Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental

6
th
Judicial Region
Branch 51 - Bacolod City
-oOo-
NOVIE E. DUNLAO
Petitioner
-!ersus- C"#"$ C%&' NO()*-+),6
JAYPEE S. AMOR
Respondent(
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REPLY
(to Answer dated August 15, 2014)
CO.'& NO/ P$%"NT"00 NO#"' '( 12N$%O through
the undersigned counsel unto this 3onorable Court 4ost
respectfully 4anifests and a!ers5
1( $ast %ugust 15 +)1* the Plaintiff through counsel
recei!ed a copy of the %ns6er 6ith &pecial and %ffir4ati!e
1efenses of the 1efendant J%7P'' &( %.OR dated %ugust
15 +)1*8
+( The 1efendant9s %ns6er to the #erified Co4plaint
contained the follo6ing denials5
a( That his place of residence has no6 changed
fro4 #illa &an %gustin Brgy 'stefania Bacolod City to
:1;,6 $ucarno &treet 3el!etia 3eights &ubdi!ision
Bacolod City8
b( &pecific denial of paragraphs ; * 5 6 , 1)
11 1+ 1; 15 and 16 of the #erified Petition for
allegedly containing inaccurate state4ents of facts8
c( &pecific denial of paragraph < for being
allegedly bereft of factual and legal basis e-cept for the
birth of their child 3%"$'7 %N1R'% 12N%$O %.OR on
October * +)1+8
e( &pecific denial of paragraph 1* the truth
allegedly being that the Respondent left his %T. Card
6ith the Petitioner to enable hi4 to send four thousand
pesos =Php *)))())> each 4onth for the support of
the child8
g( &pecifically denial of paragraphs 1, ? +1 for
allegedly being false inaccurate and for lac@ of
sufficient @no6ledge as to the truth and !eracity
thereof e-cept for the personal circu4stances of the
parties 6ho ha!e re4ained ci!il to each other8
h( &pecific denial of paragraph +; for lac@ of
sufficient @no6ledge as to the truth and !eracity8
REPLY TO ANSWER
;( By 6ay of this Reply Petitioner rebuts and denies the
follo6ing allegations of Respondent in his %ns6er5
a( "n paragraph 16 the Respondent alleged that
he had an agree4ent 6ith the Petitioner that he 6ould
send through his e4ploy4ent agency an a4ount of
0our Thousand Pesos =Php *)))())> by 6ay of deposit
in his BP" %T. Card for the support of their child(
However, the Petitioner NEVER AGREED TO SUH
AN AMOUNT with the Re!"on#ent(
b( "n paragraph 1, not6ithstanding the falsity
of the Respondent9s allegation of the e-istence of an
agree4ent the Respondent alleged that fro4 .arch
+)1; up until %ugust +)1; he 6as able to send the
AagreedB a4ount to the Petitioner( 3o6e!er in truth
and in fact the Petitioner only recei!ed 0our Thousand
Pesos =Php *)))())> on .ay +)1; and another 0our
Thousand Pesos =Php *)))())> on June +)1;( Thus
!he #i# not re$eive %n& !'""ort (or the )ivin*
e+"en!e! o( their $hi)# (or the ,onth! o( M%r$h,
A"ri), J')& %n# A'*'!t in the &e%r -./08
c( &till under paragraph 1, contrary to the
Respondent9s allegation he 6as not able to personally
deli!er to the Petitioner the a4ount of 0our Thousand
Pesos =Php *)))())> on &epte4ber +)1; for the said
2
a4ount 6as deposited to the BP" %ccount he left 6ith
the Petitioner8
d( "n paragraph 1< 6hen their child 6as
hospitaliCed on %ugust +)1; the Respondent alleged
that his 4other A6anted to hand o!er Three Thousand
Pesos =Php ;)))())>B to defray the e-penses of the
child9s hospitaliCation by 6hich the Petitioner declined
to recei!e( "n truth and in fact Respondent9s 4other
only ca4e on the second day of the child9s
hospitaliCation 6here she brought so4e snac@s and
*%ve the Petitioner the %,o'nt o( on)& One
Tho'!%n# Pe!o! 1Ph" /,......2, WITHOUT ANY
O33ER O3 OTHER 3INANIAL ASSISTANE for the
reason that she did not ha!e sufficient 4oney at hand
and 6as hoping for the Petitioner9s @ind consideration8
e( 2nder paragraph 1D Respondent 6as able to
gi!e their daughter an a4ount of Ten Thousand Pesos
=Php 1))))())> for her birthday and the Petitioner 6as
able to recei!e 0our Thousand Pesos =Php *)))())> for
the 4onth of October +)1;( 3o6e!er this does not
negate the fact that the *rowin* nee#! o( their $hi)#
re4'ire! $on!t%nt %n# $ontin'o'! !'""ort (ro,
the Re!"on#ent %n# !'$h $%nnot 5e ,et i( the
!'""ort wo')# %rrive %t % ver& inter,ittent
,%nner %! it #oe! (or the )on*e!t ti,e8
f( The Respondent alleged under paragraph +1
that he sought for the Petitioner9s account nu4ber in
order to include the sa4e in the allot4ent details yet
the latter ga!e no infor4ation 6hatsoe!er( 7et contrary
to such allegation the Petitioner responded that she
6ill open up a ban@ account through 6hich the
pro4ised support 6ill be coursed through( The
Petitioner w%! %5)e to o"en % 6PI %$$o'nt (or
!'$h "'r"o!e %n# !ent the !%i# %$$o'nt n',5er
to the Re!"on#ent vi% te+t ,e!!%*e (or whi$h the
Re!"on#ent ,%#e no re!"on!e8
g( "n paragraph ++ the Respondent alleged that
fro4 the ti4e he gained e4ploy4ent he 6ould send
the support for their child through his 4other Ae!ery
4onth to be gi!en to the Petitioner as soon as his
salary and allot4ent is released and sent by his
3
agencyB yet for the 4onth of June and July +)1* the
Petitioner never re$eive# %n& %,o'nt (ro, the
Re!"on#ent7! ,other nor w%! !he ever $ont%$te#
nor vi!ite# 5& the !%,e 6ithin the said 4onths8
h( Contrary to his 6ord under paragraph +5 the
Respondent failed to pro!ide for the support 6hich their
child needed for her day to day e-penses8
i( "t 6as only on %ugust +)1* as alleged in
paragraph +6 that an a4ount of 0i!e Thousand Pesos
=Php 5)))())> 6as gi!en to the Petitioner through the
Petitioner9s counsel for the support of their child( "t is
!ery unfortunate that it had to ta@e the Petitioner a
case for4ally filed in court for the Respondent to send
the basic support his !ery o6n child 6ho4 he begot
6ith the Petitioner needed8
E( $astly under paragraph +, the Respondent
argues that the 3on( Court should gi!e scant
consideration for the a4ount of indebtedness the
Petitioner see@s to reco!er as she incurred the sa4e
due to the necessary e-penses she had to shell out and
borro6 fro4 other indi!iduals specifically her sister for
the needs of their child( 3o6e!er it is clearly stated
under %rticles +)6 and +), of the 0a4ily Code to 6it5
Article 206. When without the
knowledge of the person obliged to give
support, it is given by a stranger, the
latter shall have a right to claim the
same from the former, unless it appears
that he gave it without any intention of being
reimbursed.
Article 20. !hen the person obliged
to support another un"ustly refuses or fails to
give support when urgently needed by the
latter, any third person may furnish
support to the needy individual with a
right of reimbursement from the person
obliged to give support. #his Arti$le shall
apply parti$ularly when the father or mother
of a $hild under the age of ma"ority un"ustly
4
refuses to support or fails to give support to
the $hild when urgently needed.
Thus contrary to the a!er4ent of the Respondent
that the indebtedness 6as incurred 6ithout his
authoriCation the afore4entioned articles clearly states
that the said third persons ha!e a right to
rei4burse4ent fro4 hi4 6ho is obliged by la6 to
render support to his o6n child regardless of his
@no6ledge of the sa4e(
*( .oreo!er the Petitioner hereby adopts and repleads
the allegations e4bodied in her #erified Petition sub4itted
before this 3onorable Court on %pril 11 +)1*8
5( To reiterate ho6e!er so4e !ery i4portant factual
and legal 4atters sho6ing the Plaintiff9s clear and
indubitable right to file this case the follo6ing points are re-
asserted5
a( The Respondent being gainfully e4ployed
and being the father of the child 6ho4 the
Petitioner see@s to ha!e continuous support is
obliged under the la6 to gi!e support under the
0a4ily Code especially under %rticle 1D5(
Article !"#. %ub"e$t to the
provisions of the su$$eeding arti$les,
the following are obliged to support
ea$h other to the who e&tent set for in
the pre$eding arti$le'
&&& &&& &&&
(4) (arents and their illegitimate
$hildren )*+
&&& &&& &&&
b( The Respondent 4ust share 6ith the
burden the Petitioner has to carry in supporting
for the needs of their child as 4andated by %rticle
+))5
Article 200. !hen the obligation
to give support falls upon two or more
persons, the payment of the same shall
5
be divided between them in proportion
to the resour$es of ea$h.
&&& &&& &&&
c( By reason of the Respondent9s failure to
pro!ide for the basic support necessary for the
child9s 6elfare the Petitioner incurred a total debt
of One 3u4ber T6o Thousand Pesos =Php
1)+)))())> for the needs of the child in the
&P%N O0 OCTOB'R +)1+ 2P 2NT"$ 0'BR2%R7
+)1* OR &"FT''N .ONT3& "N TOT%$( This said
a4ount can be di!ided to a total of &i- Thousand
Three 3undred &e!enty 0i!e Pesos =Php
6;,5())> per 4onth 6hich includes not only the
food and 4il@ of the child but also the diapers
clothing 4edication and other e-penses that it
needs for sustenance( %s enunciated under %rticle
+)65
Article 206. When without the
knowledge of the person obliged to
give support, it is given by a
stranger, the latter shall have a
right to claim the same from the
former, unless it appears that he gave
it without any intention of being
reimbursed.
d( There has been an e-tensi!e effort on the
part of the Petitioner to as@ ti4e and again for
the continuous support of the Respondent for
their child(
,( $est 6e forget through the filing of the %ns6er the
1efendant is dee4ed to ha!e sub4itted hi4self to the
Eurisdiction of this 3onorable Court not6ithstanding his
pre!ious plea in his .otion to 1is4iss dated GGGGGGGG
specifically on the ground of lac@ of Eurisdiction o!er his
person8
<( The period 6ithin 6hich the Rules of Court under
Rule 11 only allo6s an %ns6er to be filed is 6ithin fifteen
=15> days after ser!ice of su44ons( "t is to be re4e4bered
that for this instant case the su44ons 6as ser!ed by the
6
sheriff on Respondent last GGGGGGGGGGGGGG( 3o6e!er in
lieu of an %ns6er he opted to file a .otion to 1is4iss8
D( Thus not6ithstanding the subseHuent sub4ission of
the %ns6er it 4ust not be forgotten that 6hen a 4otion to
dis4iss is filed the 4aterial allegations of the co4plaint are
dee4ed to be hypothetically ad4itted( This hypothetical
ad4ission e-tends not only fro4 the rele!ant and 4aterial
facts 6ell pleaded in the co4plaint but also to the
inferences that 4ay be fairly deduced fro4 the4( =The
.unicipality of 3agonoy Bulacan et al( !s( 3on &i4eon
1u4du4 Jr( I(R( No( 16<+<D .arch ++ +)1)>
PRAYER
/3'R'0OR' PR'."&'& CON&"1'R'1 Plaintiff 4ost
respectfully reiterates her prayer in the #erified Petition filed
last GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG8
Other reliefs and re4edies Eust and proper under the
pre4ises are li@e6ise 4ost respectfully prayed for(
.ost respectfully sub4itted this GGG %ugust +)1* in
Bacolod City(
LYNDON P. A8A
,ounsel for the (laintiff
Roll of %ttorneys No( ;66+1
.C$' CO.P( "#-)))1++, )+-)D-11
"BP OR No( D+D+<)8 )1-)+-1*
PTR No( 5**1;*18 )1-)+-1*
+
nd
Iate %nne- %cacia Cor-Birch Roads
#illa %ngela &ubd( Brgy( #illa4onte Bacolod City 61))
Tel(J 0a- No( =);*> *;+-)516J ,)<,<,+
7
OPY 3URNISHED9
ATTY. AUDREY VIOLET A. LASON
2nit * K 5 &t( 0rancis Center
&ingcang %raneta &treets Bacolod City
RR No( GGGGGGGGGGG
%ugust GGG +)1*
E:PLANATION

Copy of the foregoing Reply 6as furnished to the other
parties by 6ay of registered 4ail only and not by personal
ser!ice by reason of lac@ of personnel to effect personal
for4 of ser!ice(
LYNDON P. A8A
Reply to %ns6er 1unlaoJalluserJilang
8