JUDICIAL FORMS

CIVIL CASES
PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262
COMPLAINT

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Reyes,
Civil Case No. 11122
-Versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
Under RA 9262
Marco Reyes,
Respondent
x---------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMPLAINANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. COMPLAINANT is of legal age, and with residence at DulongBayan, General Trias

Cavite, while Respondent is also of legal age and at present residing at Biga Tanza
Cavite;

2. COMPLAINANT has two (2) daughters of the Respondent and is living with her
mother and two (2) minor brothers at the aforementioned address;

3. Respondent and his wife, Merely Gonzaga, the mother of COMPLAINANT, are
living separately since 2005. Respondent is now living with his Common Law Wife at
the aforementioned address and since the day he left his family, failed and refused to
provide financial support and maintenance to them but he visits his family once in a
while;

4. COMPLAINANT, since her father had already stopped supporting because he lost
his job and no mean of supporting her, so she had to discontinue her schooling and
she helped her mother earn a living;

5. On or about November 2, 2010, Respondent asked for some money from

COMPLAINANT to some buy Candles for his deceased Mother and a bottle of Tanuay
Rum and some “pulutan” for celebration “All soul’s Day and when COMPLAINANT
refused to give Respondent what he wanted, the latter harassed and threatened to
inflict physical harm upon her every time they cross each other’s path. When
Respondent was finally able to obtain money from COMPLAINANT, he hit her on
the face with a rolled news paper, threatened to inflict more injury upon her if she
refused again the next time he asked for some money and then left the house of the
COMPLAINANT;

6. COMPLAINANT since then had developed fear and anxiety due to continuous
harassment of her father even when she is at work;

7. In support of COMPLAINANT’s complaint, enclosed herewith are COMPLAINANT’s

affidavit, and testimonies from her mother and two (2) co-workers who have
witnessed the incidents, which are attached as Annexes “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”,
respectively.

WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT prays for the issuance of Permanent Protection

order and for the grant of the following reliefs:

a. Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally

or through another, physical harm upon the COMPLAINANT and her family
members.;

b. Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or

otherwise communicating with the COMPLAINANT, directly or indirectly;

383 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
c. Directing the respondent to stay away from COMPLAINANT and designated family
or household member at a distance specified by the court, and to stay away from the
residence, school, place of employment, or any specified place frequented by the
petitioner and any designated family or household member;

d. Prohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of any firearm or deadly
weapon and order him to surrender the same to the court for appropriate disposition
by the court, including revocation of license and disqualification to apply for any
license to use or possess a firearm.

Cavite, Philippines, April 10, 2012.

Franco Ahmel Grepo

Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11120
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-37249

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Ana Reyes, of legal age and with residence at DulongBayan, General Trias Cavite, after
having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am the COMPLAINANT in the above titled complaint.

2. That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and
correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if I should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein the aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Witness my hand this 11th day of April 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora

this 18th day of September 2010 by Ana Reyes with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at
General Trias, Cavite on June 20, 2003 and SSS No. 17278 issued at General Trias, Cavite on
June 20, 2003.
Franco Ahmel Grepo
Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias,
Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11120
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-37249
Doc. No. 11
Page No. 11
Book No. 11
Series of 2012

Copy Furnished:
Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent

384 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Fernando Jose, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Franco Grepo, counsel for Ana Reyes in the cases
entitled Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 22111, and that such messenger I served
upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:

Atty. Franco Grepo, counsel Ana Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy in
the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office, with
postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender
after ten days if undelivered, this 21th day of April 2012, as shown by Registry No. 11 dated
April 11, 2012 of the post office of General Trias, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this April 11, 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines.

Fernando Jose

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11th day of April 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998
at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Ahmel Grepo

Notary public
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11120
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-37249

Doc. No. 11
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2012

385 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER
RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that:
1. Respondent engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on May 2 , 2012;
2. Respondent was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on April 30,
2012 and thus has until May 15, 2012 within which to submit an Answer or
Responsive Pleading;
3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and prior
commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said deadline;
4. As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional period of
ten (10) days from today within which to submit Respondent's Answer or
Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
undersigned to interview the available witness and study this case further;
5. This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he
be given an additional period of ten (10) days from today within which to submit an Answer
or other Responsive Pleading.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Cavite, Philippines, May 2, 2012.

Bryan zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440

386 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Franco Grepo
Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address: Baranagay Tapia General Trias Cavite

Sir:
Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing on
May 14, 2012. At 9:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard.
Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Franco Grepo
Counsel for COMPLAINANT

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes in the cases
entitled Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122, and that such messenger I served
upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:

Atty Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 3 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 17
dated October 2, 2010 of the post office Biga Tanza Cavite.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3 rd day of May 2012 at
Cavite, Philippines.

Edgar Diaz
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of May 2012 at Cavite ,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998
at Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

ATTY. FRANCO AHMEL R. GREPO

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora
IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 45692
MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 07
Page No. 6

387 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order

under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

RESPONDENT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges:
1. The information did not show, with sufficient definiteness, the following allegations to wit:
3.Respondent since the day he left his family, failed and refused to provide financial
support and maintenance to them;
6. COMPLAINANT since then had developed fear and anxiety due to continuous
harassment of her father even when she is at work;

2. The foregoing allegations are conclusions of law, which COMPLAINANT should clarify
and flesh them with facts and specific acts to enable Respondent-movant to prepare and file a
responsive answer thereto which requires information as to the precise nature, character,
scope and extent of COMPLAINANT’s cause of action.

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that COMPLAINANT be ordered to file a bill of

particulars of the facts and acts constituting the conclusions alleged in the complaint.

Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010.

Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent
1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

388 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Franco Ahmel R. Grepo
Counsel for COMPLAINANT

Sir:
Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing on
April 14, 2012. At 9:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard.

Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 53014
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora
MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Franco Ahmel R. Grepo
Counsel for COMPLAINANT

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes in the cases
entitled Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such messenger I served
upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 8 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 18
dated May 2, 2010 of the post office Biga Tanza Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3 rd day of May 2012 at
Cavite, Philippines.

Edgar Diaz,
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines,
affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on June 2, 1998 at Cavite,
Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512

Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 7
Series of 2012

389 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-Versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
Under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

COMPLAINANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that
judgment on the pleadings be directed, on the following ground:
1. In his answer to the complaint for Permanent Protection Order, Respondent
merely denied that he harassed and threatened to inflict physical harm upon the
COMPLAINANT, which is tantamount to denial of any knowledge and
information as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint. This kind of
denial, while allowed in certain instances, does not apply when the facts as to
which want of knowledge is asserted are to the knowledge of the court are so
plainly and essentially within the Respondent’s knowledge. It amounts to a
general denial that entitles the COMPLAINANT to judgment on the pleadings.

WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT prays that judgment on the pleading be rendered in

favor of COMPLAINANT, ordering Respondent to pay COMPLAINANT as prayed for in
the complaint.
Cavite, Philippines, May 8, 2012

Franco Ahmel Grepo

Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11120
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-37249

390 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent
Address: 101 Zobel Roxas, Manila

Sir:
Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing on
May 14, 2012. At 9:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard.

Franco Ahmel Grepo

Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11120
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-37249

COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Fernando Jose, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Franco Grepo, counsel for Ana Reyes in the cases
entitled Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122
, and that such messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other
parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Franco Grepo, counsel for Ana Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 12 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 17
dated May 9, 2012 of the post office at Dulong Bayan, General Trias, Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this May 3, 2012 at Aurora,
Philippines.
Fernando Jose

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of May 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998
at Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.
Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2012

391 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order

under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

RESPONDENT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, answering the complaint for
Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262, to this Honorable Court, respectfully states:
1. Respondent admits the allegations under par. 1 and 2 of the complaint and the
portion of par. 3 regarding the fact that he now lives with his new wife but denies
the rest thereof, for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof.
2. Respondent denies the allegation under par. 3 regarding the fact that
COMPLAINANT had to stop from going to school because he failed to support
them. As a matter of fact he was the one who spends for the education of all of his
children.
3. Assuming arguendo that COMPLAINANT stopped from going to school, it was
voluntary on her part and was not premised on his failure to support them as
COMPLAINANT claimed.
4. Respondent denies under oath that he harassed, slapped on the face and
threatened to inflict physical harm upon the COMPLAINANT as alleged under
par. 5, 6, and 7 of the complaint.
5. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent indeed asked for some money from the
COMPLAINANT no case did he ever harassed, hit on the nape or threatened her
when she refused to give her money, the truth being that it was his wife who
reacted violently over the situation to the extent that she even aimed a bolo upon
him and angrily told him to leave.

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of
merit, with costs against COMPLAINANT.

Respondent further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.

Cavite, Philippines, October 1, 2010

Bryan zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440

392 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

VERIFICATION

I, Marco Reyes, of legal age and with residence at Biga Tanza Cavite, after having
been duly sworn, depose and say:
1. That I am the Respondent in the above entitled answer;
2. That I have caused the preparation by my counsel of said answer;
3. That I have read the allegations therein contained, and that the same are true
and correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
Witness my hand this 1st day of October 2010 at Dipaculao, Aurora, Philippines.
Marco Reyes
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3st day of May 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1879 issued on June 2, 1998 at
Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 00247518 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512

Doc. No. 2
Page No. 52
Book No. 17
Series of 2012
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I , Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes in the cases entitled
Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No 11122
, and that such messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other
parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 8 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 15
dated May 2, 2012 of the post office of Biga, Tanza Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3 rd day of May 2012 at
Cavite, Philippines.
Edgar Diaz,
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of May 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on June 2, 1998 at
Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on june1 4, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 17

393 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Series of 2010

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order

under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
Respondent, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states:

That as a consequence of COMPLAINANT’s clearly unfounded claims, which forced

Respondent to litigate and protect his interests and to secure the services of counsel,
Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000 and
expenses of litigation in the amount of no less than P5,000, all of which should be assessed
against COMPLAINANT as penalty for filing such unfounded and harassment complaint.

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
Cavite, Philippines May 17, 2012

Bryan zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Marco Reyes, of legal age and with residence at Biga Tanza Cavite, after having been
duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am the Respondent in the above titled complaint.

2. That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.

3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and
correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

394 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if I should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein the aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Witness my hand this 17th day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Biga Tanza Cavite this
18th day of April 2010 by Marco Reyes with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at Biga
Tanza Cavite on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Biga Tanza Cavite on July 17,
2000.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512

Doc. No. 12
Page No. 37
Book No. 11
Series of 2012

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes in the cases
entitled Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122, and that such messenger I served
upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:

Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 13
dated May 17, 2010 of the post office of Biga Tanza Cavite.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this day of May 17, 2012 at
Aurora, Philippines.

Edgar Diaz
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998
at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512

395 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 18
Series of 2012
PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND
COUNTERCLAIM
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
Judicial Region
Branch 88, cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order

under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND

COUNTERCLAIM

Respondent, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states:

1. Respondent denies the allegation u+nder par. 3 regarding the fact that
COMPLAINANT had to stop from going to school because he failed to support
them. As a matter of fact he was the one who spends for the education of all of his
children.

2. Assuming arguendo that COMPLAINANT stopped from going to school, it was

voluntary on her part and was not premised on his failure to support them as
COMPLAINANT claimed.

3. That as a consequence of COMPLAINANT’s clearly unfounded claims, which

forced Respondent to litigate and protect his interests and to secure the services
of counsel, Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees in the
amount of P20,000 and expenses of litigation in the amount of no less than
P9,000, all of which should be assessed against COMPLAINANT as penalty for
filing such unfounded and harassment complaint.

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

Cavite, Philippines May 17, 2012

Bryan zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

396 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
I, Marco Reyes of legal age and with residence at Biga Tanza Cavite , after having been
duly sworn, depose and say:
1. That I am the Respondent in the above titled complaint.
2. That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.
3. That I have read the allegations therein contained and that the same are true and
correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; and if I should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein the aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Witness my hand this 17th day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.

Marco Reyes,
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora

this 18th day of April 2012 Marco Reyes with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at Biga
Tanza Cavite on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Biga Tanza Cavite on June 17,
200.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512

Doc. No. 52
Page No. 17
Book No. 11
Series of 2012

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, , Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes the cases entitled Ana
Reyes. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122 and that such messenger I served upon the counsel
of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 15
dated May 17, 2012 of the post office of Biga Tanza Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this day of May 17, 2012 at
Cavite , Philippines.
Edgar Diaz,
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines,
affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on June 2, 1998 at Cavite,
Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512
Doc. No. 10
Page No. 5

397 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Book No. 18
Series of 2012

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

REPLY
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,
Civil Case No. 11122
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262
Marco Reyes,
Respondent
x---------------------------------------x

REPLY

Ana Reyes, after being duly sworn, deposes and say:

1. That I am the COMPLAINANT in the Civil Case for seeking for Permanent Protection
Order under RA 9262;

2.That the allegations of Respondent in his answer under par. 2 are baseless, the truth
being that from June 2011 until Jan 2012 before she stopped from going to school, it
was her mother who paid for her educational expenses as evidenced by Annex E, the
Official Receipts issued by Father St. Francis High School and not Respondent as he so
claimed;

3.That the allegations under par. 4 are not true, in fact attached herewith to support my
allegations against the RESPONDENT is Annex F, the Medical Certificate executed by
Dr. Hyden Kho , certifying that her face swelled, had bruises, and she had a cut lip, as a
result of the physical harm inflicted upon her by Respondent. Also attached herewith
are the Affidavits of the COMPLAINANT, her mother, Merly Gonzga and her two (2)
co-workers, Allan Gomez and Jake de Asis, who witnessed the harassment, as Annexes
A, B C and D, respectively.

4.That for the abovementioned evidences, RESPONDENT cannot claim lack of

knowledge of the accusations against him.

WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT prays that she be given leave of court to file this reply
and for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.
Cavite, Philippines, May 16, 2012

Franco Ahmel Grepo

Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

Copy furnished:

398 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Atty. Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Fernando Jose, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty Franco Grepo, counsel for Ana Reyes in the cases
entitled Ana Reyes vs Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such messenger I served
upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:

Atty. Franco Grepo , counsel Ana Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy in the post
office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office, with postage
fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten
days if undelivered, this 25th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 14 dated May 20,
2012 of the post office of at DulongBayan, General Trias , Cavite

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this May 16, 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines.

Fernando Jose

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16th day of May 2012 at Cavite ,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998
at Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512

Doc. No. 37
Page No. 61
Book No. 26
Series of 2012

399 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF- COMPLAINANT
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMPLAINANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this pre-
trial brief containing the following:
1. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE
TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal

manifestation of openness from COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT is
open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
b. Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
RESPONDENT respectfully submits that the desired terms of amicable
settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of any
obligation due and owing to COMPLAINANT inasmuch as there is
nothing to indicate the obligations of the RESPONDENT to
COMPLAINANT and, second, a schedule of payments.

2. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

a. The COMPLAINANT only admits to those facts stated in their counter

affidavit, etc., i.e. their personal circumstances.
b. Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from
COMPLAINANT during pre-trial or even thereafter, COMPLAINANT
admits no other facts stated in the Complaint.

3. ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED

a. COMPLAINANT submits that the following issues put forward by

COMPLAINANT are subject to proof :
a.1 Whether or not the acts of harassment and threat to inflict physical
harm by Respondent upon COMPLAINANT may be prosecuted under RA
9262.
a.2 Whether or not Respondent’s mere denial of the allegations against
him may acquit him from the coverage of RA 9262.

4. COMPLAINANT intends to present the following documents, in connection with

which COMPLAINANT requests from Respondent their admission of their execution
and due authenticity:

400 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
a. Official Receipt.
Purpose: To prove that Respondent deliberately deprived COMPLAINANT and
her mother of educational support since the day he left them.
b. Medical Certificate.
Purpose: To prove the physical harm inflicted upon COMPLAINANT by
Respondent.
5. COMPLAINANT manifests his intention to resort to discovery procedures.
6. COMPLAINANT does not intend to amend his complaint.
7. COMPLAINANT intends to present the following witnesses:
a. COMPLAINANT himself, who will testify on the true circumstances leading to the
filing of this suit.
b. Merley Gonzaga, her mother, who witnessed the commotion on June 2, 2010.
c. Allan Gomez and Jake de Asis, her two (2) co-workers who witnessed the
harassment at her working place.

RESPECTFULLY submitted.
Cavite, Philippines, October 20, 2010.

Franco Ahmel Grepo

Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11170
IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
PTR No. 1119427, issued on 03/04/2005 at Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

Copy furnished:
Atty. Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Fernando Jose, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty Franco Grepo, counsel for Ana Reyes in the cases entitled
Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122
, and that such messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other
parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Franco Grepo, counsel for Ana Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 25 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 17
dated May 20, 2012 of the post office of at DulongBayan, General Trias Cavite .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this May 16, 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines.

Fernando Jose

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 th day of May 2012 at Aurora,

Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on june 2, 1998 at
Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512
Doc. No. 31

401 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Page No. 6
Book No. 11
Series of 2012

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF- Respondent
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,

Civil Case No. 11122

-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order

under RA 9262

Marco Reyes,
Respondent

x---------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMES NOW, the RESPONDENT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully
submits this pre-trial brief in compliance with the trial court’s order, containing the
following:
I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND
POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT
a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal
manifestation of openness from COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT is
open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
b. Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
RESPONDENT respectfully submits that the desired terms of amicable
settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of any
obligation due and owing to COMPLAINANT inasmuch as there is
nothing to indicate the obligations of the RESPONDENT to
COMPLAINANT and, second, a schedule of payments.

II. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATION OF

FACTS

a. The RESPONDENT only admits to those facts stated in their counter

affidavit, etc., i.e. their personal circumstances.
b. Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from
COMPLAINANT during pre-trial or even thereafter, RESPONDENT
admit no other facts stated in the Complaint.

III. ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED

RESPONDENT submit that the following issues put forward by
COMPLAINANT are subject to proof :
a. Whether or not the pieces of evidence presented by Respondent
are admissible on the ground that they are relevant.
b. Whether or not Respondent had deliberately deprived COMPLAINANT
and her mother of the financial support they needed so that he may be
indicted under RA 9262.

402 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
c. Whether or not Respondent’s acts are indictable under RA 9262.

IV. DOCUMENT/S, EXHIBIT/S, EVIDENCE, OR NUMBER AND NAMES OF

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED, STATING THE PURPOSE THEREOF
RESPONDENT or Defense intends to present the following witnesses:
a. Respondent himself, who will testify on the true circumstances
leading to the filing of this suit against him;
b. Teresa Lumagi , who will testify on the fact of Respondent’s
continuous financial support to COMPLAINANT.
c. We reserve the right to present other evidence necessary, material
or relevant to the case.
V. A MANIFESTATION OF THEIR HAVING AVAILED OR THEIR INTENTION
TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES OR REFERAL TO
COMMISSIONERS
a. Considering the relatively simple issues presented, RESPONDENT does
not intend to avail of discovery at this time;

b. Subject however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery from

COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT reserves the right to resort to
discovery before trial.

WHEREFORE, Respondents pray that the foregoing be taken cognizance of.

Cavite , Philippines, May 22, 2012

Bryan Zafra
Counsel for Respondent
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440
Copy furnished:
Atty. Franco Grepo
Counsel for COMPLAINANT

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes in the cases entitled
Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes , Civil Case No. 11122
, and that such messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other
parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty Bryan Zafra , counsel for Marco Reyes by registered mail by depositing the copy
in the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his office,
with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 30 th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 17
dated May 22, 2012 of the post office of Biga Tanza Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 22 nd day of May 2012
at Cavite, Philippines.
Fernando Jose
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of May 2012 at Cavite ,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on June 2, 1998 at
Cavite, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.

Franco Grepo
Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 11111

403 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
MCLE Compliance No. I-876512
Doc. No. 09
Page No. 7
Book No. 15
Series of 2012

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER R.A. 9262

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite

Ana Reyes,
Civil Case No. 11122
-versus- For: Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262
Marco Reyes
Respondent
x---------------------------------------x
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

This compromise and settlement agreement is made by and between Ana Reyes, who
will be referred to as COMPLAINANT, whose address at DulongBayan, General Trias
Cavite , and Marco Reyes, who will be referred to as Respondent, whose address is Biga
Tanza Cavite

The parties stipulate to the following:

1. COMPLAINANT asserts a claim against Respondent based on violation of RA 9262 or

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children.
2. An action based on this claim is now pending in the Regional Trial Court Cavite Branch no
88 , case number 11122, with COMPLAINANT represented by Attorney Franco Grepo, and
Respondent represented by attorney Bryan Zafra.

3. Respondent denies any liability in connection with the alleged claim.

4. The parties wish to reach a full and final settlement of the action and all matters arising
from the dispute described above.

Therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth, the parties agree to the
following:
a. Respondent will pay to COMPLAINANT P150,000 on execution of this agreement or as the
case may be.
b. COMPLAINANT will execute a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the pending action with
prejudice, and deliver this to the Respondent on execution of this agreement or as the case
may be.
c. Each party releases the other from all rights and claims that they may have against the
other arising from the dispute described above.
d. This agreement is a compromise of a disputed matter and may not be construed as an
admission of any party's liability.
e. This agreement was the result of a negotiated settlement and may not be construed as
having been prepared by any one party.
f. In the event any action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this agreement, the
prevailing party will be entitled to recover attorney fees.
g. This agreement is intended to bind and benefit the parties, their heirs, agents, legal
representatives, assigns, and successors in interest.

May 30, 2012 Ana Reyes

Signature of COMPLAINANT

404 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

May 30, 2012 Franco Grepo

Signature of COMPLAINANT's Atty.

May 30, 2012 Marco Reyes

Signature of Respondent

May 30, 2012 Bryan Zafra

Signature of Respondent's Atty.
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

ALLAN CABASE, SP. PROC NO. 12-09111

Petitioner, For: Declaration of Nullity
Of Marriage

-Versus-

SHERLY C.CABASE
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

OFFER OF TESTIMONY. The testimony of petitioner, ALLAN CABASE is being offered to

prove the material allegations in the petition regarding his marriage to SHERLY
C.CABASE , and the circumstances before, during and after their marriage and the
subsequent separation of the parties. To prove that petitioner, Benigno Aquino failed to
comply with his marital obligation to live together, observe mutual love and respect and
render mutual help and support. To prove that petitioner consulted a clinical psychologist to
help him in determining whether he has psychological incapacity to assume the essential
marital obligation. To identify some documents necessary in the prosecution of this petition.

How are you related to the petitioner?

A. I am the petitioner sir.

Where are you residing?

A. I am a resident of Blk 8, Lot 10 Athena Subd., Redios Manila.

Do you know SHERLY C.CABASE?

A.Yes sir.

Why do you know her?

A .She is my wife sir.

When and where were you married to Susan L. Reyes?

A.The report of marriage sir.

When and where did you meet SHERLY C.CABASE?

A.I met her sometime in 1993 in the State of Bahrain, we were both Overseas Filipino
Contract Workers.

How would you describe your first meeting with SHERLY C.CABASE?

405 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
A.I saw her as one I could be with to while away from the boredom of working in Bahrain.

What did you do if any?

A.After a few days i courted her, but i wasn’t actually serious with her.

How did you court her?

A.I personally visited her or i would call her on the phone to profess my love.

So what happened next?

A.We started dating and soon we began to engage in premarital sex. However, I treated her
as a playmate only, i was not serious with her, all I wanted was her body.

What else happened?

A.Every time we have concluded our trysts, I would distance myself and not call her for days,
and when I feel the urge again I would call her and we will have sex. That was my routine and
to me, Susan L. Reyes was only one of my conquests and when I grew tired, I would have to
discard her like an old toy, and for no reason I began dreading the times she called.

After having sex with the respondent, what happened, if any?

A. SHERLY C.CABASE became pregnant.

What was your reaction?

A.I got mad about it so without any further words I hung up the phone.

What happened next if any?

A.I just decided to marry Sherly.

Do you love Sherly by that time?

A.No sir.

So why did you marry Sherly?

A.Because I don’t want to inconvenience the parties concerned.

After the marriage ceremony, what happened next?

A.After the marriage ceremony, we each went on our own ways.

What happened after that?

A.When my contract ended in mid 2005, I went back to the Philippines without Susan’s
knowledge. Sherly was already six months pregnant.

While in the Philippines, did you meet Sherly?

A.Yes sir, but only once.

Will you please tell us the incident?

A.In 2006, Sherly and our child and Sherly’s family were able to trace my whereabouts and
came to our house inManila. For the first time i saw my child.

What was your reaction?

A.I did not feel anything special.

So you were not happy to see Sherly and your Son.

A.I was not happy sir.

What else happened?

A.Sherly tried to extend her hand in reconciliation but I refused it.

Why did you refuse?

A.Because I had already made a decision not to live with her, because it would be unfair both
to me and Sherly as we would be living a lie.

What happened next?

A.They left without any further conversation.

Before filing this case, did you consult anyone?

406 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
A.Yes sir.

Whom did you consult?

A.Besides my lawyer, I consulted a clinical psychologist.

Who was that clinical psychologist?

A.Dr. Nedy Tayag.

What did Dr. Linda Lim do if any?

A.She performed various psychological tests.

After those psychological tests, what happened?

A.Dr. Linda Lim prepared a written report.

What is that written report?

A.It is a report on the psychological condition of Cabase.

What does it contain?

A.My background data and brief marital history.

What else?
A.The tests results and evaluation and remarks.

A.You mentioned remarks, what were her remarks?

She mentioned that after a thorough analysis of the facts and other relevant date, Dr. Lim is
of the strong opinion that the eventual failure of our relationship was after all, brought about
by my own misguided notions and apparent unpreparedness as well as immaturity towards
assuming the shoes of a married man. I apparently lacked appropriate insight on my
behaviour and deemed to be psychologically incapacitated to properly perform, or even come
close to being the husband that i was supposed to be.

On the clinical point of view, I am deemed suffering from a distant form of personality flaw,
which have deterred me both from appropriately living up to my marital vows and fulfilling
my paternal obligations. My behavioural manifestations suggest the presence of Personality
Disorder, Narcissistic type, as characterized by the reckless disregard for the feelings and
needs of another person.

That I executed this Affidavit to confirm the truth of all facts herein stated and to serve this
Judicial Affidavit as my direct testimony and further, for such other legal intents and
purposes this may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of May 2012 at Manila

ALLAN CABASE
Affiant
Driver’s License No.:Di 71-059-111111111

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of May 2012 in Manila

BARBBIE CHAHAN
Counsel for the RESPONDENT
Liwanag Street Que Subdivision Manila
Roll of Attorneys 697979
PTR No. 9828287/LIpa City/1-5-2001
IBP No. 25633/1-05-2001
MCLE Compliance No. II-1110008371

Doc No. 12
Page No. 11
Book No. 34

407 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Series of 2012.

LEGAL SEPARATION
PETITION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Paranaque
Branch 44

MARY JANE R. DIAZ

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 11099

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION

Petitioner, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married under the circumstances

hereinafter stated and with residence located at No. 12 St. Elmo Parenaque, City,
where she may be served with notices, orders and decision in this case. Petitioner
is currently employed as Accounting Staff in the SM Corporation;

2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married under the

circumstances herein stated and with residence at No. 10 St. luke street Golden
Subdivision , Paranaque City. Summons, notices, and decision in the instant case
may be served to the Respondent at the above-given addresses. Respondent is a
Certified Public Accountant with business office at Room 6 Intramuros, Manila

3. Petitioner and respondent exchanged marital vows on May 15, 2000, at ST. Paul
Catholic Church, Manila. A copy of their Marriage Certificate is hereto attached
and marked as ANNEX “A”. Having no pre-nuptial agreement, the existing
property relation between the parties is absolute community of property;

4. On October 19, 2001, petitioner and respondent begot their first child, Allan Poe
Diaz. A copy of his Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No. 97-60135 is hereto
attached and marked as ANNEX “B”;

5. On January 25, 2003, petitioner gave birth to their second child, Alicia Diaz A
copy of the Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No. 99-52696 is hereto attached
and marked as ANNEX “C”;

6. On January 28, 2001, Petitioner and respondent acquired property located at at

No. 10 St. luke street Golden Subdivision , Paranaque City.of the Deed of Sale and

408 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 is hereto attached and marked as
ANNEX “D” and “E”, respectively;

7. Sometime in June 2002, the Petitioner left their conjugal home with their
children and lived with her parents because of troubles between the Respondent
and herself. Petitioner and Respondent often quarrel about money and the
latter’s time for their family. Respondent seldom give petitioner money to
support their family and he also has more time to mingle with friends rather than
spend time with his wife and their children;

8. The Respondent herein committed an act of concubinage as defined in the

Revised Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal case
against the former;

9. On or about February 2011, Petitioner let the children see and spend time with
the Respondent. When they arrived at their house in at No. 10 St. Luke street
Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City., they discovered that someone named
Juanita Gutierrez living with the Respondent. Allan Poe told the Petitioner about
what they saw. Petitioner immediately confirmed it with the Respondent and he
admitted this fact.

10. On October 19, 2011, Allan Poe Birthday, Petitioner went to their conjugal home
with the children and she saw Respondent and Conchita in the act of caressing
each other.

11. Gianne Torres , a common friend of the Petitioner and Respondent and also a
neighbor of the parties, confided to Petitioner that Conchita Carpio is living with
the Respondent since year 2005 and Respondent introduced Juanita to the
neighborhood as his new wife. Gianne showed to Petitioner pictures of
Respondent and Conchita Carpio together in the conjugal home of the parties.
Copies of the said pictures are attached hereto and marked as ANNEX “F”.

12. The Petitioner never condoned or committed such act of adultery on the part of
respondent;

13. The Petitioner became cognizant of the above cause on February 2010 or within
one year up to the filing of this petition and within five years from and after the
date when such occurred.

14. The facts of this case render the reconciliation of the parties highly improbable.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due hearing, a decree of legal

separation be issued by this Honorable Court, ordering:
(a) That Petitioner be entitled to live separately from the respondent, without
dissolution, however, of the marriage bond;
(b) That the conjugal partnership be dissolved and liquidated, depriving the
Respondent of his share of the conjugal partnership profits and awarding the
same to the above-named children; and Allan Poe Diaz
(c) That the custody of the minor children, and Alicia Diaz, be awarded to the
petitioner.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Paranaque City, April 01, 2012.

ATTY. Franco Ahmel R. Grepo
Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 999, 1111 Penthouse Building St.,
Paranque City,
IBM Life Member Roll No. 068871/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-23 -12 / Paranaque
Roll of Attorney No. 47775
MCLE Compliance II –0012223 / 03-12-12
Tel. No. 965-2222

409 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

VERIFICATION

I, MARY JANE R. DIAZ

, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with residence located at No No. 12 St. Elmo
Parenaque, City, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state,
that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
3. I have read and understood the contents thereof;
4. All the allegations therein are true and correct base on my personal
knowledge and belief;
5. All the annexes attached therein are faithful reproduction from
genuine and authentic documents and records;

CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

6. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body;
7. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding
is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial body;
8. If I should learn of a similar action or proceeding that is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal,
or quasi-judicial body, I shall inform this Honorable Court of such fact within
five (5) days there from.

MARY JANE R. DIAZ

Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 1st day of November, 2011 affiant
exhibited to me her SSS I.D. No. 34-085739-0 issued on April 3 2012 at Paranauqe City,
Philippines.

ATTY. Bryan Zafra

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until Dec. 31, 2012
PTR C.R. No. 7349322 – Mla.
01/02/08
IBM C.R. No. 823599 – Mla.
12/20/08
TIN 313-976-878
ROLL No. 89868-08
Doc. No. 25
Page No. 10
Book No. 10
Series of 2012

410 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

LEGAL SEPARATION
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Paranaque
Branch 44

MARY JANE R. DIAZ

,
Petitioner,

CIVIL CASE NO. 11099

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

COMES NOW the Respondent by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Court, respectfully avers:

15. That the Petitioner’s Petition for Legal Separation in its paragraph 8 alleges that:
“The Respondent committed an act of concubinage as defined in the Revised
Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal case against
the former.”;

16. That said allegation is insufficient and defective in that it fails to specify what act
committed by the Respondent which constitutes the crime of concubinage that
was used as a ground for the Legal Separation;

17. That a more definite statement on the matter as above indicated is necessary in
order to enable the respondent to prepare properly his responsive pleading.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued by this Honorable

Court requiring the Petitioner to make more definite and certain his complaint in the
particulars above indicated.

Paranaque City, April 05, 2012.

.

ATTY. Renato De Guzman

411 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Counsel for the Respondent
Room 1 Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St.,
Libertad, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08768/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-08 / Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-11
Tel. No. 487-0898

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

RTC Paranaque
Branch 44

ATTY. Franco Ahmel R.Grepo

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 999, 1111 Penthouse Bldg. Intramuros manila

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for Bill of Particulars for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court on April 09, 2012 at 2:00 in the afternoon or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard.

ATTY. Renato De Guzman

412 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

LEGAL SEPARATION
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Paranaque
Branch 44
MARY JANE R. DIAZ
, Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 11099
FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION
ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states
that:

1. Respondent admits paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Petition that he is married to the

herein Petitioner, that he is the father of Allan Poe Diaz and Alicia Diaz, and that he
together with the Petitioner acquired the Property located at No. 10 St. Luke street
Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City.;
2. Respondent partially admits paragraph 7 of the Petition insofar as the fact that on
June 2002, Petitioner left their conjugal home with the children because of the
troubles between them, but specifically denies the allegations of the Petitioner that
they often quarrel because he seldom gives money to support for their family and that
he spend more time with friends rather than his wife and his children. The truth is
that Respondent seldom gave money to the Petitioner because the latter usually used
his money for her own pleasure and not to support their family. Petitioner spent most
of their money in Casino or in playing “mahjong” with her friends. Petitioner is the
one who spent more of her time with friends rather than her family, and not the
Respondent;
3. Respondent partially admits paragraph 8 of the Petition insofar as the fact that their
children went to their conjugal home to visit the respondent and spend time with him,
but specifically denies the remaining allegations because the truth is that Conchita
Carpio is not living at the conjugal home but rather she was only invited by the
Respondent for a dinner and also to meet the latter’s children;
4. Respondent admits paragraph 9 of the Petition that the Petitioner together with the
children went to their conjugal home to celebrate Allan Poe Diaz’s birthday where
Conchita Carpio was also invited;
5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 10 because Conchita
Carpio never lived at the conjugal home and that he never introduced Conchita Carpio
to anyone as his new wife. In fact, no one in the neighborhood knew Conchita Carpio
because she seldom go out of the house when she visits the Respondent in the
conjugal home;
6. Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments made in paragraph 11;
7. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 12 because Petitioner knew about Juanita
since year 2005, and not only on February 2012.

413 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
8. As Affirmative Defenses, the Respondent repleads by reference all the foregoing
allegations as may be material and pertinent hereto and further aver that:
a. Petitioner knew about the relationship of Respondent and Conchita since year
2005 but she did nothing to interfere with such. She even calls Conchita “BF” and
they sometimes see each other, together with the children, to have lunch or
dinner;
b. Assuming without admitting that Conchita Carpio is living with the Respondent
since year 2005, the Petition for Legal Separation is still dismissable because of
Condonation. Petitioner expressly forgiven the Respondent when they live
together at their conjugal home on September 2005 until January 2010. Pictures
of the Respondent and Petitioner at their conjugal home were taken during those
period. Copies of those pictures are attached herewith as ANNEX “1”;

c. Petitioner left the conjugal home for the second time when they often quarrel
because Respondent suspected the Petitioner of being in love with another man
named Piolo Gozo;
d. On February 2010, Petitioner started to go out publicly withPiolo. She even
introduced Piolo to their children and to the Respondent as well. Only then when
Respondent started again to see and go out with Conchita.

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that the
Petition for Legal Separation be DISMISSED.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Paranaque City, April 04, 2012.

ATTY. Renato De Guzman

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 1 Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St., Libertad, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08768/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-08 / Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-11
Tel. No. 487-0898
Copy Furnished:
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Paranaque City

ATTY. Franco Ahmel R.Grepo

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 999, 1111 Penthouse Bldg. Intramuros manila

VERIFICATION
I, ZANDRO S.DIAZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with residence located at No
No. 10 St. Luke street Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City., after having been sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state, that:

9. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;

10. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
11. I have read and understood the contents thereof;
12. All the allegations therein are true and correct base on my personal knowledge
and belief;
13. All the annexes attached therein are faithful reproduction from genuine and
authentic documents and records;

ZANDRO S.DIAZ
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 15 th day of April, 2012 affiant
exhibited to me her SSS I.D. No. 28-067548-0 issued on January 19, 2002 at Paranaque City,

ATTY. DAN R. SUNTAY

NOTARY PUBLIC

414 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Until Dec. 31, 2012
PTR C.R. No. 7349322 – Mla.
01/02/08
IBM C.R. No. 823599 – Mla.
12/20/08
TIN 113-976-878
ROLL No. 6988-09
Doc. No. 7
Page No. 13
Book No. 1
Series of 2012

LEGAL SEPARATION
REPLY
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Paranaque
Branch 44

MARY JANE R. DIAZ

,
Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 11099

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION
ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

REPLY
Petitioner MARY JANE R. DIAZ , by the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

2. Petitioner denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 2 his

Answer that: “Respondent seldom gave money to the Petitioner because the
latter usually used his money for her own pleasure and not to support their
family. Petitioner spent most of their money in Casino or in playing “mahjong”
with her friends. Petitioner is the one who spent more of her time with friends
rather than her family, and not the Respondent”. The truth of the matter is that
Petitioner seldom goes to Casino and play “mahjong” with her friends and every
time she goes there, she use her own money which she have earned from her
employment and not of the Respondent’s. In fact, Petitioner is the one who is
always there for their children, the one who attends there school programs, the
one who sends them to the hospital when they are sick and the one who regularly
helps them with their school loads. Those things were never done by the
Respondent for their children because he is always out with his friends;

3. Petitioner denies the allegation of the Respondent under paragraph 3 of his

Answer that “Conchita Carpio is not living at the conjugal home but rather she
was only invited by the Respondent for a dinner and also to meet the latter’s
children” because when Allan Poe Diaz and Alicia Diaz arrived at the conjugal
home, they saw Conchita came out from the bathroom and she was only clad with
a towel. If it is true that she was only invited for dinner, why didn’t she take a
bath on her own house rather than at the house of someone else where she was
only a guest?

4. Petitioner likewise denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 5 of

his Answer that “no one in the neighborhood knew Conchita Carpio because she
seldom go out of the house when she visits the Respondent in the conjugal home”
because as confided to the Petitioner by Gianna , Conchita even attended twice of
the homeowners’ meetings of the subdivision where the conjugal home is located;

415 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

5. Petitioner partially admits the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 7

and 8(a) of his Answer insofar as the fact that Petitioner knew Conchita as a
friend of the Respondent but she never knew of their illicit relationship until the
incident on February 2011;

6. Petitioner specifically denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph

8(b) of his Answer that: “the Petition for Legal Separation is still dismissable
because of Condonation. Petitioner expressly forgiven the Respondent when
they live together at their conjugal home on September 2009 until January
2010”. The truth of the matters is that from June 2002 when Petitioner left their
conjugal home, Petitioner never talked to Respondent until September 2010
when Petitioner decided to reconcile with the Respondent but that time
Petitioner has no knowledge about Juanita previously living with the Respondent
at the conjugal home. It is only on February 2010 when the Petitioner knew about
the illicit relationship of the Respondent and Conchita;

7. Petitioner partially admits the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph

8(c) only insofar as to the fact that Petitioner left the conjugal home for the
second time when they often quarrel because Respondent suspected the
Petitioner of being in love with another man named Piolo Gozo; but it is not true
that Petitioner is in love with Piolo. The truth is that Piolo is only a new
officemate and friend of the Petitioner and nothing more than that;

8. Lastly, Petitioner denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 8(d)
of his Answer because Petitioner never gone out on a date with Piolo. The truth is
that a month after the separation of Petitioner and Respondent, the Petitioner
discovered that Conchita is living at the conjugal home.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that the
Petition for Legal Separation be GRANTED.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Paranaque City, May 02, 2012.

ATTY. Franco Ahmel R. Grepo

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 999, 1111 Penthouse Building St., Paranque City,
IBM Life Member Roll No. 068871/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-23 -12 / Paranaque
Roll of Attorney No. 47775
MCLE Compliance II –0012223 / 03-12-12
Tel. No. 965-2222

Copy Furnished:
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Paranaque City

ATTY. Renato De Guzman

Counsel for the Respondent

416 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

LEGAL SEPARATION
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF- PETITIONER
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Paranaque
Branch 44

MARY JANE R. DIAZ

,
Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 11099

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
FOR THE PETITIONER

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Petitioner and the Respondent were legally married on 2001 and be gotten with two
(2) children, namely: Allan Poe Diaz and Alicia Diaz Cruz. They were separated in fact for the
first time on June 2002, reconciled on April 2010, and separated again on January 2010.
Petitioner claims that the Respondent is living at the conjugal home with another
woman named Conchita Carpio since year 2005.
On the other hand, Respondent claims that he never lived with Juanita at the
conjugal home but he admits his illicit relationship with the latter.

II. POSSIBILTY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Petitioner is not willing to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and/or
to enter into a just and equitable amicable settlements in order to expedite and put an end to
the instant litigation.

III. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts:
1. Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on May 15, 2000 and begotten
with two (2) children, Allan Poe Diaz and Alicia Diaz;
2. Petitioner and respondent acquired a property located at No. 10 St. Luke street
Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City., as their conjugal home; and
3. Petitioner and Respondent are separated in fact since June 2002.

IV. ADMITTED FACTS

Petitioner’s allegations in her Complaint and Reply constitute her only admissions
and nothing more.

417 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

V. STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a Decree of
Legal Separation on the ground of sexual infidelity of the Respondent?

VI. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence:
1. Pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines;
2. Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
3. Pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Concubinage;
4. Other applicable laws and jurisprudence.

VII. DOCUMENTARY OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

In support of their claims, COMPLAINANTs will present the following documentary
evidence:
1. Exhibit A – Marriage Contract dated December 13, 1990 to prove the marriage
between the Petitioner and the Respondent;
2. Exhibit B – Certificate of Live Birth of Allan Poe Diaz to prove that he is a son of
Petitioner and Respondent;
3. Exhibit C – Certificate of Live Birth of Alicia Diaz Cruz to prove that she is a
daughter of Petitioner and Respondent;
4. Exhibit D – Deed of Sale to prove that Petitioner and Respondent acquire the
property located No. 10 St. Luke street Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City;
5. Exhibit E - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 to prove that the said
property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent;
6. Exhibit F – Pictures of Respondent and Conchita Carpio inside the conjugal
home to prove that they were living there together;
7. Petitioner reserve the right to present additional documentary exhibits in the
course of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Pre-trial Brief be admitted.

Paranaque City, April 01, 2012..

ATTY. Franco Ahmel R. Grepo

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 999, 1111 Penthouse Building St.,
Paranque City,
IBM Life Member Roll No. 068871/PPLM
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-23 -12 / Paranaque
Roll of Attorney No. 47775
MCLE Compliance II –0012223 / 03-12-12
Tel. No. 965-2222

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Paranaque City

ATTY. Renato De Guzman

Counsel for the Respondent

418 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

LEGAL SEPARATION
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF- Respondent
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Paranaque
Branch 44

MARY JANE R. DIAZ

,
Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 11099

FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

ZANDRO S.DIAZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
FOR THE RESPONDENT

VIII. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Respondent were legally married to the Petitioner on December 13, 1990 and have
two (2) children, namely: Allan Poe Diaz and Alicia Diaz. They were separated in fact since
June 2002 but reconciled on September 2009 until January 2011 when they separated again
for the second time.
Petitioner alleges that the Respondent is living with Conchita Carpio at the conjugal
home since year 2005.
On the other hand, Respondent claims that he never lived with Conchita Carpio at
the conjugal home but admits the relationship with the latter.

IX. POSSIBILTY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Respondent is not willing to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution,
and/or to enter into just and equitable amicable settlements in order to expedite and put an
end to the instant litigation.
Ssssssssssss+
X. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
The following are the proposed stipulations of facts:
4. Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and
begotten with two (2) children, Allan Poe Diaz and Alicia Diaz;
5. Petitioner and respondent acquired a property located at No. 10 St. Luke street
Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City., as their conjugal home; and
6. Petitioner and Respondent are separated in fact since June 2002.

XI. ADMITTED FACTS

419 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Respondent’s allegations in his Answer constitute her only admissions and nothing
more.

XII. STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner has a sufficient cause of
action against the Respondent?

XIII. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence:
5. Pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines;
6. Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
7. Pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Concubinage;
8. Other applicable laws and jurisprudence.

XIV. DOCUMENTARY OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

In support of their claims, COMPLAINANTs will present the following documentary
evidence:
8. Exhibit 1 – Marriage Contract dated December 13, 1990 to prove the marriage
between the Petitioner and the Respondent;
9. Exhibit 2 – Certificate of Live Birth of Allan Poe Diaz to prove that he is a son of
Petitioner and Respondent;
10. Exhibit 3 – Certificate of Live Birth of Alicia Diaz Cruz to prove that she is a
daughter of Petitioner and Respondent;
11. Exhibit 4 – Deed of Sale to prove that Petitioner and Respondent acquire the
property located at No. 10 St. Luke street Golden Subdivision, Paranaque City.;
12. Exhibit 5 - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 to prove that the said
property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent;
13. Exhibit 6 – Pictures of Petitioner and Respondent at the conjugal home to prove
that they lived again as husband and wife from September 2009 to January 2010;
14. Respondent reserve the right to present additional documentary exhibits in the
course of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Pre-trial Brief be admitted.

Paranaque City, April 16, 2012.
.

ATTY. Renato De Guzman

Counsel for the Respondent
Room 1 Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St., Libertad, Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08768/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-08 / Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-11
Tel. No. 487-0898

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Paranaque City

ATTY. FRANCO AHMEL R. GREPO

Counsel for the Petitioner

420 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

LEGAL SEPARATION
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF- PETITIONER
\REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for Rescission of
Contract with Damages
Marjan Angels , ALL Around Construction, CO.
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT

COMPLAINANT, by counsel, respectfully state:

1. COMPLAINANT Allan Poe Gomez, Filipinos, of legal age, and resident of SanJose
Street Manila. Allan Poe Gomez is a Nurse at Ospital ng Maynila ;

Respondent Marjan Angels ,ALL Around Construction, CO. is, and at all times herein
mentioned, was a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with
principal offices located at 3th Floor Pearlgates, Makati City;

1. On or about April 17, 2009, COMPLAINANT and Respondents entered into a written
contract by the terms of which COMPLAINANT was to purchase five 123 Diesel
Engines, all of 60 horsepower, for 165,500 each from Respondent corporation
(contract attached as Exhibit 1-A);

2. The Respondent had warranted and assured the COMPLAINANT that all spare parts
of the above mentioned engines were kept in stock in its stores, enabling the latter to
avoid loss due to long periods of waiting, and that Respondent would replace any part
of the engines that might break within twelve (12) months after delivery;

3. COMPLAINANT further charged that on April 8, 2012, the cam rocker arm of all the
five engines broke due to faulty material and workmanship and the engines stopped
functioning, that the Respondent was unable to send a replacement until August 29,
2009 and that barely six days after replacement the new parts broke again due to
faulty casting and poor material;

4. COMPLAINANT, then on April 10, 2012, notified the Respondent and demanded
rescission of the contract of sale, sought for return for the price of the engines and
damages but Respondent did not pay (Notice and Demand correspondence attached
as Exhibit 1-B).

421 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
WHEREFORE, the COMPLAINANT respectfully prays before this Honorable Court the
following:

1. A determination by the Court that the said contract of sale has been rescinded and
ordering restitution of the consideration paid by the COMPLAINANT with legal
interest from April 10, 2012.

2. That the Respondent be required to compensate the COMPLAINANT of actual,

moral and exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees and other litigation expenses
incurred in connection therewith;

COMPLAINANT, likewise pray for such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may
deem just and equitable under the premises.

Manila, April 20, 2010

LORNA TOLENTINO
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation,Sta. Cruz, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2011, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2012

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, Allan Poe Gomez, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the COMPLAINANT in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; I have read the
allegations therein and certify that the same are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge;

3. That I further certify that COMPLAINANT have not commenced any action involving
the same issues, before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the different divisions
thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no
such other actions or proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, the different divisions thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or agency; and

4. That in the event that any action involving the same should be made known, I hereby
bind myself to report the same within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable
Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this April 21, 2012 at
Manila, Philippines.

Allan Poe Gomez

Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of April, 2012, by the affiant
who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at Paranaque City,
Philippines on January 6, 2000.

422 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
ATTY.LORNA TOLENTINO
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation,Sta. Cruz, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2011,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15,
2012Jan,15, 2010

LEGAL SEPARATION
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
LAS PIÑAS
Branch 02

Alexandra Guevarra,
Petitioner,
-Versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-00111
FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION
BILLY ZANE CORTEZ,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves to set aside its judgment rendered therein, and to grant a new trial on the
following grounds:
1. A decision was rendered by this Honorable Court which COMPLAINANT
received on July 12, 2012, dismissing her petition;
2. Petitioner has discovered new evidence to prove that Respondent committed
sexual infidelity by living with Juanita Gutierrez at the conjugal home of the
parties herein. Rick, while playing around the room of the Respondent, found the
Company ID of Joan in Gabriel Company where she is currently working as a Sale
Representative. Rick showed the said ID to the Petitioner and the latter found out
that Juanita is using the address of the conjugal home as her residence. A copy of
the Company ID of Joan is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment rendered be set aside and a
new trial be granted.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Manila, June 27, 2012
ATTY. Faith I. Rios
Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 9, 11111 Building jack and beans
Manila, 1000
IBM Life Member Roll No. 0657771/PP
PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 /Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 47765
MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-03
Tel. No. 765113

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

423 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Regional Trial Court
Branch 101, Manila

ATTY.MARIE CURIE
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT

Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion for New trial for the consideration and approval of
the Honorable Court on July 30, 2012 at 2:00 in the afternoon or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009,
Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011
LEGAL SEPARATION
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

SHERLY C.CABASE,
Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-00111
FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION
BILLY ZANE CORTEZ, Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING

COMES NOW the Respondent by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable
Court, respectfully alleges that:

1. The continuation of the trial of this case was set by this Honorable Court on April
15, 2012 at 9:30 am, as agreed upon by the parties;
2. However, while the undersigned counsel agreed to such setting, he inadvertently
overlooked that he has already committed to appear before in Criminal Case No.
10-1042 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Gomez, et. al.” pending Branch 45
of the Regional Trial Court, Manila City, which is also set on April 15, 2012 at the
same time;
3. The undersigned humbly apologizes to this Honorable Court and to adverse
counsel for the mixed up in his schedule.

WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that the hearing on April 15, 2011 be re scheduled
to another date convenient to this Honorable Court, preferably on April 22 or 29, 2011 at the
same time.

Manila, April 09, 2012.

ATTY. FRANCE PUMAREN
Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515,Oriental building Remedios , Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Tel. No. 987-9898

424 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 02, Las Piñas City

ATTY. Faith I. Rios

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. FRANCE PUMAREN

LEGAL SEPARATION
MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITH SUBSTITUTION OF
COUNSEL

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

SHERLY C.CABASE
Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015
FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION
ALLAN CABASE,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW

WITH SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully state
that:
1. As of this date, the undersigned counsel has withdraw as counsel of the
Respondent in the above-entitled case for all legal purpose;

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court that all notices,

orders, and decision in the instant case be furnished to Atty. LUMUBOS at her above-given
office address.

Manila, April 27, 2012.

ATTY. FRANCE PUMAREN
Counsel for the Respondent
Room 515 ,Oriental building Remedios , Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10
Tel. No. 987-9898

With the consent of:

ZANDRO S. DELA CRUZ

Respondent

NOTICE OF HEARING

425 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 101 Manila

ATTY. Faith Rios

Counsel for the Petitioner
Room 770 11110 Bldg. A. REMEDIOS St.
Manila

Greetings:

Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. FRANCE PUMAREN

RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

Complainant,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages

Marjan Angels ,ALL Around

Construction, CO..
Respondent
x----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers that:
1. That the COMPLAINANT’s complaint in paragraphs 5 alleges:
On April 10, 20012, COMPLAINANT notified the
Respondent and demanded rescission of the contract of
sale sought for the return of the price of the engine x x x x
(underscoring supplied);
1. The said allegation is not averred with sufficient
definiteness and particularity, specifically it does not
mention the specific engine subject of the sale under
consideration and of the amount of the consideration
actually paid;

2. That a more definite statement on the matters as

above indicated is necessary in order to enable the
Respondent to prepare its responsive pleading because
from the very onset of this controversy, the main dispute
was on what was actually and exactly agreed upon by the
parties with respect to instances as averred by the
palintiff;

426 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
3. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement
as to particulars of the said agreement which was signed
by the parties would definitely simplify the issues in this
case and hopefully uncomplicate the negotiations between
the parties for amicable settlement.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays that an order be issued by this

Honorable Court requiring the COMPLAINANT to make more definite statement as to the
particulars of the Terms of Agreement entered by the contracting parties and the particular
breach which brought about the compalint.

Manila, Philippines, April 13, 2010.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

COPY FURNISHED:
ATTY. LORNA TOLENTINO
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT

427 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Marjan Angels ,ALL Around
Construction, CO..
Respondent

x----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

COMPLAINANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves that

judgment on the pleadings must be directed, on the following grounds;
1. In its answer to the complaint for rescission of contract, the Respondent merely
alleged that he had no knowledge and information as to the allegations of the
complaint. This kind of denial, while allowed on certain instances does not apply
when the facts as to which want of knowledge is asserted are to the knowledge of the
court are so plainly and essentially within the Respondent’s knowledge. It amounts to
a general denial that would entitle the COMPLAINANT to judgment on the
pleadings.

2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable document is the contract of sales

signed by the COMPLAINANT and Respondent corporation. The corporation did not
question the authenticity of the agreement. Respondent merely denies knowledge of
the document, which is not sufficient to render factual issue and the same impliedly
admits the due execution and authenticity, as o entitle the COMPLAINANT on
judgment on the pleadings.

WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT prays that judgment on the pleadings be rendered in favor

of the COMPLAINANT, ordering the rescission of the contract of sale and the restitution of
the consideration paid for by the COMPLAINANT.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

ATTY.LORNA TOLENTINO
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation,Sta. Cruz, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2011, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2012Jan,15,
2010

428 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
ANSWER
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 01

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Marjan Angels ,ALL Around
Construction, CO..
Respondent

x----------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
COMPLAINANT’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth of

the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the
contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the
ultimate fact, COMPLAINANT’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis
and consequently, COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during the
period of the contract, the particular engine model and other specifications
which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

2. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting COMPLAINANT’s cause of action;

3. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show that
no notice for rescission was ever filed by the COMPLAINANT;

4. As consequence of COMPLAINANT’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel, Respondent
suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of
merit, with cost against the COMPLAINANT.

Respondent further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.
Manila, Philippines,April 14, 2012.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila

429 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.c.
I, Allan Poe Gomez, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;
2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this April 4, 2012 at the
Manila, Philippines.
Allan Poe Gomez
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of pril, 2012, by the affiant who
exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila,
Philippines on January 6, 2010.

430 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
ANSWER WITH AFRIMATIVE DEFENSES
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,
- Versus - Civil Case No. 03
Complaint for Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Marjan Angels ,ALL Around
Construction, CO..
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
COMPLAINANT’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as

the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that
would indicate that COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the sought
rescission of the contract of sale entered into with the Respondent;
without said allegation of the ultimate fact, COMPLAINANT’s demand for
rescission would be without legal basis and consequently,
COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the

rescission, paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during

the period of the contract, the particular engine model and other
specifications which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

2. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not

likewise averments of ultimate facts constituting COMPLAINANT’s cause
of action;

3. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records

show that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the COMPLAINANT;

4. As consequence of COMPLAINANT’s unfounded claims, which forced

Respondent to litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of
a counsel, Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees
and other litigation expenses;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. To the extent COMPLAINANT’s lack standing with respect to any claim,
that claim should be dismissed;
To the extent of absence of any writing to support the rescission prayed
for, the claim should be dismissed;

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Based upon these answers and affirmative defenses, the Respondent respectfully
request that the Court enter a judgment as follo0ws:
a. Dismissing the COMPLAINANT’s claim in its entirety, on the merits, and
with prejudice;

431 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
b. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may find just and
equitable.
Manila, Philippines, April 14, 2012.
ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.c.
I, JAIME LANISTER, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;
2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this May 4, 2012 at the City
of Makati, Philippines.
AIME LANISTER
Affiant
SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of May, 2012, by the affiant who
exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila,
Philippines on January 6, 2010.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

Doc. No.: 4;
Page No.: 4;
Book No. 2
Series of 2012.

432 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Gino Padilla and ALL Around
Construction, CO.
Respondent

x----------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
COMPLAINANT’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth of

the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the
contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the
ultimate fact, COMPLAINANT’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis
and consequently, COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during the
period of the contract, the particular engine model and other specifications
which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

2. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting COMPLAINANT’s cause of action;

3. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show that
no notice for rescission was ever filed by the COMPLAINANT;

4. As consequence of COMPLAINANT’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel, Respondent
suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges:
1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are hereby reproduced and
reiterated;

2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by the COMPLAINANT against
the answering Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation

433 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of attorney’s
fees and other litigation expenses;
CROSS CLAIM
And for this cross claim against co-Respondent REMY MURALAGI, answering Respondent
further alleges:
1. That Respondent hereby repleads, reiterates, and reproduces all material allegations
contained in the foregoing answer with counterclaim;

2. That Respondent PADILLA should reimburse answering Respondent on any and

whatever amount the matter maybe held answerable or which it may be ordered or
suffered to pay under and by virtue of the present action in favor of the
COMPLAINANT, answering Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the
transactions entered into between Respondent PADILLA and the COMPLAINANT.

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the

Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:
1. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent;

2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable
under the premises.
Manila, Philippines, May 14, 2012.
ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.c.
I, JAIME LANISTER, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;
2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this May 1 4, 2012 at the
City of Manila, Philippines.
JAIME LANISTER
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of May, 2012, by the affiant who
exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila,
Philippines on January 6, 2010.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011
Doc. No.: 4;
Page No.: 4;
Book No. 3
Series of 2012.

434 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

435 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL OF DOCUMENT UNDER OATH
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Gino Padilla and Marjan Angeles, ALL Around
Construction, CO.

Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL OF DOCUMENT UNDER OATH

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
COMPLAINANT’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth of

the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the
contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the
ultimate fact, COMPLAINANT’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis
and consequently, COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during the
period of the contract, the particular engine model and other specifications
which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

2. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting COMPLAINANT’s cause of action;

3. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show that
no notice for rescission was ever filed by the COMPLAINANT;

4. As consequence of COMPLAINANT’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel, Respondent
suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges:
1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are hereby reproduced and
reiterated;

436 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by the COMPLAINANT against
the answering Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation
which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of attorney’s
fees and other litigation expenses;
CROSS CLAIM
And for this cross claim against co-Respondent REMY MURALAGI, answering Respondent
further alleges:
1. That Respondent hereby plead, reiterates, and reproduces all material allegations
contained in the foregoing answer with counterclaim;

2. That Respondent PADILLA should reimburse answering Respondent on any and

whatever amount the matter maybe held answerable or which it may be ordered or
suffered to pay under and by virtue of the present action in favor of the
COMPLAINANT, answering Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the
transactions entered into between Respondent PADILLA and the COMPLAINANT.

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the

Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:
1. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent;

2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable
under the premises.
Manila, Philippines, May 14, 2012.
ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.c.

I, JAIME LANISTER, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;
2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the
City of Makati, Philippines.
JAIME LANISTER
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of May, 2012, by the affiant who
exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila,
Philippines on January 6, 2010.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011
Doc. No.: 4;
Page No.: 4;
Book No. 2

437 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Series of 2012.
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND COUNTER
CLAIM
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Gino Padilla and Marjan Angeles, ALL Around
Construction, CO.

Respondent

x----------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND COUNTER
CLAIM

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to
COMPLAINANT’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint;

2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information to form beliefs as the truth of

the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;

3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any ultimate fact that would
indicate that COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the
contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the
ultimate fact, COMPLAINANT’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis
and consequently, COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against Respondent;

4. Assuming, arguendo, that the COMPLAINANT was indeed entitled to the rescission,
paragraph 4 of the complaint:

a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter, presumably during the
period of the contract, the particular engine model and other specifications
which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the necessary contract
covering the purported sale of the subject engines;

2. That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are not likewise
averments of ultimate facts constituting COMPLAINANT’s cause of action;

3. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the Respondent records show that
no notice for rescission was ever filed by the COMPLAINANT;

4. As consequence of COMPLAINANT’s unfounded claims, which forced Respondent to

litigate and protect its interest and to secure the services of a counsel, Respondent
suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;
SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
At the time the Contract of Sales was entered on April 17, 2009, Respondent made it clear to
the COMPLAINANT that it officially transacts business only through direct sales duly
authorized by the Respondent Corporation:

438 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
A. Respondent PADILLA was not duly authorized direct sales agent of answering
Respondent

B. And that transactions entered into in behalf of the answering Respondent by

PADILLA are unauthorized, COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against
answering Respondent.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges:
1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are hereby reproduced and
reiterated;

2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by the COMPLAINANT against
the answering Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation
which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of attorney’s
fees and other litigation expenses;

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the

Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:
3. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent;

4. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable
under the premises.
Manila , Philippines, May 14, 2012.
ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.c.
I, JAIME LANISTER , of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
3. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative;
4. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the
allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
of authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the
City of Makati, Philippines.
JAIME LANISTER
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of May, 2012, by the affiant who
exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila,
Philippines on January 6, 2010.

ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

Doc. No.: 34;

439 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Page No.: 24;
Book No. 59
Series of 2012

440 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
REPLY
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- Versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages

Marjan Angels, ALL Around

Construction, CO.
Respondent

x----------------------------------------------------x
REPLY

COMPLAINANT, through counsel, reply to the affirmative defenses asserted by

Respondent in its answer and allege:
1. In its answer to the complaint for rescission of contract, the Respondent merely
alleged that he had no knowledge and information as to the allegations of the
complaint. This kind of denial, while allowed on certain instances does not apply
when the facts as to which want of knowledge is asserted are to the knowledge of the
court are so plainly and essentially within the Respondent’s knowledge. It amounts to
a general denial that would entitle the COMPLAINANT to judgment on the
pleadings.

2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable document is the contract of sales

signed by the COMPLAINANT and Respondent Corporation. The corporation did not
question the authenticity of the agreement. Respondent merely denies knowledge of
the document, which is not sufficient to render factual issue and the same impliedly
admits the due execution and authenticity, as o entitle the COMPLAINANT on
judgment on the pleadings.

WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT, through counsel, reply to the affirmative defenses

asserted by the Respondent, move to strike certain affirmative defenses, and renew his
prayer for the relief contained in the Complaint
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

ATTY.LORNA TOLENTINO
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation,Sta. Cruz, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2011, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2012Jan,15,
2010

441 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
COMPLAINANT’S PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101
Allan Poe Gomez,
COMPLAINANT,

- versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Marjan Angels, ALL Around
Construction, CO.
Respondent
x----------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINANT’S PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

COMPLAINANT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits
the following Pre-trial Brief in compliance with the order of the Court dated May 19, 2012.
A. Possibility of Amicable Settlement

COMPLAINANT hereby manifest that he is open to amicable settlement on matters

other than rescission of the contract of sale;
++
B. Brief Statement of COMPLAINANT
The complaint filed is founded on the basic legal maxim that no one shall be enriched
at the expense of another. The Respondent’s breach of contract has not only caused
monetary loss but likewise resulted to the COMPLAINANTs mental anguish, serious
anxiety and embarrassment and has besmirched reputation for which he should be
compensated by way of moral damages.
C. Facts for Stipulation
- Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court on the person of the parties
- Authenticity and enforceability of the subject contract of sale.

D. Statement of Issue
Whether the contract entered into between the COMPLAINANT and Respondent
corporation may be rescinded.

E. Documents for Markings

- Contract of Sale
- Invoices (delivery and official receipts)
- Receiving Papers

F. Witnesses
- COMPLAINANT himself
- Trucking Services representative (who made the delivery)

G. Trial Dates
- Subject to available dates of the Honorable Court
Respectfully submitted
Manila, June 6, 2012
ATTY.LORNA TOLENTINO
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
VDXMB Jubilation,Sta. Cruz, Laguna
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X,
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2011, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2012Jan,15,
2010
COPY FURNISHED
ATTY.MARIE CURIE ROSALES
Counsel for the COMPLAINANT

442 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

Allan Poe Gomez,

COMPLAINANT,

- versus - Civil Case No. 03

Complaint for
Rescission of Contract
with Damages
Marjan Angels, ALL Around
Construction, CO.
Respondent

x----------------------------------------------------x
ARBITRATION – COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

COMPLAINANT Allan Poe Gomez, filed this complaint against Respondent

Marjan Angels, ALL Around
Construction, CO.
for rescission of the written contract of sale entered into between them. COMPLAINANT
prays for the restitution of the consideration paid to the Respondent with damages.
The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and submitted to the court a
compromise agreement, the terms and conditions are as follows:

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Comes Now, the parties COMPLAINANT Allan Poe Gomez and Respondent Marjan
Angels, ALL Around
Construction, CO. and unto this Honorable Court respectfully submit this compromise
agreement:
1. Respondent corporation acknowledges its obligation to the COMPLAINANT for a
total amount of Php899,500 plus 6% PA interest from June 8, 2012;

2. Respondent promises and undertakes to pay the aforementioned amount to the

COMPLAINANT in 6 monthly installments of equal amounts;

3. Said monthly installment payments shall commence on February 20, 2011 and every
end of the month thereafter until fully paid and shall be deposited to
COMPLAINANT Baco De Oro

4. The if the Respondent fails to comply with one (1) installment, the obligation shall
become due and demandable;

5. That the COMPLAINANT shall return all the diesel engines purchased from the
Respondent after the 2nd installment has been cleared;

6. The parties agree that the approval of this agreement by the Court shall put an end to
this litigation, except for the purposes of execution in case of default.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties respectfully pray that the Honorable Court
approve this Compromise Agreement and render judgment on the basis therof.

Manila, June 17, 2012

Allan Poe Gomez

COMPLAINANT

JAIME LANISTER
(ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.)
Respondent

443 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
POSITION PAPER

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101
Nullity of marriage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN CABASE,
COMPLAINANT,

-Versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 1111111

MARIE U.USON,
Respondent.

x---------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
Respondent MARIE U.USON through the undersigned counsel respectfully
submits the following position paper and states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This action for annulment filed by COMPLAINANT ALLAN CABASE for his marriage
with Respondent MARIE U.USON June 29, 2009 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila Branch 101 on the following grounds:

1. Fraud on account of the Respondent’s pregnancy with a child not of the

COMPLAINANT’s.
2. The COMPLAINANT’s consent having been obtained by force and intimidation
3. Failure in obtaining consent of the COMPLAINANT’s parents.

The COMPLAINANT also prays for support and moral damages on account of the
foregoing allegations.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Respondent MARIE U.USON, daughter of Lawyer-Businessman Feliciano GOREZ
Uson, was eighteen (20) years old when she married herein COMPLAINANT Alvin
Marasigan who was then twenty (21) years old and was about to enter the law school. The
ceremony was held on June 29, 2009 at the Manila City Hall officiated by Manila Mayor Lim

Prior to the said marriage, Uson and Cabase were not even acquaintances. They first
met in a class party where everyone was having the most of the night. After a few exchange of
conversations while getting drunk amidst a loud environment, they drove to a motel and
spent the night together. That night has since started the malady of their lives.

Respondent Santos found out her pregnancy a month before her graduation at the St.
Paul’s University – Manila as a Broadcast Journalism student. EXHIBIT A is the original
copy of the pregnancy test done by Dr. linda Simbol , an OB-Gyne of MCM Hospital, on the
Respondent stating that as of MAY 20, 2009, the Respondent is carrying a four-week old
baby in her womb. The COMPLAINANT however questions his paternity over the child.

In a cross examination with the COMPLAINANT, he alleged that on February 22,

2009, he was approached by two bodyguards of the Respondent’s father, Atty. Feliciano
Uson, accordingly informing him of the ‘misfortune’ that he would be in should he not marry
the Respondent. A revolver was accordingly shown to him when the bodyguards sensed his
hesitation. Two days after the incident, the COMPLAINANT allegedly approached personally
the Respondent’s father invoking his incapability to enter into marriage. However, Atty.
Santos accordingly told him to ‘expect to die’. The Respondent denies the accusations stating
that her father, who is a church pastor, could not do such a ‘horrible’ act. Further, Santos
maintains that neither did her father intervene in her personal choices including her personal

444 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
life. The Respondent added that her father only knew of ALLAN CABASE when both of them
already decided to get married, abandoning the contention that Atty. Santos forced ALLAN
CABASE to marry her.

Moreover, the COMPLAINANT contends that he failed to obtain his parent’s consent
when he married Respondent Uson as they were in the Australia. Due to the fraud referred
to in the preceding paragraph, the COMPLAINANT was forced to seek help from an elderly
couple by the name of Hectora Lunda and Lusita Ramirez-‘lunda who operate a Burger
Stand near his residence to pretend to be his parents thus making it appear that their
marriage was valid. The court has established the correctness of the accusation through the
examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation on the thumb mark made by
the couple on the subject marriage contract compared to that of thumb marks of the real
parents of COMPLAINANT ALLAN CABASE (EXHIBIT D). The court no longer required the
couple to testify in court as the evidence was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES
The court defined the following issues which the Respondent prays to result in the
annulment of his marriage with Respondent Santos:
1. Fraud on account of the Respondent’s pregnancy with a child not of the
COMPLAINANT’s.
2. The COMPLAINANT’s consent having been obtained by force, intimidation and
undue influence.
3. Failure in obtaining consent of the COMPLAINANT’s parents.

ARGUMENTS
I
The court has established the fact that Respondent Santos was known in the same
university for her playfulness with her male buddies. The university’s Guidance Counselor
has testified the numerous instances when the Respondent’s attention was called due to her
alleged obvious misconduct of consistently going out with various male acquaintances as
complained by the latter’s respective. Said accusation was not denied by Respondent Uson.

Respondent Uson also admitted in court that in her past experiences, some has
already confronted her affront regarding her playful deeds. In fact, Respondent Uson also
admits the truthfulness of the COMPLAINANT’s allegation that they were not even lovers
when they first had sex. However, it has to be pointed out that during the cross examination
with the COMPLAINANT by the undersigned, the former admitted that he already knew
Uson by name and he has already heard so much about her playful reputation.

ALLAN CABASE on direct-examination July 20, 2009, p. 11 to 19).

ATTY. JOSELITO PASCUAL:

Q Do you know MARIE U.USON even before you met in the class party?

A No.
Q Can you tell this court how you approached her?
A She looked beautiful that night. When I got the chance of getting near her, I
immediately did.

Q So you were attracted to her. Did you have the hint that she would not decline
your conversation with her?

A Yes. My friends assured me I wouldn’t get rejected.

Q So your friends knew her.
A Yes.
Q Did you not have any boy talk with your friends regarding MARIE U.USON?

A Yes we did but I did not know her personally.

It had long been held in Carris v. Carris, 24 N.J. Eq. 516 that where a man has had
sexual intercourse with his wife before the marriage, and she is pregnant at the time of
marriage, although he may not be the author of the pregnancy, the marriage will not be
annulled. It is only but proper to abandon the defense of fraud on the regard both the
husband and the wife were parties to premarital immortality. Clearly, the issue of paternity

445 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
over the couple’s child is not up to resolve the allegation of fraud as cited in Art. 46, Family
Code. Whether or not the child is that of Allan Cabase could not be a valid ground to annul
his marriage with herein Respondent. The Respondent however insists the paternity of
Cabase. Nonetheless, the petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove his denial on his paternity
over the child for not presenting a more technical, accurate and reliable evidence despite the
wide array of scientific avenues of proving or disproving paternity.

II

COMPLAINANT Cabase alleged that if it were not for the force and intimidation
applied to him compelling him to marry MARIE U.USON, the marriage would not have
occurred. This issue is clearly of no moment because the petitioner dismally proved with
sufficient bases that indeed he was forced or intimidated prejudicing his consent over the
marriage.

Cabase brought to the court Allan Pedrasa, his friend who was accordingly with him
when the guards approached him and as witness Pedrasa put it, “forced” him to marry
Rosemarie. Further, Pedrasa testified that the guards showed Marasigan their respective
revolvers when the latter manifested his refusal to the marriage. Cabase was too affected,
avers Pedrasa that he shivered in fear when the guards disappeared. He further recapped
that Cabase got affected to the point that he missed one of his series of interviews at the as an
applicant for admission at the SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW (TSN, MAY 14, 2009, p. 18).

The Respondent, despite his denial to the aforementioned facts, first chose not to
present any further evidence to contradict the allegations that have affected her family to the
point of separating herself voluntarily under the guardianship of her parents by living alone
in a condominium unit in Quezon City. Santos was evidently too emotional in her cross
examination.

MARIE U.USON on cross-examination (id, at p. 24).

ATTY Hubert WeBB

Q Did your father force or intimidates Allan to marry you?

A No
Q Then what can you say about the petitioner’s allegation that he was forced
and intimidated prior to the marriage ceremony?
A I’m so tired of his allegations. These things destroyed my family that I no
longer know how to restore our broken ties. Go on, tell at this court every
single lie and I will not negate them. You can even incarcerate me right now.
Q Calm down Ms. Uson. So you are not presenting any evidence to contradict
the allegations?
A No.

Vitiated consent by force and intimidation is a valid ground for annulment as stated
in Art. 45, Family Code. The present family code limits the cases which would constitute
fraud sufficient for annulment of marriage to those enumerated in Article 46 (Anaya v.
Palaroan, 36 SCRA 97).

However, the petitioner failed to prove in this court the existence of such force and
intimidation when he failed to negate the single evidence that herein Respondent later
presented. EXHIBIT G and E submitting Atty. Santos’ passport and Certificate of Appearance
respectively, indicating that he was in a business conference at Istanbul, Turkey on February
19 to 25, 2009, making it impossible for him to meet the petitioner on February 22, 2009.
Cabase also failed to establish the viability of his allegation that the guards showed him their
guns when the said guards were on leave due to their employer’s absence (see copy of
employees’ logbook EXHIBIT F).

Given that these allegations are true, the most that the court can discern over the
actions of the COMPLAINANT prior to the marriage is his reluctance to the marriage. In
which case, as interestingly held in Vales v. Villa, 35 Phil 789 that there must, then, be a
distinction to be made between a case where a person gives his consent reluctantly and even
against his good sense and judgment, and where he, in reality, gives no consent at all, as
where he executes a contract or performs an act against his will under a pressure which he

446 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
cannot resist. It is clear that one acts as voluntarily and independently in the eye of the law
when he acts reluctantly and with hesitation as when he acts spontaneously and joyously.
Legally speaking he acts as voluntarily and freely when he acts wholly against his better sense
and judgment as when he acts in conformity with them. Between the two acts there is no
difference in law.

Very clearly, the petitioner is just shopping for grounds to annul his marriage with
the COMPLAINANT.

III

It is also stated in Art. 45, Family Code

Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following

causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage
annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one,
and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority
over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of
twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both
lived together as husband and wife; (emphasis supplied).

xxx xxx xxx

True enough, the petitioner was above 18 but below 21 during the marriage. The
court very well established that the petitioner seek help from the Lunda couple for the
consummation of the marriage ceremony. The Respondent herself knew that the Lunda
couple was not Cabase’s parents because she knew that the former’s parents have been in the
United States for so long and that they cared so much for Alvin that they would not miss their
son’s marriage without first knowing her would-be wife. The Respondent is definitely of the
same stand that they were both not in legal age when they contracted the marriage and that
only her father consented.

The issue now turns out to be whether they were still cohabiting at the time when
Alvin turned 21, in squaring off with the qualification in paragraph 1 of Art. 45, Family Code.

As the defense easily established, the couple were still cohabiting as the
COMPLAINANT told the court.

ALLAN CABASE on direct-examination (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 21).

ATTY. JOSELITO PASCUAL

Q By the way Allan, when did Marie live your home to live alone in a
condominium?
A A month ago or so?
Q Are you sure?
A Well we lived in the same house but we were not at peace with each other.

Cabase turned 22 on January 1, 2011. At the time of the interrogation he was already
22 and seven months. Clearly, if Rosemarie left their home a month before said
interrogation, they were still cohabiting when petitioner Cabase turned 21. Therefore, Art. 45
of the Family Code could not be invoked by the petitioner in annulling their marriage.

This malady has gone through a weary race. Contrary to what the law provides that
the husband and the wife are obliged to live to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art.
68, Family Code). The sanction therefore is the “spontaneous, mutual affection between
husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order” to enforce consortium ( Tsoi v.
Lao-Tsoi, 334 Phil 294, citing Cuaderno v. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298)

At any rate, it is being implored that this journey of diametrically opposed marriage
be settled in its most peaceful way. That what damage this has caused to the emotions of the
parties be repaired and their affection restored.

447 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

PRAYER

WHEREFORE premises considered, Respondent respectfully prays that

COMPLAINANT’s action for annulment de denied for the grounds he presented are bereft of
merit.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises is also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Manila , June 18, 2012.

ATTY. JOSELITO PASCUAL

Counsel for Respondent
San Juan St.,Manila
PTR No. 6347124, 2/24/2009, Manila City
IBP No. 812332, 4/13/2009, Las pinas City
Roll of Attorney No. 44556678

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Aldus Delos Reyes

Intal and Intal and Associates
Counsel for COMPLAINANT
3th Floor Pearly gates, Makati City

448 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

COLLECTION FOR THE SUM OF MONEY

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila

JUAN SANTOS
Complainant,
-Versus- CIVIL Case No.99
For Sum of Money
VICTOR BASA
Respondent
x-------------------------------------------------x

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that:

1. Respondent engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on Mar 17, 2012;

2. Respondent was served with Summons and copy of Complaint on May 13, 2012 and
thus has until May18, 2012 within which to submit an Answer or Responsive
Pleading;

3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and prior
commitments, the undersigned counsel would not be able to meet the said decline;

4. As such, undersigned counsel, through an urgent motion for extension of time was
constrained to request for an additional period of five days from May 19, 2012 to May
24, 2012 within which to submit Respondent’s Answer or Responsive Pleading. Such
motion was granted though a resolution by the court;

5. However, Respondent failed to submit the said motion on time for honestly failing to
foresee their inability to prepare and file the intended petition within the
reglamentary period due to prepare due to voluminous and pressing work load on
equally important cases of the undersigned counsel, not to mention his daily court
appearances;

6. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the
available witness and study this case further;

7. This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be given
an additional period of five days from today within which to submit an answer or other
Responsive Pleading.

Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.

Manila, May24, 2012

Atty. LANCE LONTOC
Counsel for Respondent
ABC Bldg., UN Avenue, Manila
PTR No. 31111111
IBP No.: 34482
Roll No. 22222222
Copy furnished:

449 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Atty. lomer Gonzaga
Counsel for Complainant,
555 Bldg. Juan St.
Manila
COLLECTION FOR THE SUM OF MONEY
FINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila
Collection for Sum of money
_______________________________________________________

JUAN SANTOS
COMPLAINANT,

-Versus- CIVIL Case No. 99

for: Sum of
money

VICTOR BASA
Respondent
x--------------------------------------------x

FINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, mostly respectfully states that:

1. He is the counsel for the Respondent in the above captioned case for sum of money;

2. Respondent engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on May17, 2012;

3. Respondent was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on November 3,
2009 and thus has until May 18, 2012 within which to submit an Answer or
Responsive Pleading;

4. Respondent was twice given extension of time to prepare and answer the complaint.
The first time extension of five days was given on May 19, 2012 to end on May 24,
2012.

5. However, Respondent failed to submit the said motion on time for honestly failing to
foresee their inability to prepare and file the intended petition within the
reglamentary period due to voluminous and pressing work load on equally important
cases of the undersigned counsel, additional time of five days was also allowed by the
Court with no opposition form the opposing party. Said extension was from
November 25, 2009 to May 30, 2012;

6. Good cause exist to justify the additional requested extension of three more days as
counsel for the Respondent had to undergo a minor dental surgery during the
previously requested extension;

WHEREFORE, with indulgence form the Court, counsel for the Respondent most humbly
request that a final extension of three days to prepare the answer be granted.

Manila, May 30, 2012

Atty. LANCE LONTOC

Counsel for Respondent
555 Bldg., UN Avenue, Manila
PTR No. 31111111
IBP No. 34482
Roll No. 444444444

450 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES

COLLECTION FOR THE SUM OF MONEY

MOTION TO DECLARE RESPONDENT DEFAULT

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 101, Manila

Harvey Que,
Complainant,
-versus- Civil Case No. 001111

VICTOR LIM,
Respondent
x---------------------------x

MOTION TO DECLARE RESPONDENT DEFAULT

COMPLAINANT, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states

1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Respondent was served with copy of
the summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on May 20, 2012;
2. Upon verification however, the records show that Respondent VICTOR LIM has
failed to file her Answer within the reglamentary period specified by the Rules of
Court despite the service of summons and the complaint;
3. As such. It is respectfully prayed that Respondent VICTOR LIM be declared in
default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to
render judgment as the complaint may warrant.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Respondent VICTOR LIM be declared in

default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render
judgment as the complaint may warrant.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, Philippines, April 15, 2012.

ATTY. FRANCE PUMAREN

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
Room 515,Oriental building Remedios , Manila
IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM
PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP
Roll of Attorney No. 65758
MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10

Notice of Hearing:

The Clerk of Count

Branch1 01, Manila

Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Respondent in Default on April 30,
2012 at 8:00 o’clock in the morning or at any time convenient to the calendar of the
Honorable Court.

Thank You.

Copy Furnished:

451 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Atty BILLY ZANE CORTEZ,
Counsel for Respondent
No. 13, UN Avenue
Manila City

COLLECTION FOR THE SUM OF MONEY

MOTION TO LIFT DEFAULT

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 01, Manila

Harvey Que,,
Complainant,

-Versus- Civil Case No. 00011111

VICTOR LIM
Respondent
x---------------------------x

MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT

Respondent, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges that:

1. Ten (10) days after the summons of the complaint was received by this Respondent,
she filed a motion to dismiss;

2. COMPLAINANT has not filed any opposition to said motion and no hearing was held
on said motion to dismiss;

3. While the said motion to dismiss was still pending, this Honorable Court declared
Respondent in default;

4. Said order declaring Respondent in default is premature and without legal basis since
there is still a pending motion to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the order declaring the Respondent in

default be lifted and that this Honorable Court rule on the aforesaid pending motion
to dismiss.

City of Manila; March 20, 2009

BILLY ZANE CORTEZ,
Counsel for
Respondent
Roll No. 321
IBP No. 7654 issued on
October 31, 2006
PTR No. 000001, issued at
Manila

Notice of Hearing:

The Clerk of Court

Branch 101, Manila

Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Respondent in Default on April 30,
2012 at 8:00 o’clock in the morning or at any time convenient to the calendar of the
Honorable Court.

Thank you

452 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g
 JUDICIAL FORMS
CIVIL CASES
Copy Furnished:

ATTY. FRANCE PUMAREN

Counsel for COMPLAINANT
Cubao, Quezon City

PETITION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORNACE

MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, BRANCH 101

ZANE CORTEZ,
Complainant,
-Versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 954768
FOR: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

CHRISTINE REYES
Respondent

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

COMPLAINANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. The decision in favor of the COMPLAINANT has become final and executor since
more than fifteen (15) days from Respondent’s receipt thereof on April 15, 2012 had
already lapsed without a Respondent’s appealing therefrom.
2. After a decision has become final, execution is a matter of right on the part of the
prevailing party and ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of execution.

WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT prays that a writ of execution be issued for the

satisfaction of the judgment date April 30, 2012.

Manila, September 30, 2012.

Alexandra Guevarra
Counsel for the
COMPLAINANT

The Clerk of Court

Municipal Trial Court
Manila

Sir:

Please submit the foregoing for the approval of the Court upon receipt thereof, notice
and hearing not being required.

ATTY. Alexandra Guevarra

453 | A d v a n c e L e g a l W r i t i n g