Office of The City Prosecutor: Complainant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Paranaque City
JOSE BARTOLAY,
Complainant,

IS NO. XV-12-INV-19-J-2876
For: Grave Coercion, Theft, Harrassment,
Illegal Padlock of Premises.
-versus –
MARKER CATBAGAN,
ROSELYN MAGBANUA CATBAGAN and
JOSELYN BARTOLAY.
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
THE UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENTS respectfully state:
1. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the

Sinumpaang Salaysay claiming ownership of the house (Units A, B, C)
and lot located at 1503 Pajero Street, Brgy. Culdesac, Paranaque City
because the land is a government property and the entire house is
owned by Evelyn Catbagan, the deceased mother of respondent Marker
Catbagan, who died on February 23, 2019. As a matter of fact, Evelyn
Catbagan and family have been in actual and uninterrupted possession
of the subject lot since 1980. Sometime in 1980, plaintiff constructed a
house on the aforementioned lot located at No. 365, now known as No.
1503 Pajero St. Sto Nino Culdesac, Sun Valley, Paranaque City. As the
possessor of the lot and owner of the entire house, the homeowners’
association known as Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun Valley Neighborhood
Association, Inc., registered with the SEC, has been collecting association
dues from Evelyn and family, for which official receipts were issued to
them. To prove further that Evelyn and family is the owner of the house,
the Meralco and Maynilad billings are in Evelyn’s name. A Certification
of Residency for 18 years was also issued by the Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun
Valley Neighborhood Association, Inc. and a Certification of Census was
issued by the Urban Mission Areas Development Office to Evelyn
Catbagan.
Copies of the Official Receipts issued by the Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun Valley
Neighborhood Association, Inc., Meralco and Maynilad Billings, Certification of
Page | 1
Residency and Certification of Census are hereto attached as Annexes “1” and
series, “2”, “3”, “4” and “5” respectively.
2. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Sinumpaang

Salaysay specifically the allegation that it was complainant’s mother
who allowed herein respondents to stay at Unit B of 1503 Pajero Street,
Brgy. Culdesac, Paranaque City, while herein complainant stays in Unit A
and places his things in Unit C because it was the owner Evelyn
Catbagan, the late mother of Marker Catbagan, who allowed
complainant to stay in Unit A, sometime in October 2017, due to pity as
he had no place to stay at, on the condition that he will vacate the same
upon demand.
3. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 4 because Unit C is still

owned by Evelyn Catbagan. In fact, even before complainant was
allowed by Evelyn to occupy Unit A in October 2017, the Unit C was at all
times locked as it was vacant. But Evelyn and Marker allowed
respondent Jocelyn (cousin of Marker), who lives with them, and
complainant to put their things in the vacant Unit C on the condition
that they will remove their things once a new tenant will lease the said
Unit. Ensuring the safety of the vacant Unit C and their things inside,
respondent Marker sees to it that it is always locked but Jocelyn and
complainant borrow the keys from Marker at any time they need their
things.
4. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 5 that respondents

changed the lock of the main gate of Unit C. The truth of the matter is
stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit.
5. Respondent Roselyn denies the allegation in paragraph 6 that she

admitted to complainant that she was one of those who locked the said
main gate of Unit C.
6. Respondents likewise deny the allegations in paragraph 7 claiming that

the subject property was owned by complainant’s mother as the truth
was already shown in paragraph 1 of this counter-affidavit.
Furthermore, a Decision was also issued in favor of Evelyn Catbagan
when she filed an Ejectment suit involving Unit C of the subject
premises, against the former occupants of the house, namely, Lira
Corcueva, Josephine Cantre and Wilbert Indineble, who claimed that
they derived their right to occupy Unit C from herein complainant’s
mother, Adelina Bartolay. The said Decision was issued by Branch 77,
MTC, Paranaque City and had become FINAL on January 22, 2014.
Copy of the Decision dated November 17, 2011 with Civil Case No. 2010-94
for Unlawful Detainer is hereto attached as Annex “6”.
Page | 2
7. Respondents also deny the allegation of complainant in paragraph 8
that he filed a complaint before the Barangay and that he was not issued
a Certificate To File Action because there is a pending ejectment case
involving the subject property. The truth of the matter is that herein
complainant did not file a complaint before the Barangay as evidenced
by the fact that herein respondents did not receive any summons or
subpoena from the Barangay. Moreover, the ejectment case being
referred to by complainant is the ejectment case filed by Evelyn and
substituted by herein respondent Marker against herein complainant
involving Unit A and not Unit C. Evelyn filed an ejectment suit against
complainant because of his adamant refusal to vacate Unit A despite
several demands. The initial possession of complainant of Unit A was by
tolerance of Evelyn Catbagan, respondent Marker’s mother and owner of
the entire Unit A, B and C located at 1503 Pajero Street, Brgy. Culdesac,
Paranaque City.
Copy of the Decision dated August 5, 2019 issued by Branch 77, MTC,
Paranaque City directing herein complainant, among others, to vacate Unit
A/First Door of the subject premises located at 365 A (now known as 1503)
Pajero Street, Sto. Nino Culdesac, Sun Valley, Paranaque City and surrender
possession thereof to the plaintiff or representative, is hereto attached as
Annex “7”.
8. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 9 because there is no

truth that Unit C was locked by respondents to prohibit complainant
from using his things. As stated earlier, even before complainant
occupied Unit A sometime in October 2017, Unit C was already locked
by respondent Marker for safety of the unit itself as it is vacant and has
no tenant yet. And when respondent Marker allowed complainant to
temporarily place his things inside Unit C, he borrows the key from
Marker everytime he needs his things.
9. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 10 because there was no

grave coercion committed by respondents; there was no theft
committed by respondents; and there was also no harassment or illegal
padlock of premises committed by respondents.
10. Our lawyers advised us that in the instant case, the acts
complained of are not sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause.
The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal
Code are as follows: 1) that a person is prevented by another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against
his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is
effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who
restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other
words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right.1
1
People v. Astorga, 347 Phil. 701, 720 (1997).
Page | 3
11. It is to be noted that there is even no allegation in the sinumpaang
salaysay that that the alleged locking of gate was effected by violence,
threats or intimidation. In fact, complainant admitted that he was just
surprised when he arrived home to learn that the gate was locked.
There was even no allegation that he was being prevented by
respondents to get his things from Unit C.
12. While the essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal
property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was
done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without
violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.” In theft,
corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost
by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.2
13. It is also worth-noting that there is no allegation in the

sinumpaang salaysay that the taking away of his things was done with
intent of gain.
14. There was also no harassment or illegal padlock of premises

because complainant was never an occupant of Unit C. In fact, he
admitted that he is an occupant of Unit A. His things like his books and
bed can easily be removed from Unit C at any time.
15. That complainant’s filing of the instant complaint is the result of

complainant’s grudge against respondents because the Decision on the
ejectment case filed by respondent Marker was not in favor of
complainant. Respondent Jocelyn testified in favor of Marker in the said
ejectment case while Roselyn Catbagan is Marker’s wife.
16. The respondents reserve the right to file a REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT.
AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereby affix our signatures this 13th day of November
2019 in Paranaque City.
MARKER CATBAGAN ROSELYN MAGBANUA CATBAGAN
JOCELYN BARTOLAY
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this 13 th day of November 2019, Paranaque,
Philippines who is personally known to me to be the same persons who personally signed
this counter-affidavit and who acknowledge that they executed the same. I further testify
that I have examined the affiants and I am fully satisfied that they executed the foregoing
2
Tan vs People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999, 313 SCRA 220, 231.
Page | 4
statements freely and voluntarily and understood the contents and implications of the
same.
Page | 5

Office of The City Prosecutor: Complainant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of The City Prosecutor: Complainant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of The City Prosecutor: Complainant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THE UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENTS respectfully state:

1. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the

2. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Sinumpaang

3. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 4 because Unit C is still

4. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 5 that respondents

5. Respondent Roselyn denies the allegation in paragraph 6 that she

6. Respondents likewise deny the allegations in paragraph 7 claiming that

8. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 9 because there is no

9. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraph 10 because there was no

13. It is also worth-noting that there is no allegation in the

14. There was also no harassment or illegal padlock of premises

15. That complainant’s filing of the instant complaint is the result of

16. The respondents reserve the right to file a REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT.

AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

MARKER CATBAGAN ROSELYN MAGBANUA CATBAGAN

You might also like