Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region
Puerto Princesa City
Palawan
ROMEO TAN,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 1438

For: Revival of Judgment

ALFREDO ABAD, ET.AL.,

Defendants.
x------------------------------x

COMMENT/ OPOSITION
TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE)

PLAINTIFFS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully submit their comment/ opposition to ex-parte motion
for reconsideration of judgment, vis:
1.

On August 31, 2016, the plaintiff received a copy of a

Motion for Reconsideration with notice of entry of appearance

with the above entitled case dated August 31, 2016.

2.

In its pleading, the said defendants alleged that, and

we quote:
"In the interest of justice, this Honorable
Court should give merit to the motion
filed by the defendants. The defendants,
with their concern to appeal to the
Honorable Court for reconsideration of
Judgement and Nullify the approved
Compromise Agreement related to their
Civil Case No. 1438, and due to financial
constraints to pay for service of a legal
counsel,

they,

the

defendants,

have

resorted to ask help of Mr. Pantaleon C.

Morrallos,
National
Assembly

Sr.,

ANUPA

Urban

Poor

Inc.)

(Chairman

(Alliance

Organizations

National

for

of

Chairman

brevity)

who

wholeheartedly offered his service in

hope of helping the defendants, who
have no means (at least at that time) to
get a legal counsel as mentioned earlier.
With

all

due

respect

to

Chairman

Morallos and because of the limited time

the defendants have, he prepared the
Ex-Parte Motion right away and without
delay, in hope to save the defendants
from being homeless should they fail to
appeal to the Honorable Court. It is not
the intention of the Chairman Morallos to
omit the Notice of Hearing. At his age of
more than 70 years, again with all due

respect to Chairman Morallos, he might

have overlooked such (notice of hearing)
but his act clearly shows his wilingness
to help the defendants."
3.

In response to the above pleading as submitted by the

defendants to the Honorable Court they likewise failed to offer a

sufficient explanation for defying the Rules that in their favor on
the sole ground that Rules may be liberally applied where the
interest of substantial justice will be served. It should be
emphasized that Rules of procedure are essential to the proper,
efficient and orderly dispensation of justice. Such rules are
applied in a manner that will help secure and not defeat justice.
(Five Star Marketing Co et al., vs. James Booc GR No. 143331
October 5, 2007)
4.

They further alleged that, the to those who signed the

Second "Kasunduan", their consent were obtained through fraud

and deception.
5.

Also,

they

prayed

to

revisit

the

decision

dated

December 9, 2015 of the Honorable Court based on Compromised

Agreement as such agreements were tainted with technicalities
coupled with treachery, to some other defendants.
6.

perusal

of

the

aforesaid

further

pleadings

as

submitted by the defendants on the Honorable Court will show

that it is

too plain for argument. Under the Civil Code Article

1388 states that "there is fraud when through insidious words or

machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is

induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would

not have agreed to."
In addition, under Article 1344 of the same Code
provides that "In order that fraud may make a contract voidable,
it should be serious and should not have been employed by both
contracting parties." as citation in the case of ECE Realty and
Development

Inc.

vs

Rachel

G.

Mandap

GR

No.196182,

September 1, 2014, as we to wit:

Jurisprudence has shown that in order
to constitute fraud that provides basis
to annul contracts, it must fulfill two
conditions. First, the fraud must be dolo
causanteor

it

must

be

fraud

in

obtaining the consent of the party.

(Tankeh v. Development Bank of the
Philippines,

G.R.

No.

171428,

November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 19, 50).

This is referred to as causal fraud. The
deceit must be serious. The fraud is
serious when it is sufficient to impress,
or to lead an ordinarily prudent person
into error; that which cannot deceive a
prudent person cannot be a ground for
nullity. (Viloria v. Continental Airlines,
Inc.,G.R.

No.

188288,

January

16,

2012, 663 SCRA 57, 81 citing Sierra v.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90270, July
24, 1992, 211 SCRA 785, 793.). The
circumstances of each case should be
considered, taking into account the
personal conditions of the victim.

Second, the fraud must be proven

by clear and convincing evidence
and not merely by a preponderance
thereof. (Tankeh v. Development Bank
of the Philippines, supranote 16, at 51;
Viloria v. Continental Airlines, supra
note

17).

(underscoring

and

underlining supplied)
7.

Be as it may, the motion for reconsideration filed by

the defendants herein and the introduction of the fraud issue

should be considered moot and academic.
8.

To reiterate from our previous comment / opposition,

the instant case has already become final and executory as

shown by an entry of judgment which was duly executed by Ma.
Gracia C. Avancena, Clerk of Court IV.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the foregoing comment/
opposition to the motion for reconsideration with notice of entry
of appearance be NOTED and, thereafter, the prayers of the
plaintiff to (a) Set aside the Special Order of Demolition and the
two orders both dated August 8, 2016; (b) Declare the Second
"Kasunduan" as ineffective to the other defendants; (c) Declare
the First "Kasunduan" executed by Antonio Lagrada as void for
lack of proper authorization from the other defendants and (d) To

Revisit the decision dated December 9, 2015 of this Honorable

Court, after due notice and hearing, based on Compromised
Agreement as such agreement were tainted with technicalities
and coupled with treachery, to some other defendants BE GIVEN
DUE COURSE FOR UTTER LACK OF MERIT.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
4th Day of September 2016, Bacoor City for Puerto Princesa
City.
CAREN KAY BONGALOS-ADOLFO
Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 805 City & Land Mega Plaza
ADB Avenue cor Garnet Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
IBP Lifetime No. 1234
Roll No. 1234
PTR No. 1234556