REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court as Family Court
Paranaque City

IN RE: ADOPTION OF MINOR

SELWYN WILFRED TRIA

CIVIL CASE No. ______________

FOR: ADOPTION

MARITES DE LARA TINALIGA,

Petitioner,
x ------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(In Lieu of Direct Testimony)

This taking of the testimony of MRS. LILY KHO was conducted by

Atty. Rafael Chris F. Teston at 214 Natividad Bldg., T. Pinpin cor. Escolta
St., Binondo, Manila:

Atty. Teston: We are offering the testimony of MRS. LILY KHO to

prove the following:

1. That Lily Kho is the registered owner of TCT No. 313345;

2. That Lily Kho did not sell the subject property to Nenita Lim;

3. That Lily Kho allowed the family of Nenita Lim to use the property as
warehouse of their personal effects; that as compensation for this
accommodation, the family of Nenita Lim paid the realty taxes for the
property;

4. That Lily Kho and Nenita Lim negotiated for the exchange of the
subject property with another property of the latter; but the negotiation did not
push through;

5. That Lily Kho subdivided the larger property (the “mother property”)
which the subject property is only a part in order to sell a portion of the same
to her nephew Mr. Dick Ching ; that despite the subdivision of the “mother
property” and the sale of a portion to her nephew, Nenita Lim did not register
any complaint;

6. That Nenita Lim and her family never demanded for the turnover to
them of the subject property until Lily Kho demanded that Lim vacate the
property.;

7. To prove her demand for damages and attorneys fees.

(Page 2)
8. To identify pertinent documents relating to her defences.

Q1. Kindly state your name, address and other personal circumstances.
A2. I am LILY KHO, of legal age, married, with address at Unit 813-D
Estrella St., Binondo, Manila

Q2. Do you know the property in Caloocan City covered by TCT No.
313345 which is the subject matter of this case?
A2. I am the owner of the subject property, as proof, is the copy of the TCT
313345 premarked as EXHIBIT “9”;

Q3. How did you acquire this property?

A3. I acquired the said property in 1972 for a consideration with the
assistance from my mother-in-law NG GIA, the mother of my
husband. That the TCT No. 313345 the subject matter of this pending
case was subdivided from TCT No.42616 (the “mother property”); that
I was the registered owner of said TCT No. 42616 since 1972; as
shown by a copy of the said transfer certificate of title premarked as
EXHIBIT “ 1”;

Q4. Do you know the plaintiff in this case, MRS. NENITA LIM?
A4. Yes. She is my sister-in-law. She is married to the brother of my
husband.

Q5. In her complaint, Nenita Lim claim she purchased the subject property
last 1996 . What do you say to this?
A5. That is not true. She never purchased the subject property.

Q6. After your acquisition of the mother property in 1972, who occupied
this property?
Q6. Since 1972, I allowed CHEN SU PING, a son of NG GIA, to stay on
the property and build his house thereon; as proof I present the
September 12, 1995 realty tax payment on the mother property to prove
that Chen Su Pin built his house thereon, which I attach premarked
EXHIBIT “2”;

In addition, since the late 1980s, I allowed plaintiff and her husband to
use the property for their storage needs in exchange for paying the
realty taxes thereon; that, accordingly, the defendant’s husband built a
warehouse on the property; as proof, I attach the Tax Declaration
Form-Building dated November 3, 1994 which is part of premarked
EXHIBIT “1” and I adopt the realty tax payments premarked by
the plaintiff which show she paid the realty taxes on my behalf;

Q7. What other transactions did you have with Nenita Lim or her family
regarding this property?
Q7. On March 21, 1979 , I mortgaged the property covered by TCT
No.42616 to the plaintiff and her husband to secure a loan of
PhP150,000.00; a copy of the mortgage document premarked as
EXHIBIT “3”; that, accordingly, I turned over the owner’s copy of
the title to the defendant;

(Page 3)
Q8. What happened to this loan and the mortgage?
A8. On October 19, 1995, I fully paid my obligation to the plaintiff; as
shown by Release of Mortgage premarked as EXHIBIT “4”; that it
was only on March 25, 1996 when she turned over the title to our
family lawyer Atty. R.E. Karunungan, as shown by receipt premarked
as EXHIBIT “5”;

Q9. What happened next to this owner’s copy of TCT No. 42616?
A9. This was turned over to Atty. R.E. Karunungan, along with the
owner’s copy of TCT No. 97149, a property in Manila in the name of
plaintiff Nenita Lim, as the lawyer was arranging for the redistribution
of these properties among the heirs of NG GIA. After the failure of this
transaction, Atty. Karunungan retuned my title to me.

Q10. Who is this Atty. R.E. Karunungan?

Q10. He is the lawyer of my husband’s mother NG GIA. Nenita Lim and I
were in the midst of trying to exchange our various properties and we
are using him to finalize these transactions.

Q11. Why did the plaintiff turn over to Atty. Karunungan the owner’s copy
of TCT No. 97149?
A11. That beginning 1993 , there was an ongoing talks among the plaintiff
and the defendant and the heirs of the three other children of NG GIA
to redistribute our properties which we respectively obtained with the
financial assistance from NG GIA ; that these properties consist of : a)
the property in Caloocan in my name which is covered by TCT No.
42616 a portion of which is the subject matter of this case; b) a
property in Estrella St., Binondo, Manila originally in the name of
Nenita Lim with a five storey building and where I now have a
residential unit; and c) ) a 200 sq.m. property in No. 807-809 Estrella
St., Binondo, Manila in the name of Nenita Lim with a three storey
building . It was the former counsel of my mother-in-law Atty. R.E.
Karunungan who was helping us and was drafting the redistribution
and partition agreement;

Q12. What happened to these negotiations?

Q12. I proposed to the plaintiff that I exchange the subject property with one
half of the 200 sq.m. property in Manila in the name of the plaintiff;

Q13. What happened to that proposal?

Q13. From 1993 t0 1995, Atty. Karunungan prepared at least 20 versions of
the redistribution agreement which are usually in the form of a partition
agreement or deed of sale. Unfortunately, nothing happened to our
negotiations regarding this exchange of the subject property with one-
half of the 200 sqm property in Manila in the name of the plaintiff.

Q14. The plaintiff in her complaint presented an document entitled

“AGREEMENT” dated June 22, 1996 which purports to be the deed
of sale of the subject property. What can you say to this?
A14. That is not true. The document entitled “AGREEMENT”, which is
premarked as EXHIBIT “11” and “11-B” is a forged document. I did
not sell the property to the plaintiff. This document is one the versions

(Page 4)
 prepared by Atty. Karunungan to document the exchange of the
properties of the heirs of NG GIA. My signature appears thereon, as
well as the signature of my nephew Dick Ching, as Nenita Lim insisted
that they would only consider a draft if I and the heirs of the other
children of NG GIA already sign the document which we did; that we
are forced to comply with this condition as the plaintiff has in her name
the two properties in Manila which she obtained through the assistance
of NG GIA.

Q15. Why did you say now that this document is a forgery?
A15. When I signed it, the material data in the document remained purposely
blank. Moreover, it was signed in 1995 and not 1996. Finally, there was
no consideration when I signed it as Nenita Lim, eventually, did not
agree that she will exchange her property in Manila for this property in
Caloocan. The AGREEMENT Nenita Lim presented to this Court,
already had the blank spaces filled up; and the date 1995 was erased
and the date “1996” over these.

The corrections in the dates and the filled-out blanks were not counter-
signed by either the undersigned or the notary public as is required and
as by notarial practice.

Moreover, I never signed it before a Notary Public. I did not even

secure the Residence Certificate that was supposedly issued to me;

Q16. Why was this AGREEMENT made to appear to have been signed in
1996 and not 1995?
A16. That it clear why the Agreement could not be made to appear to have
been executed in 1995 as it was only on that date that I fully paid my
loan to the plaintiff . Nenita Lim could not present that I sold the
property to her in 1995 as she could not then explain why in March
1996 I was able to take back the owner’s copy of the TCT No. 42616
through Atty. Karunungan..

Q17. What other circumstances can you state which show that the document
entitled “AGREEMENT” is a forged document?
A17. If the Agreement was valid, why did the plaintiff not transfer the title
to her; why it is only now – 15 years later – that she is claiming the
property.

If the Agreement was valid, why did the plaintiff not complain when I
caused the subdivision of TCT No. 42616 into five titles and delivered
two of these titles to my nephew, MR. DICK CHING and his siblings .

Q18. Why did you cause the subdivision of the mother property into five
lots?
Q18. When my proposal to Nenita Lim was not approved by mid-1995, I
negotiated separately with my nephew Dick Ching to sell to him one
lot. We agreed to the sale of one lot. Because of this agreement, I
caused the subdivision of the property, as shown by a subdivision plan
which was prepared in December 15, 1995, a copy of which is
premarked as EXHIBIT “7”. Later, we executed a Deed of Sale

(Page 5)
 prepared and notarized by Atty. Karunungan dated August 26, 1996
which we subsequently executed, a copy of which is premarked as
EXHIBIT “6”. As a result of this sale, I caused the transfer to him and
his siblings TCT No. 313343, which is premarked as EXHIBIT “8”.

Q19. How many lots were delivered to Dick Ching and his siblings?
A19. First, only one. Later, I sold to him another lot.

Q20. Did Nenita Lim know of these transfers of the two lots to Dick Ching
and his siblings?
A20. Yes. At the times when Dick Ching and his siblings occupied these two
lots, Nenita Lim and his family still occupied the subject property as
they still had their warehouse thereon.

Q21. What did Nenita Lim say when you transferred these properties to Dick
Ching and his siblings?
A21. She did not say anything.

Q22. What happened next?

A22. On September 2010 I demanded that Nenita Lim and her family vacate
the subject property, a copy which is premarked as EXHIBIT “10”.

Q23. What happened to that demand?

A23. They refused to vacate. Instead, they claimed the property. I then filed
an ejectment suit against them with Metropolitan Trial Court of
Caloocan Branch 52 docketed as Civil Case No. 10-29934.

Q24. What happened to that case?

A24. The court decided in my favour and ejected Nenita Lim. I am now the
occupant of the subject property.

Q25. When Nenita Lim filed this complaint, what did you fee?
A25. I felt aggrieved and hurt. She has no claim on my property. Because of
this complaint I suffered sleepness nights, anxiety, worry and it caused
a rise in my blood pressure.

Q26. If quantified into monetary value, how much do you think is the
equivalent of your anxiety and worry because of this case?
A26. As moral damages, Nenita Lim should be made to pay me PHP
50,000.00 and to warn others not to do what she did to me, Lim must
be made to pay another PHP50,000.00.

Q27. When Nenita Lim filed this complaint, what did you do?
A27. I hired Atty. Rafael Chris Teston as my lawyer. For this I paid him
PHP30,000.00 as acceptance fee and PHP3,000.00 per hearing and
PHP 2,500.00 per pleading.

Q28. Mrs. Witness, do you affirm and confirm the truthfulness of your
answers to the questions propounded to you?
A28. Yes, sir.

(Page 6)
Q29. Mrs. Witness, are you fully aware that you are under oath and should
your foregoing testimonies be later found false, you will be liable for
perjury?
A29. Yes, sir.

WITNESS MY HAND, this _______ day of April 2013.

_________
LILY KHO
Affiant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF MANILA ) S.S.

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this ________ day of April

2013, the affiant showing me her OSCA I.D. No. 28007 issued on Jan. 30,
2008 in Manila; the affiant known to me and to me known to be the person
who signed this JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ______

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2013

(Page 7)
 ATTESTATION

I, ATTY. RAFAEL CHRIS F. TESTON, of legal age, married, with

office address at No. 214 Natividad Bldg., Escolta cor. T. Pinpin, Binondo,
Manila, hereby certify that:

1. I am the lawyer who conducted the direct examination of MRS. LILY

KHO in the above-entitled case.

2. I faithfully recorded the questions I propounded upon MRS. LILY

KHO and the answers she gave.

3. During the time that I was propounding the questions to MRS. LILY
KHO, there was no one assisting her or coaching her and she answered all
the questions spontaneously based on her personal knowledge.

4. I hereby hold myself liable for any disciplinary action including

disbarment should this attestation be later found to be false.

By:

RAFAEL CHRIS F. TESTON

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ______________,

affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. __________________
issued on ______________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2013