation et al. v The Manila Banking Corporation, the Supreme
Court reiterated the well-entrenched jurisprudential rule, to wit;
“The settled rule is that conclusions and findings of fact of the

trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial
262
court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as
observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.”
The appellant was not able to overturn the key facts established
by Olave through his testimony who withstood the rigors of trial and cross
examination of the opposing counsel.
As regards the fact that the initial investigation only pointed to

Guillermo as the initial suspect, the People sustains the findings of the RTC,
to wit;
“According to PO2 Jonathan Recto, who as earlier pointed

out was the only policeman who gave a substantial piece of
testimonial evidence to bolster the denial of the accused, he
initially believed the people he interviewed at the crime scene that
Romeo Aldueza has nothing to do with the killing of Joey
Mayor but his position was reversed when follow up
investigation conducted by the intelligence operatives of the Lipa City
Police Station unearthed information that the verbal altercation
and his fist fight transpired between Romeo and Joey and not
between Guillermo and Joey as he earlier gathered from
witnesses.
Not only this, PO2 Recto cannot have possibly verified and
counterchecked on the veracity of the informations he earlier
gathered because he did not note down the names of the victims
he interviewed and these witnesses failed to give their
written statements.
Moreover, the reliance of the accused on the entry in the

police blotter that he has no participation in the killing of Joey and
his name was not even mentioned in the blotter to bolster his
denial cannot hold water. Such entries were supplied by the
police investigators Recto and Silva, who changed their theory of
the case later on after follow up investigation by other
members of the Lipa City PNP.”
Anent the appellant’s argument that the RTC merely speculated

that the he and Guillermo talked when he momentarily left the
drinking session, such fact only pertains to one of the circumstances
relied upon by the RTC in convicting appellant. Again, all the other
circumstances were established through the testimony of a direct
observer in the person of Olave and it is the totality of such
circumstances upon which the RTC founded its decision to convict the
appellant.
The other aforequoted circumstances, such as the fistfight between

Joey and the appellant and the fact that the appellant simply stood beside
263
Guillermo when Guillermo shot Joey, are not based on speculation or
surmises.
The appellant, in the same line of reasoning, argued that

conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution
and the RTC should not have inferred conspiracy from the fact that the
appellant did not do anything when Guillermo shot Joey (Appellant’s
Brief, 20 March 2013, page 10-11).
The argument also fails to persuade.
The SC has laid down the rule in determining the existence

of conspiracy in criminal cases, thus;
“Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition

because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. By
its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy. Hence, for
collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that
conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to
commit the crime as only rarely would such agreement be
demonstrable since, in the nature of things, criminal undertakings
are rarely documented by agreements in writing.
But the courts are not without resort in the

determination of its presence. The existence of conspiracy
may be inferred and proved through the acts of the accused, whose
conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime point
to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of
interest. In short, conduct may establish conspiracy.
An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by

their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and
another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the
attainment of the same object, and their acts though
apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative,
indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and
concurrence of sentiments.”
(People v Serrrano, 620 SCRA 327 [2010]).
Conspiracy, therefore, can be inferred from the established facts of

the case. The RTC, in ruling that the appellant conspired with
Guillermo in killing Joey, did not rely solely on the fact that the appellant
did not do anything when Guillermo shot Joey. The RTC also noted the
fact that the appellant and Guillermo are cousins, that appellant and Joey had
a fistfight, and that the appellant and Guillermo went to the table together
after the appellant left the drinking session for two minutes
264
The qualifying
circumstance of treachery
was proven beyond
reasonable doubt by the
prosecution
x-----------------------------------x
Finally, the appellant argued that the RTC made an error in making a
finding that treachery attended the killing of Joey Mayor thereby qualifying
the offense into Murder
The SC explains the qualifying circumstance of treachery as

follows;
“There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in
the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure
the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. The elements of
treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed gives the
victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii)
the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously
adopted.”
Again, the People sustains the ruling of the RTC on this matter,
to wit;
“The victim, Joey Mayor was shot at while seated on a chair

fronting a table. He was not aware of the impending attack as
shown by the fact that he and Romeo were pacified in their fist
fight Joey Mayor returned to his seat to resume the drinking spree.
He was therefore defenseless at that position.”
In this case, the mental state of the victim, who was then already
pacified and has resumed drinking, and the fact that the appellant left
the table then immediately returned with his cousin Guillermo, then already
carrying a gun show that the means employed by them was consciously
adopted to ensure the killing of the victim. These circumstances qualify the
act to the offense of murder.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that

appellant’s appeal be denied for utter lack of merit and the court a quo’s
Decision dated 1 August 2012, finding appellant GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
be AFFIRMED, as co-conspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, the same
being in accordance with the law and evidence.
265
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
Makati City for Manila, May 15, 2013.
Atty. Reeman L. Sarillana

Counsel for Appellee
Copy Furnished:
Hon. Judge Mickey Mouse

Regional Trial Court Branch 38
Makati
Atty. Brian Sabalo

Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee
Unit 203aN Joya Lofts & Towers

Rockwell Drive,
Makati City
266
VI. Appeals
Petition for Review

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City
ABELARDO BANUAG,
Petitioner,
CA-GR SP NO. 1-2015
-versus-
CLIFF CO,
Respondent.
/------------------------------------------------/
PETITION FOR REVIEW

(Rule 42)
PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

alleges:
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for review pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of

Court of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Branch 8,
entitled ABELARDO BANUAG vs. CLIFF CO, which affirmed the decision
of the Municipal Trial Court of Tacloban, in Civil Case No. 2013-11,
dismissing petitioner's complaint for ejectment, on the ground that the RTC,
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, committed in its decision no
errors of law and of facts.
THE PARTIES
267
Petitioner is of legal age and is the plaintiff in said Civil Case No.
2013-11, MTCC BR. 20, Tacloban City, AND the appellant in said Civil
Case No. 2014-12, RTC BR. 8, Tacloban City.
Respondent is also of legal age and is the defendant in Civil Case

No. 2013-11, MTCC BR. 20, Tacloban City, and the appellee in Civil Case
No. 2014-12, RTC Br. 8, Tacloban City. He may be served with legal
process through his cousel, Atty. TMZ, with office address at S and A
Building, Juan Luna St., Tacloban City.
TIMELINESS OF PETITION
On November 20, 2015, petitioner received copy of the decision of

the RTC BR. 8 of Tacloban City in Civil Case No. 2014-12. Certified true
copy of said decision is attached hereto as ANNEX "A".
On November 24, 2015, petitioner filed his motion for

reconsideration of said decision, copy of which motion for reconsideration is
attached hereto as ANNEX "B".
On November 28, 2015, petitioner received a copy of the order of the

trial court denying said motion for reconsideration. Certified true copy of
said order is attached hereto as ANNEX "C".
Within the 15-day period from receipt of said order marked as

ANNEX "C", petitioner is filing the instant petition for review with the
Court of Appeals, as shown from the face of said petition.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED
268
The factual background and proceedings are as follows:
1. Sometime on July 16, 2012, respondent leased a townhouse from

petitioner for a period of seven months (7) commencing on June 1,
2012 and ending on December 31, 2012 with a monthly rental rate of
ten thousand pesos (PHP 10,000.00) to be paid every 10th day of each
month commencing June 2012. The contract of lease is herein
attached as ANNEX "C-1";
2. On November 10, 2012, herein respondent failed to pay his

monthly obligations. A demand letter dated November 14, 2012 was
made by petitioner to demand payment of the same which was
personally received by herein respondent. The same is herein attached
as ANNEX "D";
3. Despite said demand letter, respondent failed to pay the rental rate.
On November 20, 2012, a second demand letter was executed by
herein petitioner which was received personally by respondent on the
same date, said demand letter is herein attached as ANNEX "E";
4. The second demand letter was not heeded by respondent, as the

rental rate for November 2012 remained unpaid;
5. On December 13, 2012, a third demand letter was executed by

herein petitioner demanding payment for the rental rates for
November and December 2012 in the amount of twenty thousand
pesos (PHP 20,000.00), which demand letter is herein attached as
ANNEX "F";
6. Despite repeated demands, both verbal and written, respondent

failed and continues to fail to settle his obligations to herein petitioner,
to the prejudice of the latter;
7. On January 15, 2013, Petitioner filed an ejectment case against the

respondent before the MTCC Br. 20, Tacloban City and was docketed
as Civil Case No. 2013-11, herein attached as ANNEX "G";
8. On September 7, 2013, the MTCC Br. 20 released a judgment

ruling in favor of respondent, which decision is herein attached as
ANNEX "H";
9. On September 20, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration, herein attached as ANNEX "I";
269
10. On December 28, 2013, petitioner received the order of the MTCC
Br. 20 of Tacloban City denying the motion for reconsideration,
herein attached as ANNEX "J";
11. On January 15, 2014, petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 40 of

the 1998 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure to the RTC Br. 8, Tacloban
City and was docketed as Civil Case No. 2014-12, which appeal is
herein attached as ANNEX "K";
12. On March 4, 2014, the RTC Br. 8, Tacloban City released an order
affirming in toto the decision of the lower court, which order is herein
attached as ANNEX "L";
13. On March 15, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration

for the order released March 4, 2014, which motion is herein attached
as ANNEX "M";
14. On April 8, 2014, the RTC BR. 8, Tacloban City denied the
motion for reconsideration citing regularity in the performance of the
duties of the lower court and finding no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the lower court, which order is herein attached as ANNEX
"N";
15. On April 23, 2014, herein petitioner filed this instant petition for
review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether or not a valid lease contract was executed.
2. Whether or not respondent failed to tender payment for November

and December 2012.
3. Whether or not ejectment as against respondent is warranted.
ERRORS COMMITTED BY TRIAL COURT
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE

DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AFFIRMING THE DECISION
OF THE MTCC OF TACLOBAN CITY AS IT FAILED TO
RECOGNIZE THAT PETITIONER WAS IN FACT IN BREACH OF
THE CONTRACT OF LEASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY TWO
MONTHS WORTH OF LEASE AS WELL AS FAILURE TO
VACATE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID LEASE CONTRACT.
270
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IGNORED THE
FACT THAT RESPONDENT IN FACT AND INDEED, SIGNED
VALIDLY, WITHOUT FORCE OR INTIMIDATION, THE
CONTRACT OF LEASE.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT GIVE

COGNIZANCE TO THE DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS PRESENTED
BY PETITIONER CLEARLY SHOWING THE OBLIGATIONS
UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO.
GROUNDS OR REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL
1. The appeal should be granted as it was filed within the reglementary

period of 15 days.
2. The appeal should be granted as there is no plain, speedy and adequate

remedy available to the petitioner.
3. The appeal should be granted as substantial injustice was committed

against the rights of the plaintiff, which rights were ignored by the trial
court.
4. The appeal should be granted as manifest violation of petitioner's

rights to property were not protected.
DISCUSSION
1. On April 8, 2014, herein petitioner received the order to the Regional

Trial Court, Br. 8 of Tacloban City denying the latter's motion for
reconsideration with regards the order of the aforesaid court dated March 4,
201, on April 23, 2014 or 15 days after the receipt of the order denying the
motion for reconsideration. Being that the instant petition was filed within
the parameters of Rule 42 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the
same should be granted due course.
2. Despite diligent efforts made by petitioner to secure all the proper

documents to support his interests and for the ejectment of respondent, the
trial court ruled in favor of the latter, causing great prejudice to the rights of
herein petitioner. Being that no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy is
available, this petition was hereby availed of.
3. The respondent failed to pay the rents due for two months on the
designated dates as agreed upon and signed by the respondent in the contract
271
of lease, and for failure of the respondent to vacate the premises even after
the expiry of the period to occupy the same, a great injustice and injury was
suffered by the petitioner. Income which the petitioner could have invested
in other endeavors was not realized as respondent unjustly refused and
continues to refuse payment of the same.
4. The petitioner's rights to his property were violated when the trial
court ignored the substantial and overwhelming evidence against the
respondent - contrary to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code.
PRAYER

of the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the petitioner
and for the grant of the following:
1. That the petition be given due course;
2. That after due proceedings, judgment be rendered setting

aside the questioned decision and ordering annexes "H" and
"L" hereof be set aside and another one be rendered, holding
respondent liable as follows:
a. Copy reliefs made in the appeal to the RTC;
b. Adjudging respondent liable for damages and attorney's fees

in the total amount of fifty thousand pesos (PHP 50,000.00), PLUS costs.
3. Ordering the respondent to pay the petitioner the following

sums:
a. The amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱

20,000), Philippine Currency, representing
respondent's Outstanding Rental Balance, plus interest
at the rate of two percent (2%) per month as stipulated
in the Contract of Lease;
4. Petitioner likewise prays for other reliefs deemed just and

equitable in the premises are similarly prayed for.
Tacloban City, Philippines. 23rd April 2014.
ATTY. RAPHAEL AARON WILWAYCO

272
Roll No. 111
IBP No. 111 – Lifetime
PTR No. 11 - 1/2/14 Leyte
MCLE Compliance IV No. 1234
Issued on January 12, 2013
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST

FORUM SHOPPING
I, AB, of legal age, after having been duly sworn, deposes and states
that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above stated case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the said complaint for collection

of sum of money with damages;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true
and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of the
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving

the same issues in the any tribunal, agency or body;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or

proceeding is pending before any tribunal, agency or body;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed

before any tribunal, agency or body, I undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Executed this 23rd day of April, 2014 at Tacloban City, Leyte,

Philippines.
ABELARDO BANUAG
Affiant
T.I.N. 111-222-333, Tacloban City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 23rd day of April

2014, affiant exhibiting to me his Tax Identification Card as shown above
below her name as competent evidence of his identity.
273
ATTY. RAPHAEL AARON WILWAYCO
Roll No. 111
IBP No. 111 – Lifetime
PTR No. 11 - 1/2/14 Leyte
MCLE Compliance IV No. 1234
Issued on January 12, 2013
Doc. No. 81;

Page No. 226;
Book No. III;
Series of 2019.
Copy furnished:
Clerk of Court
RTC BR. 8, Tacloban City
Date of Receipt: ______________________
Signature: __________________________
Atty. TMZ
Counsel for Respondent
S and A Building, Juan Luna St.
Tacloban City
Date of Receipt:___________________
Signature:_____________________
274
VII. Pleadings: Criminal Actions
Criminal Complaint

Department of Justice
Office of the City Prosecutor
Cebu
People of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,
- versus - CRIMINAL CASE N0. 23458

FORCIBLE
ABDUCTION
WITH RAPE
JULIO JOSE
234 Asuncio Street,
Labangon, Cebu
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
The undersigned accuses Julio Jose of the crime of Forcible Abduction

with Rape, committed as follows:
That on or about July 9, 2012, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, the said
accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously abduct, take and carry away the undersigned complainant while
coming out of a toilet in her home at 113 Magsaysay, Labango, in said City,
by means of force, violence and intimidation to wit: by pulling her and
forcing her to walk, at the same time pointing at her a gun and threatening to
kill her should she cry out for help, succeeded in bringing her to ride in his
car, where they rode going to the house of the accused’s Uncle Sam where
the said accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her against her will.
275
Contrary to law.
KATERINA MONTENEGRO
Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th day of March

2019, in the City of
Cebu, Philippines, by Katerina Montenegro, the complainant.
Assistant Prosecutor
I hereby certify that an ex-parte investigation in this case has been

conducted by me in accordance with law; that there is reasonable ground to
believe that the offense charged has been committed; and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.
Cebu, March 19, 2019.
Assistant Prosecutor
WITNESSES:
1. Katerina Montenegro, 113 Magsaysay St., Labangon, Cebu.
2. Det. Roger Salas, and Det. Arturo Santos, both of DB Detachment 3,

MPF
276
3. Dr. Lorenzo Clarion, Medico Legal Div., MPF
4. Nathaniel Montenegro, 113 Magsaysay St., Labangon, Cebu.
BAIL RECOMMENDED: THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS

(P300,000.00) ONLY.
277
Investigation Data Form

Department of Justice
National Prosecution service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
_____________
__________________
INVESTIGATION DATA FORM

To be accomplished by the Office
DATE RECEIVED: NPS DOCKET NO:

(Stamped and initialed): March 15, 2017 IV-03-IN -14__-1973_______
Time Received :_12:00 PM_____________Assigned to: SAMUEL ADLAWAN__
Receiving Staff :__KATE SAYSON____________________________ Dated
Assigned :__March 15, 2019____________
To be accomplished by complainant/counsel/Law
enforcer (used back portion if space is not sufficient)
COMPLAINANT/S: Name, Sex, Age & RESPONDENT/S: Name, Sex, Age & Address
Address
_______Joseph Cabaluna____________ ________Benhur Laput____________
_______Male_________________ ________Male_________________________
_______37____ _____ 26
______ Pardo City___________ ________Minglanilla, Cebu___________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
LAW/S VIOLATED: WITNESS/ES Name & Address

________Physical injury_____________ ____________Peter John
Villasencio__________
_______________________________________ ____________Pardo Cebu_____________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
_______________________________________ ______________________________________
DATE & TIME of COMMISSION PLACE OF COMMISSION

_________March 12, 2019___________ ____Pardo Public Market_______________
___________11:00 AM ____________________________________
_________________________
1. Has a similar complaint been filed before any office? YES___ NO___
2. Is this complaint in the nature of counter-charged? YES___ NO___
278
3. Is this complaint related to another cases before this office? YES___ NO___ if yes, indicate
details below.
I.S. NO.__________________________
Handling Prosecutor:__________________________
CERTIFICATION
I CERTIFY under oath, that all the information on this sheet are true and
correct to the best of knowledge and belief, that I have not commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal,
quasi-judicial agency, and that if I should thereafter learn that a similar
criminal action has be filed and/or is pending, I shall report that fact to this
Honorable Office within (5) days from knowledge thereof.
________Joseph Cabaluna______
(Signature over Printed Name)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _15th____ day of

_____________March__________, 2019 in_____Cebu City___________.
_Samuel G. Adlawan, Jr_

(Prosecutor Administering Oath)
*1,2,3, and Certification need not be accomplished for inquest cases.
279
Information

7th Judicial Region
Branch 3
Cebu City

Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 08282
NPS NO.X-06-INV-010A-0037
-Versus-
For: ESTAFA THRU

FALSIFICATION
OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
JOHN DOE,
Accused,
/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
INFORMATION
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II accuses John Doe of

the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document, defined and
penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 and
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on October 31, 2019 in the City of Cebu,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Court, accused John Doe [hereinafter “Accused”]
misrepresenting herself to be Doña Añiqa Macarambon-
Bacsarpa, applied for a loan with South Bank in the
amount of PhP 5,000,000.00. A parcel of land located at
Lahug, Cebu City, covered by Certificate of Title No. T-
178439, in the name of Don Mario Bacsarpa married to
Doña Añiqa Macarambon-Bacsarpa was then offered by
the accused as collateral. The accused did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously falsify the deed of
real estate mortgage and the promissory note
corresponding to the said loan by forging their signatures
when in truth and in fact they did not so participate, to the
damage and prejudice of the complaining bank and the
280
Spouses Bacsarpas in the aforesaid sum of PhP
5,000,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Cebu City, March 15, 2019
AZRIFA A. MAMUTUK
Associate Prosecution Attoryney II
Approved:
JAN N. PEREZ
City Prosecutor
BAILBOND REOCMMENDED: PHP 100,000.00

WITNESSES:
1. Vincy Jane A. Polinar – c/o South Bank, Cebu City

2. And others.
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that as shown by the records the undersigned, an

authorized officer, that there is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime
has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the
accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted
against her and was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
AZRIFA A. MAMUTUK
Associate Prosecution Attorney II
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this July 19, 2010 in the

City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines.
281
VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings
Motion to Quash

Branch 1, Manila

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim Case No.

12345
Brigx Benteotso
Violation of City Ordinance
Defendant,
x------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
COMES NOW the Accused, through counsel, and to this Honorable

Court, respectfully move to quash the information filed by Fiscal of Manila
on the ground that:
THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE CASE.
ARGUMENTS
City Ordinance No. 5 imposes a maximum penalty of six (6) months

imprisonment and p1,000.00 fine which is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the City Court of Manila. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction over the
instant case.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information be quashed

and the Accused be released immediately from detention.
Manila, 29 November 2013
FAITH AGWAYAS
Counsel for the Accused
BP No. 81121: 11/21/2013: Manila
PTR No. 12345: 11/21/2013: Manila
282
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court of Manila
Branch 1
Please set foregoing Motion to Quash for hearing on Friday, December 2
2013 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon as counsel may be heard.
CANDY YU
BP No. 2222: 11/21/2013: Manila
PTR No. 12345: 11/21/2013: Manila
Copy furnished: (3 days before hearing)

City Prosecutor
City Hall, Manila
283
Motion for New Trial
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
State of Philippines Case Number

123
Municipality of Carcar STATE OF
PHILIPPINES
In the Regional
Trial Court
v. of Cebu City
Ramon Dakit
Defendant
Defendant moves the court to set aside the verdict and to grant him a new
trial for the following reasons:
[ ] The verdict is contrary to law; and/or
[ ] The verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence; and/or
[ ] Defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.
Reasons the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial may be:
The Court erred in sustaining objections to questions addressed to a witness.
The Court erred in admitting testimony of the witness.
The Court erred in charging the jury and in refusing to charge the jury as
requested.
Date:March 16,2019 ATTY. JOY ALMARIE D.ALAD-AD

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
Mambaling, Cebu City
284
Notice of Appeal

Branch 45
Oslob, Cebu

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No. 4344
For: Murder
JUAN DE LA CRUZ,
Accused.
x--------------------------------------/
NOTICE OF APPEAL
DEFENDANT by the undersigned counsel, hereby files a notice of

appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in the above-entitled case,
dated 26 February 2019, a copy of which was received by counsel on 15
March 2019, and appeals the same to the Court of Appeals.
Cebu City, 20 March 2019.

Cebu City
285
Petition for Bail

Quezon City, Branch 39

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 00567
- versus - For: Rape
NAKA PIIT,
Accused.
x ------------------------------------------ x
MOTION FOR BAIL
THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves to be allowed bail on

the ground that the prosecution’s evidence of his guilt is not strong. In
support, he respectfully submits the following:
1. The Information alleges that he raped the private complainant on 25
December 2019 at his residence in Quezon City. The prosecution’s own
evidence, however, belies this allegation as: (a) the medical certificate
(attached as ANNEX A to the Information) states that private complainant is
in a virgin state with no physical and outward signs of trauma; (b) the
medical certificate issued by the NBI doctor (attached as ANNEX B to the
Information) after a physical examination of the accused, two (2) days after
the alleged rape, shows that he is suffering from erectile dysfunction and has
been so afflicted for close to five (5) years now and (c) the sworn statements
of the private complainant conflict with and contradict each other such that
her credibility must be placed in doubt.
2. For these reasons, there is no basis to conclude that the accused raped
the private complainant as there is less than circumstantial evidence of this
fact. He is, thus, entitled to bail as a matter of right.
286
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused be granted: (1)
a bail hearing, during which the prosecution should be directed to present its
evidence to show the strength of its evidence of the accused’s guilt, and (2)
thereafter, grant the accused reasonable bail.
Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.
Quezon City; 15 March 2019.

Quezon City
QUEZON CITY) S.S.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR

NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, NAKA PIIT, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, and resident of

Quezon City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do
hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the accused-applicant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing application for
probation and have read the allegations contained therein;
3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my
own knowledge and authentic records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein;
5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency where the
original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein
have been filed;
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the
foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm.
287
th
15 day of March 2019, Quezon City.
NAKA PIIT
Accused-Applicant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day ofMarch,

2019, in the City of Quezon, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License
No. 12345 issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 8, 2019 at
the City of Quezon.

Notary Public
Until 12-31-19
Roll No. 222222
IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15
PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

MA’AM/SIR:
Greetings!
Please take notice that on March 22, 2019 at 8:30 in the morning or
upon the approval of the Honorable Court the instant Petition shall be heard.
288
Thank you.
ATTY. RAZZEL APLACADOR

Counsel for Defendant
Laguna Street, Quezon City
Copy furnished through personal service:

289
Application of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witness
APPLICATION FOR COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE

ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE

OF A WITNESS IN A RAPE CASE
The Clerk of Regional Trial Court Mr. Kyle Kurver

Sir, Please cause a subpoena to be issued to the following persons in
order that they may appear to testify in behalf of the defendant in the trial of
this case which shall takes place before this court on the 16th of March 2019
at 10:00AM
Stephen Curry A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City

Kyle Kuzma Lahug, Cebu City
Done this 16th day of March 2019
STEVE KERR
Attorney for the Defendant
290

LEGAL FORMS - Class Compilation (LLB3 630-830)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

LEGAL FORMS - Class Compilation (LLB3 630-830)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

University of the Visayas

GULLAS LAW SCHOOL

BASIC LEGAL FORM

I. Notarial Certificates ............................................................................. 6

JUDICIAL FORMS AND PLEADINGS

I. Captions and Titles ............................................................................. 88

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

SUBSCRIBED AND SOWN to before me, in the City of Cebu this

123456 issued by the LTO on January 2, 2000 at Cebu City.

ATTY. KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA

Doc No. 01;

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in Minglanilla, Cebu, this May 2,

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

ATTY. SAMUEL ADLAWAN

Doc No. 02;

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for Quezon City, personally appeared

This Acknowledgment pertains to an integrally complete Deed of

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

ATTY. DANE PAULINE C. ADORA

Doc No. 03;

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF

I, Hazel L. Boromeo, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

3. That I further certify that there is no pending action or proceeding

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of

ATTY. FAITH B. AGWAYAS

I, JOHAN MARK S. MUSA, of legal age, Filipino, single and a

1. I am a duly licensed driver in accordance with pertinent Land

2. Sometime in February 2019, said driver's license was misplaced and

5. As such, I am executing this Affidavit of Loss to attest to the truth of the

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16 th

Johan Mark S. Musa

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 16th

ATTY. JOY ALMARIE D. ALAD-AD

Book No. III; 14

Republic of the Philippines)

AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF NAME

I, RONALDO NAVARRETE, of legal age, single and with address

1. THAT my RONALDO NAVARRETE as stated and registered in my

2. THAT since childhood, my friends and acquaintances call me

3. THAT the name RONALDO NAVARRETE be corrected and change to

4. THAT I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 22nd

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

ATTY. RIOJE M. ALCALDE

Republic of the Philippines)

AFFIDAVIT FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

I, RONIE BANAG, of legal age and a resident of the City of Cebu,

1. That I am the Plaintiff in the case of Banag vs. Calumpang;

FURTHER AFFIANT SAVETH NAUGHT.

IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of March,

Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador

Republic of the Philippines

DRA. MILA D KUNIS,

I, Dra. Mila D Kunis, single, Filipino, and residing at 1261 A.

This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove the following:

A.) All the allegations in the complaint including all

Q: Do you know the defendant Tomas O Sosmenia?

A: Yes, he is the lessee that is occupying my property in a studio type unit

A: Tomas O Sosmenia leased my property for a period of 1 year from

Q: Did he comply with his obligations in paying the rentals?