REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH LXXX
MUNTINLUPA CITY
HOLIDAY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
INC., rep. By its Vice President for
Corporate Affairs, SERVILLANO R. ZABAL,
Plaintiff/s.
-versus-

Civil Case No. 5809

For: EJECTMENT WITH
DAMAGES

MARINA BANGOY,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------x

MOTION TO ADMIT HERETO ATTACHED POSITION PAPER

DEFENDANTS, thru the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully submit its Position Paper and states that:
Last October 20, 2005 the parties were required to submit its Position
Paper, however due to heavy case load,

saddled by almost daily Court

appearance, defendant was not able to file the required Position Paper as
mandated by the Honorable Court, thus this Motion.

POSITION PAPER
In their Position Paper dated December 12, 2005 in page 2 thereof par.
3 and 4 and we quote:
However, the defendant despite receipt of the plaintiffs
demand letter dated November 8, 2004, deliberately failed and
refused to vacate the subject premises to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff. Copy of the Demand Letter is hereto attached
as Annex C
On February 21, 2005, the title to the subject property
Was issued in the name of the plaintiff under Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 14745 thereby rendering insignificant the contention
of the defendant that the plaintiff has no right of possession over
the property subject matter of this case. Copy of the Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 14745 is hereto attached as Annex D ;

1.
The Defendant denies paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs complaint for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations thereof.

2.

The Defendants admits paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs complaint.

3.
The Defendants specifically denies paragraph 3 of the plaintiffs
complaint. The truth of the matter was that the premises subject matter of
this ejectment suit is still registered in the name of the former owner FAR
EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (now BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS (BPI) who was not joined as party plaintiff. It must be stressed
that registration is the operative act that vest ownership over real property.
4.
The Defendants specifically denies paragraph 4 and 5 of the
plaintiffs complaint. The truth of the matter was that the plaintiff does not
have any right of possession over the property subject matter of this case
as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 425 is still registered to its former
owner. Bare allegations of ownership without any proof will not ripen to
ownership. Our system of registration of real property mandates that
ownership over real property must be recorded before the proper Register
of Deeds where the land is located.
5.
The defendant deny paragraph 6 of the plaintiffs complaint for lack
of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations thereof.

Page 2

6.
The Defendant herby denies paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and of the
plaintiffs complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations thereof. Besides, plaintiff has no valid claim or
legitimate claim against the defendant. It is the plaintiffs fault in bringing this
baseless suit and his alleged damages is due to his own fault.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 80
MUNTINLUPA CITY
PRO NATURE LENDING,
Plaintiff.
-versus-

Civil Case No. 5999

FELINDA MOJE,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTER CLAIM
DEFENDANT, by counsel unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully avers, that:
1.

Defendant denies paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs

complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations thereof.
2.

Defendant admits paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs complaint

only as to her personal identity .

3.

Defendant partially admits the allegation in paragraph 3

only that she proceeded with the plaintiffs office but denies the rest
for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the allegations thereof.
4.

Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4 and 5 of

the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations thereof.

Page 2
5.

Defendant

admits the allegation in paragraph 6 of the

plaintiffs complaint, but denies the rest thereof for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof.
6.

Defendant denies paragraph 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of

the plaintiffs

complaint

for lack of knowledge

or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof;

7.

Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 13 of the

Complaint.
8.

Defendant denies paragraph 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of

the plaintiffs

complaint

for lack of knowledge

or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof

subject to defendant allegations as discussed in her Special and/or
Affirmative Defenses.

BY WAY OF SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant incorporates the foregoing paragraphs insofar
as they are pertinent and relevant hereto and further states:
9.

The agreements/stipulations mentioned in the Promissory

Note are contract of adhesions and clearly iniquitous. Defendant

were merely required to sign the agreements without informing them
of the actual computation of the charges to be imposes.

That

subsequently, defendants noticed that plaintiff has been inserting

hidden charges to the amount of the obligation which was not
disclosed to them. Plaintiff did not provide defendants specific and
concrete manner of computing the charges it imposed upon them in
clear violation of Republic Act 3765 or the Truth in Lending Act on the

Page 3

Disclosure Statement of Loan/Credit Transaction, conformably, the

stipulations are void ab initio for being contrary to law.
AND BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
10.

That by reason of the unjustified filing of this case by the

plaintiff, defendant unnecessarily incurred litigation expenses and had

suffered moral damages in the form of mental anguish, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social
humiliation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered in favor of the defendant to wit:

1. Dismissing the plaintiffs Complaint for utter lack of merit.

2. Awarding to defendant moral damages in the amount of
Php 50, 000.00 to avoid such unjustified and wanton acts
of the plaintiff.
3. Awarding to defendant exemplary damages in the amount
of Php 50, 000.00 to avoid such unjustified and wanton
acts of the plaintiff.
4. Costs of suit / litigation expenses.
Other relief/s under the premises are likewise prayed.
City of Muntinlupa, September 12, 2005.

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Muntinlupa District Office
Suite 205 & 206 Fresnedi Bldg.,
National Rd., Putatan. Muntinlupa
City

Page 4
LUIS C. BUCAYON II
Public Attorney II
Roll No. 43793
IBP No. 648637 PPLM Chapter
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, under oath hereby state and depose:
1. That I am one the defendant in the above-entitled case.
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Answer.
3. That Ihave read and understood the contents thereof and
all are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and information.
FELINDA F. MOJE
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of

September 2005 in Muntinlupa, affiant exhibited to me her Community
Tax Certificate No. ____________issued at Muntinlupa City on
September __, 2005

Notary Public
Doc. No. ___;
Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2005.
Copy furnished:
Atty. PATRICIO L. BONCAYAO JR
Counsel for Plaintiffs
2Fl. Ancestry Bldg., Rotonda, Alabang Muntinlupa City

Page 5

COMPLIANCE
(With Sections 2, 4, 5, and 7, Rule 13
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
and
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, same Rule 13)
Undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully states that copies of this
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM was served by registered
mail to the counsel for the plaintiff at his address in the plaintiffs
Complaint.
By depositing copies thereof on SEPTEMBER __, 2005 in the
post office of Muntinlupa City, as evidenced by Registry Receipts No.
______________ hereto attached and indicated after the name of the
addressee and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to
the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

The mode of service by registered mail, instead of personal

service was resorted to because of lack of personnel to effect
personal service thereof.

LUIS C. BUCAYON II

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch LXXX
MUNTINLUPA CITY
VICTORINO LUDWIG CRUZ,
Plaintyiff,
-versusAVELINO CONSULTA,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------x

Civil Case No. 5761

For: Ejectment

ANSWER W/ COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers, that:
1. The defendant admits paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs complaint in so far
as defendants personal circumstances and denies plaintiffs personal
circumstances for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations thereof.
2. The defendant denies paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs complaint for the
said lot wherein the house of the defendant was erected is under the
transmission lines of the National Power Corporation and in so far as the
defendant is concern is owned by the government a public land.
3. The defendant denies paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaintiffs complaint for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
thereof. The truth of the matter is that pleaded in the special and affirmative
defenses.
4. The defendant denies paragraph 5 of the plaintiffs complaint for lack of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations thereof. The plaintiff
never talked to the defendant sometime in the month of July of this year.
5. The defendant denies paragraph 6 and 7 of the plaintiffs complaint for
the defendant did not received any demand letter from the plaintiff and there is
no contract of lease between plaintiff and defendant. The truth of the matter is
that pleaded in the special and affirmative defenses.
6. The defendant denies paragraph 8 and 9 of the plaintiffs complaint for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
thereof. Besides, it was the plaintiffs fault of filing this baseless and unjustified
action.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant incorporates by way of reference all the foregoing averments
and by way of special and affirmative defenses, further alleges, that:
8. The defendants house was erected on the subject lot under the
transmission lines of the National Power Corporation since sometime in 1986 for
no one owns and claims the said property since it is along the path of the tower
and transmission lines of the said entity. Then by the year 1987 a certain Aling Fe
Noble claims to have right over the property and demanded for payment for the
use of the subject lot wherein defendant by force of circumstances acceded to
pay a minimal rental to the former. Thereafter during the year of 1987 ensuing
years, Aling Fe Noble regularly collect the payment for the use of the said lot until
sometime in the year of 1999 the said Aling Fe Noble no longer appeared to
collect payments. Then the defendant heard news that Aling Fe Noble had
already died and no one appeared to claim any right over the subject lot.
9. It is not true that defendant lease the subject lot to the plaintiff and he
never paid to the plaintiff any fixed monthly rental since at the incessant of the
defendants occupation of the subject lot, he never knew nor see the plaintiff. In
fact, plaintiff never knew the exact date how and when defendant came into
possession of the lot as this is not stated in his complaint. There is no contract
whatsoever between plaintiff and defendant that the former will no longer collect
any rentals to the latter under the express condition that the property will be
return to plaintiff if he needed it. There is no gratuitous contract of lease that
exists between plaintiff and defendant.

10. Hence, the plaintiff cannot terminate a contract that is non-existent

since there is no contract of lease so to speak between defendant and plaintiff.
Likewise, defendant did not receive any demand letter or any formal demand
from the plaintiff.
11. The defendant came to know only the plaintiff sometime this October
2004 after the filing of the instant case when the latter suddenly appeared before
the defendant claiming ownership over the property with instruction to the
defendant to leave the property since he needs the same.
12. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff has no cause and/or lacks cause of
action against the defendant.
13. Further, for the reason that the subject lot wherein the house of the
defendant is erected is along the path of the tower and transmission lines of the
National Power Corporation and the same lot is own by the government, the
more reason that plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant. Likewise,
since there is no contract of lease or lessor and lessee relationship between the
defendant and plaintiff, the latter has no right of action against the former.
COUNTERCLAIM
That by reason of the unjustified filing of this case by the plaintiff, defendant
unnecessarily incurred litigation expenses and had suffered moral damages in
the form of mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings and social humiliation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor
of the defendant to wit:

4. Dismissing the plaintiffs Complaint.

5. Awarding to the defendant moral and exemplary damages in the
amount P100, 000.00 to avoid such unjustified and wanton acts of
the plaintiff.

6. Costs of suit / litigation expenses.

Other relief/s under the premises are likewise prayed.
November 26, 2004, Muntinlupa, Philippines.
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Muntinlupa District Office
Suite 205 & 206 Fresnedi Bldg.,
National Rd., Putatan. Muntinlupa City
By:
LEONCIO D. SUAREZ, JR.
Public Attorney II

Roll No. 44185

IBP Lifetime No. 04860 / 5-19-03

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, under oath hereby state and depose:

7. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case.

8. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer.
9. That we have read and understood the contents thereof and all are
true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and
information.
AVELINO CONSULTA
Defendant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of June 2004 in
Muntinlupa, affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate No.
___________ issued at Muntinlupa on ________________, 2004.

Notary Public
Doc. No. ___;
Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2004.

Copy furnished:
Atty. Leopoldo J. Valcarcel, Jr.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Sibulo Subdivision II
San Pedro, Laguna 4023

COMPLIANCE
(With Sections 2, 4, 5, and 7, Rule 13
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
and
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, same Rule 13)
Undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully states that copies of this
pleading was served by registered mail to:
Atty. Leopoldo J. Valcarcel, Jr.
Sibulo Subdivision II
San Pedro, Laguna
By depositing copies thereof on November ___, 2004 in the post office of
Muntinlupa City, as evidenced by Registry Receipts No. ______________ hereto

attached and indicated after the name of the addressee and with instruction to
the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.
The mode of service by registered mail, instead of personal service was
resorted to because of lack of personnel to effect personal service thereof.
LEONCIO D. SUAREZ, JR.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 80
CITY OF MUNTINLUPA

ADVANCE CREDIT CORP.,

Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 5901

Sps. LIGAYA PORTON and

NILO PORTON,
Defendants.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
OMNIBUS MOTION:
1.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

( Order dated May 12, 2005 )

2.

TO ADMIT ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANTS Spouses Porton, by counsel unto this Honorable Court, in

support of its Motion, states:
In an Order of this court dated May 12, 2005, the