Legal Forms - Class Compilation (llb3 630-830).docx

University of the Visayas GULLAS LAW SCHOOL Main Campus Dionisio Jakosalem St, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu

A Compilation of the BASIC LEGAL FORMS and JUDICIAL FORMS & PLEADINGS

1

Submitted by: LLB3 Section Tue 6:30-8:30 PM

Submitted to: Atty. Michael Francis L. Hubahib Professor, Legal Forms

2

LIST OF STUDENTS

1. Abrenica, Krisleen A. 2. Adlawan, Samuel Jr. G. 3. Adora, Dane Pauline C. 4. Agwayas, Faith B. 5. Alad-ad, Joy Almarie D. 6. Alcalde, Rioje M. 7. Aplacador, Razzel M. 8. Arceo, Emerson S. 9. Barita, Reynold G. 10. Benigay, Renato Jr. G. 11. Caballero, Antonio P. 12. Dalire, Glyza S. 13. Degamo, Bonifacio Jo III S. 14. Dela Cerna, Jacinth D. 15. Donque, Carlito Jr. L. 16. Echavez, Lars Christian 17. Gabica, Keth Vincent M. 18. Gaoiran, Florante T. 19. Go, Rosana A. 20. Gulang, Cesar P. 21. Hatamosa, Analie G. 22. Hermosilla, Crisanto B. 23. Lanugon, Jovan N. 24. Luyao, Myrna O. 25. Mahinay, Jun Carlo F. 26. Maloloy-on, Gerby E. 27. Montecillo, Brian C. 28. Nedia, Chennie Lynn O. 29. Oliva, Renil B. 3

30. Pagodon, Eric E. 31. Pananganan, Ramon Paul P. 32. Pelagio, Mabini O. 33. Plando, Ninf Quennie Q. 34. Rabillas, Marcy Jo T. 35. Raotraot, Vincent Louie A. 36. Regulacion, Manny Kent S. 37. Requinto, Mary Grace C. 38. Santiago, Lebene Marie G. 39. Sarillana, Reeman L. 40. Wilwayco, Raphael Aaron B.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BASIC LEGAL FORM

I. Notarial Certificates ............................................................................. 6 a. Jurat...................................................................................................... 6 b. Acknowledgment ................................................................................. 7 i. Consisting of one (1) page; .................................................................. 7 ii. Consisting of two (2) pages................................................................. 8 II. Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping..................... 9 II. Affidavits ............................................................................................ 10 a. Affidavit of Loss ................................................................................ 10 b. Affidavit of Change of Name ............................................................ 11 c. Affidavit of Preliminary Attachment................................................. 12 d. Judicial Affidavit ............................................................................... 13 IV. Negotiable Instruments ................................................................... 17 a. Promissory Notes ............................................................................... 17 b. Bills of Exchange .............................................................................. 18 c. Check ................................................................................................. 19 V. Simple Contracts ............................................................................... 20 a. Contract of Lease ............................................................................... 20 i. Lease of Apartment/Condominium Unit ............................................ 20 ii. Lease of Office Building ................................................................... 27 iii. Lease with Option to Purchase......................................................... 30 b. Deed of Sale of Realty....................................................................... 40 i. Registered Land.................................................................................. 40 ii. Unregistered Land ............................................................................. 40 iii. Under Pacto de Retro ....................................................................... 42 c. Deed of Sale of Personal Property..................................................... 44 i. Sale of Personal Property ................................................................... 46 ii. Sale of Motor Vehicle ....................................................................... 48 iii. Sale of Personal Property in Installment with mortgage ................. 51 5

iv. Sale of Vessel ................................................................................... 53 v. Sale of Large Cattle ........................................................................... 55 d. Deed of Donation .............................................................................. 58 e. Easement of Right of Way................................................................. 61 VI. Quitclaim in Labor Cases ............................................................... 63 VII. Notice of Hearing and Explanation .............................................. 64 VIII. Settlement of Estate ...................................................................... 65 a. Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate .............................................. 65 b. Extra-Judicial Deed of Partition ........................................................ 66 c. Extra-Judicial Settlement ................................................................... 68 d. Affidavit of Self-Adjudication .......................................................... 69 IX. Mortgage Contracts ......................................................................... 77 a. Real Estate Mortgage......................................................................... 77 b. Chattel Mortgage ............................................................................... 80 c. Deed of Release of Real Estate or Chattel Mortgage ........................ 82 X. Pre-Nuptial Agreements ................................................................... 84 XI. Deed of Assignment of Credit ......................................................... 86

JUDICIAL FORMS AND PLEADINGS

I. Captions and Titles ............................................................................. 88 a. Supreme Court ................................................................................... 88 b. Court of Appeals................................................................................ 89 c. Regional Trial Court .......................................................................... 90 d. Special Proceedings ........................................................................... 91 e. Criminal Proceedings ........................................................................ 92 II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions ...................................... 91 a. Interpleader ........................................................................................ 93 b. Action for Declaratory Relief ............................................................ 95 c. Petition for Certiorari......................................................................... 97 d. Petition for Prohibition .................................................................... 108 e. Petition for Mandamus .................................................................... 111 6

f. Petition for Quo Warranto................................................................ 113 g. Complaint for Expropriation ........................................................... 116 h. Complaint for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage ...................... 120 i. Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Estate ............................... 124 j. Complaint for Unlawful Detainer .................................................... 128 k. Complaint for Forcible Entry .......................................................... 131 l. Escheat.............................................................................................. 134 m. Guardianship .................................................................................. 137 n. Adoption of Minors ......................................................................... 139 o. Habeas Corpus ................................................................................. 142 p. Amparo ............................................................................................ 144 q. Habeas Data ..................................................................................... 149 r. Change of Name ............................................................................... 153 s. Change of First Name and Civil Entries .......................................... 157 III. Provisional Remedies .................................................................... 159 a. Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment ....................... 159 b. Complaint with Application for Preliminary Injunction ................. 163 c. Complaint with Application for Receivership ................................. 165 d. Replevin ........................................................................................... 169 e. Complaint for Separate Support with Application for Alimony Pendente Lite ....................................................................................................... 172 IV. Miscellaneous Civil Pleadings ....................................................... 174 a. Notice of Appearance as Counsel.................................................... 174 b. Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel .................................................... 176 c. Complaint for Damages ................................................................... 178 V. Other Civil Pleadings ...................................................................... 181 a. Answer ............................................................................................. 181 b. Petition for Trial by Commissioner ................................................. 185 c. Complaint Based on an Actionable Document ............................... 187 d. Complaint in Intervention ............................................................... 189 e. Third Party Complaint ..................................................................... 191 f. Petition for Consolidation of Ownership (Pacto de Retro) .............. 193

7

g. Motion for Leave to Effect Service of Summons by Publication ... 195 h. Motion for Leave for Extraterritorial Service ................................. 197 i. Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading .............................................. 198 j. Motion for Bill of Particulars ........................................................... 200 VI. Appeals ............................................................................................ 202 a. Notice of Appeal .............................................................................. 202 b. Record on Appeal ............................................................................ 203 c. Petition for Review on Certiorari .................................................... 205 d. Appellant’s Brief ............................................................................. 208 e. Appellee’s Brief ............................................................................... 212 f. Petition for Review .......................................................................... 225 VII. Pleadings: Criminal Actions........................................................ 226 a. Criminal Complaint ......................................................................... 226 b. Investigation Data Form .................................................................. 234 c. Information ...................................................................................... 238 VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings .......................................................... 240 a. Motion to Quash .............................................................................. 240 b. Motion for New Trial ...................................................................... 241 c. Notice of Appeal .............................................................................. 243 d. Petition for Bail ............................................................................... 244 e. Application of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witness247

8

BASIC LEGAL FORMS I. Notarial Certificates

JURAT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF CEBU) S.S

SUBSCRIBED AND SOWN to before me, in the City of Cebu this 19 day of May 2019, the affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 123456 issued by the LTO on January 2, 2000 at Cebu City. th

ATTY. KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 123503 IBP No. 053235 Roll No. 305445 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111201 Office Address: 3rd Floor, TEP Building, Tres de Abril, Cebu City [email protected] 09177056576

Doc No.

01;

Page No. 06; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

9

I. Notarial Certificates Acknowledgment [ Consisting of one (1) page ]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in Minglanilla, Cebu, this May 2, 2018 at Minglanilla, Cebu, Philippines, personally appeared to me the above mentioned parties showing to me their respective competent evidence of identity as above indicated below their printed names and signatures, known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and they acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

ATTY. SAMUEL ADLAWAN Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR NO. 1607006, 1-02-07 IBP NO. 6865241, 12-28-06 Roll No. 6865222 MCLE Compliance No. XX-000001 2 n d Floor Larrobis Building, Poblacion, Miglanilla, Cebu Tel No. 273-1034

Doc No.

02;

Page No. 07; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

10

I. Notarial Certificates Acknowledgment [ Consisting of two (2) page ]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for Quezon City, personally appeared the parties, exhibiting to me competent evidence of their identities in the form of valid identification cards bearing their photographs and signatures, and they acknowledged to me that the foregoing instrument is their free act and deed.

This Acknowledgment pertains to an integrally complete Deed of Absolute Sale of one (1) parcel of registered land situated in Quezon City, consisting of 2 pages, including this acknowledgment page, and signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses on each and every page thereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

ATTY. DANE PAULINE C. ADORA Notary Public For and within the territorial jurisdiction of Cebu City Notarial Commission No. 76544 Valid until December 31, 2019 IBP No. 7894566 lifetime, Cebu City Attorney’s Roll No. 741258 PTR No. 123648, January 3, 2019

Doc No. 03; Page No. 08; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

11

II. Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Hazel L. Boromeo, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of Centro Mandaue City Cebu, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

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

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition and I have read all the allegations therein which are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and authentic documents;

3. That I further certify that there is no pending action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action is pending, I shall undertake to inform the Honorable Court of this fact within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 15 day of March in Mandaue City, Cebu. th

Hazel L. Boromeo Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of March 2019 in Mandaue City Cebu, with Driver’s License No.G06-14007006 valid until year 2021 and I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant herein and that I am fully satisfied that she voluntarily executed the foregoing petition and she understood all the allegations herein. ATTY. FAITH B. AGWAYAS Appointment No. 321 Roll of Attorney No. _9798 PTR No.1, 21 NOVEMBER 2017 Manila 12

IBP No. 21, 21 November 2018 Cebu Office Address 421 Cortes street Mandaue City, Cebu Contact No. 09123456789 MCLE Compliance (or Exemption) No.3 Doc. No. 04; Page No. 09; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

13

III. Affidavits Affidavit of Loss

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS I, JOHAN MARK S. MUSA, of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of Block 112Lot 8, Phase 2 C II Karangalan Village, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to inaccordance with law, depose and state THAT: 1. I am a duly licensed driver in accordance with pertinent Land Transportation laws, rules and regulations, and was issued a correspondi ng Non -Professional Driver's License with number D16-05-301715 which is valid until January 13, 2020; 2. Sometime in February 2019, said driver's license was misplaced and got lost; 3. Efforts were exerted to locate said driver's license, but in spite of diligent search, it could not be found and the same is now beyond recovery; 4. Said Driver's License has not been confiscated by the LTO, Police or oth erTraffic Enforcers for any traffic violation; 5. As such, I am executing this Affidavit of Loss to attest to the truth of the foregoing and to support my application for the issuance of a new Non Professional Driver's License, in lieu of the one that was lost; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16 th day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines. Johan Mark S. Musa Affiant SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 16th day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his competent evidence of identity by way of Voter’s I.D VIN 7403-0660BA1387LFB10000 issued at Cebu City.

Doc. No. 05; Page No. 10; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

ATTY. JOY ALMARIE D. ALAD-AD Notary Public Until 12-31-19 Roll No. 222222 IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15 PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City 14

MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18 II. Affidavits Affidavit of Change of Name

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu

)S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF CHANGE OF NAME

I, RONALDO NAVARRETE, of legal age, single and with address at 49 Tres De Abril St., Labangon, Cebu City, do hereby depose and state:

1. THAT my RONALDO NAVARRETE as stated and registered in my birth certificate issued by the office of the Civil Registry of Cebu City. A copy of my birth certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

2. THAT since childhood, my friends and acquaintances call me ROLANDO and thus since then I have been accustomed to using the name ROLANDO NAVARRETE in my personal records, transactions and communications;

3. THAT the name RONALDO NAVARRETE be corrected and change to ROLANDO NAVARRETE the Affiant herein;

4. THAT I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to use the same for whatever legal purpose it may serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 22nd day of February 2019 at Cebu City.

15

ROLANDO NAVARRETE (Affiant) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of February 2019 at Cebu City. Affiant exhibiting his Driver’s License No. 53900193 issued at Cebu City on January 20, 2019.

ATTY. RIOJE M. ALCALDE Notary Public Commissioned until December 2019 Doc. No. 05;

Roll of Attorney No. 80009

Page No. 11;

PTR No. 902892/ Jan. 20, 2019

Book No. III;

IBP No. 89012903/ Jan. 29, 2019

Series of 2019.

MCLE Compliance: V-0908839

16

III. Affidavits Affidavit of Preliminary Attachment

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT I, RONIE BANAG, of legal age and a resident of the City of Cebu, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and says: 1. That I am the Plaintiff in the case of Banag vs. Calumpang; 2. That there is sufficient cause of action; 3. That the defendant has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so with intent to defraud his creditor, the herein plaintiff-affiant; 4. That I am filing a bond in the amount of P 100,000; 5. That the amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum which the order is prayed for above all legal counterclaims. FURTHER AFFIANT SAVETH NAUGHT. IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of March, 2019, in the City of Cebu. Philippines.

RONIE T. BANAG Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of March, 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, affiant having exhibited to me his Driver’s License No. 345908 issued until January 23, 2024.

Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador Notary Public Until 12-31-19 Roll No. 222222 17

IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15 PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18

Doc. No. 07; Page No. 12; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

III. Affidavits Judicial Affidavit

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT REGION VII CEBU CITY BRANCH 2

DRA. MILA D KUNIS, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 08-3636 FOR: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

- versus TOMAS O SOSMENIA, Defendant x-------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT (Pursuant to SC AM-8-8-SC) I, Dra. Mila D Kunis, single, Filipino, and residing at 1261 A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law in an answer to the question asked by Atty Stephen Curry in his office at 5th Floor, Dominga Building III, 2113, Lahug, Cebu City on March 15,2019 at 11:30 AM full conscious that I do so under oath and I may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury hereby depose and state This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove the following: A.) All the allegations in the complaint including all annexes appended thereto and which were already marked as exhibits in the case;

18

B.) All other related matters, facts and circumstances relevant and material to this case Q: How are you related to Dra. Mila D Kunis, the plaintiff in the civil case no. 08-3636 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for unlawful detainer against Tomas O Sosmenia? A: I am the same.

Q: Do you know the defendant Tomas O Sosmenia? A: Yes, he is the lessee that is occupying my property in a studio type unit located at 1234 A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City. The contract of the lessee is marked as EXHIBIT “A”. Q: How did the defendant Tomas O Sosmenia was able to occupy your property? A: Tomas O Sosmenia leased my property for a period of 1 year from March 5, 2018 to March 5, 2019. Q: Did he comply with his obligations in paying the rentals? A: Yes, he complied with his obligations but only from March 5, 2018 to Deccember 5,2018. The rental payments for the said months are hereby attached as EXHIBIT “B”. Q: What did you do after the defendant failed to pay his rental payment for the month of January 5,2019- March 5,2019? A: On February 5,2019, one month before the expiration of the lease agreement, I sent notice of expiration of lease of contract to the defendant with option to renew the same or pay the unpaid rentals and vacate the premises upon the expiration of the lease contract. Such notice is attached as Exhibit “C”. Q: Did the defendant exercise any of the two options? A: No. Q: What did you do after that? A: On February 5,2019, I made an oral demand with the plaintiff to pay the unpaid rentals due and to vacate the premises. However, the defendant, Tomas O Sosmenia, did not pay the same and did not vacate the premises. After that, we underwent a Barangay Conciliation proceeding but it was futile. 19

Q: Do you have any document or proof that you and the defendant underwent a Barangay Conciliation? A: A Certification to File Action was issued by me from Barangay Talamban, Cebu City. Herein attached as ANNEX “D”. Q: What did you do after that? A: On June 8, 2014, a day after the expiration of the lease contract, I gave defendant, Tomas O Sosmenia a formal written demand to pay the unpaid rentals and vacate the property. A photocopy of the said written demand is hereby attached as ANNEX “E”. Q: Did the defendant pay and vacate the property? A: No, he did not. He refused to pay and vacate the said property. Q: What step did you take after the refusal of the defendant , Tomas O Sosmenia to pay the unpaid rentals and vacate the property? A: I filed this action before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Cebu City for Unlawful Detainer. Q: In your complain you are asking for the unpaid rentals for the use and occupation of the said property, how much is your claim for unpaid rentals from the defendant? A: The agreed rental per month of P90,000.00 starting April 2014 up to the time the defendant turn over the said property and vacate the same plus the interest stipulated in the lease contract until full payment is made. Q: Finally, do you know why you are executing the foregoing sworn statement in this case? A: Yes, I am executing this sworn statement to be adopted as my direct examination in this case to prove my cause/s of action for unlawful detainer against the defendant in the above entitled case, and this judicial affidavit be marked as EXHIBIT “F”. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I hereby affix my signature this 15Th day of March 2019, Cebu City.

MILA D KUNIS Affiant

20

ATTESTATION I hereby attest that on this 5th day of March 2019, I have personally examined the plaintiff, MILA D KUNIS; and that I have faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions asked and the corresponding answers made thereto by her. I further attest that I nor any other person herein present , or assisting me, never coached MILA D KUNIS regarding her answers.

Cebu City, Philippines, March 15, 2019

ATTY. STEPHEN CURRY Counsel for the Plaintiff th 5 Floor, Dominga Building III, 2113, Lahug, Cebu City IBP No. 575848/01-13-2019/ Cebu PTR No. 7012006/01-05- 2004/Cebu SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of March 2019 in Cebu City. Affiant exhibited to me her identification card bearing their photograph and signature as follows:

NAME ISSUED BY: MILA D KUNIS STEPHEN CURRY

SSS ID 12-1845 IBP No. 575848

Known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing document. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and on the place above-written.

ATTY. EMERSON S ARCEO Notary Public 7th Floor, Gullas Building Colon Street, Cebu City Roll No. 03162019 PTR No. 1941888, 01-05-19 IBP No. 905467, 04-28-18 MCLE Compliance No. VII – 00014344, July 5, 2018 Doc. No. 08; 21

Page No. 13; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

22

IV. Negotiable Instruments Promissory Notes

PROMISSORY NOTE

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I promise to pay without need of demand to the order of CATHLYN R. BANCAT, at his office at Room 301, 3RD Floor DBP Building, Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City, the principal amount of PESOS: ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), on or before MARCH 15, 2020. In addition to the foregoing, I promise to pay monthly interest at the rate of TEN (10 %) percent, without the need of demand, starting from the month of APRIL 2019 until this note is fully paid.

In case of default in payment of this note plus interest when it becomes due and demandable, I agree to pay an additional amount equivalent to TWO (2%) per month based on the total amount due and demandable as penalty, compounded monthly until fully paid; and in case it becomes necessary to collect this note through any Attorney-at-Law, the further sum of FIVE (5%) thereof as the attorney’s fee, exclusive of costs and judicial/ extrajudicial expenses.

March 15, 2019, Cebu City Philippines

REYNOLD G. BARITA Maker

23

IV. Negotiable Instruments Bills of Exchange

BILLS OF EXCHANGE

Php 10,000.00

Cebu Philippines

March 15, 2019

For the value received, I promise to pay to the order of Yasmin Isabel Pressman the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000.00) on or before May 19, 2019 at the City Savings Bank, Cebu.

(Sgd.) Renato G. Benigay Jr.

24

IV. Negotiable Instruments Check

Check Number PNB 075689 ANTONIO P. CABALLERO

March 9, 2019

Pay to the

P 58, 000.00

Order of

MARIA Y. AGWANTA

PESOS

FIFTY-EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS ONLY

___________________________ ANTONIO P. CABALLERO

25

V. Simple Contracts Contract of Lease [ Lease of Apartment/Condominium Unit ]

CONTRACT OF LEASE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Contract of Lease made and entered into by and between: First Pacific Corporation, a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office at General Maxilom, North Reclamation Area, Cebu City, Philippines and represented in this act by its Human Resource Manager, Jane Gadingan, (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSOR"); - And – Pedro Sy, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines, (hereinafter referred to as the "LESSEE"); WITNESSETH: that – WHEREAS, the LESSOR is the owner of a condominium unit located at 12 Street, Lahug, Cebu City, more particularly described as follows: The unit known as Unit No. 2403 in the building known as building number 200 in 12 Street, Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines and (1) also described as Unit No. 2403 in the Declaration of High Point I Condominium Corp. for High Point of Cebu I Condominium, dated December 26, 2000, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Cebu City on December 31, 1973, and as shown on the floor plans filed simultaneously with said Declaration in said Clerk’s Office as Map Number 18110 and the floor plans filed simultaneously with said amended Declaration as Map Number 18200. WHEREAS, the LESSEE desires to occupy the above-named condominium unit and the LESSOR is willing to lease the same unto the LESSEE, subject to the terms and conditions herein below set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants hereinafter stipulated, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.Term: This lease shall be for a duration of One (1) year commencing from March 16, 2019 and to end on March 16, 2020, renewable 26

at the option of the LESSEE at such new terms and conditions as may agree upon by the parties. 2. Rental: The LESSEE agrees to pay the LESSOR the monthly rental fee of Pesos: Ten Thousand Pesos (P10, 000.00), Philippine currency. Upon signing of this Contract of Lease, the LESSEE shall pay the LESSOR five (5) months' rentals in advance to be applied on the last five (5) months of the term of this LEASE. The LESSEE shall also issue seven (7) post-dated checks covering the monthly rentals for the duration of this LEASE. 3. Deposit: The LESSEE shall also pay the LESSOR the sum of two (2) months deposit of Pesos: Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency, to guarantee the payment of any damage to the leased premises, unpaid utilities and other obligations to third parties by the LESSEE during the term of the agreement, which deposit shall bear no interest. Unless applied to said damages, unpaid utilities and other obligations to third parties, said deposit shall be returned to the LESSEE within ten (10) days after the termination of this agreement: Provided, however, that the deposit cannot be applied to unpaid back rentals owed by the LESSEE prior to the expiration of this agreement. Furthermore, if the LESSEE vacates the premises before the expiration of the period of lease, the total amount of the deposit and advance rentals shall be forfeited in favor of the LESSOR. 4.Association Dues: Association dues per month of Pesos: One Thousand (P1, 000.00), Philippine Currency or as may be determined by the Association from time to time, including interest or penalties that may be imposed for late payment, shall be for the account of the LESSEE. 5. Use of the Premises: The premises shall be used exclusively for residential purposes only of the LESSEE and the immediate members of (his/her) family and shall not in any way be used for any illegal or unlawful activity or to keep materials, chemicals and other matters considered as fire hazards or nuisance to the building. 6. Improvements: The LESSEE shall not make any alteration, structural changes or improvement in the leased premises without the prior written consent of the LESSOR. However, at the termination of the lease, the same not having been renewed by the parties, the LESSEE shall restore the leased premises in its original state existing at the commencement of the agreement. Restoration of the LEASED PREMISES shall be for the exclusive account of the LESSEE. Any improvement after the lease is terminated and after the LESSEE shall have vacated the premises shall belong to the LESSOR. 7.Facilities: All charges for water, electricity, telephone, association dues and other public utilities used in the leased premises as well as janitorial and security services or any other charges as may be imposed by 27

the building administrator of the condominium building shall be for the account of the LESSEE. The LESSEE hereby guarantees the prompt payment of any and all charges heretofore mentioned as they fall due. Any delay in the payment thereof shall constitute a material breach of this agreement. 8 Insurance: The LESSOR shall insure the leased premises against fire. Should the leased premises be damaged by fire, earthquake, storm or any fortuitous events to the extent that the same be rendered untenable this agreement shall be automatically canceled and the deposit as well as the unused portion of the advance rentals be refunded within thirty (30) days, minus any unpaid obligation. 9. Repairs: The LESSEE shall, during the duration of the lease, make all minor repairs on the leased premises to preserve the same in serviceable or tenantable conditions at the LESSEE's expense except replacement of parts due to natural wear and tear. The LESSEE, however, shall give advance written notice to the LESSOR of Ten (10) days prior to undertaking any minor repair. All damages caused to the leased premises due to the fault, misuse, carelessness, and/or negligence or on account of the use thereof by the LESSEE and other occupants therein shall be made good and repaired by the repairs done. Should the LESSEE fails to make the necessary and appropriate repairs within five (5) days from demand, the LESSOR shall undertake the needed repairs and shall charge the costs thereof to the LESSEE. 10. Inspection of the Premises: To ensure that the lease premises is being maintained in good and tenantable conditions, the LESSOR or his authorized representative is hereby given the right after due notice, to enter and inspect any part of the leased premises during reasonable hours and as the occasion thereof might require. 11. Assignment and Sub-Lease: The LESSEE hereby shall have no right to assign or transfer its rights, interest and obligations under the lease contract or sub-lease contract premises or any portion thereof to any person or entity without the prior written consent of the LESSOR. 12. Injury or Damage: The LESSEE hereby assumes the full responsibility for any damage which may be caused to the person or property of any third person in the leased premises during the duration of the lease. LESSEE further binds himself to hold the LESSOR free and harmless from damages as a result thereof, unless such damage or liability arose out of structural or other inherent defects in the leased premises or is due to the fault of the LESSOR, his agent or representatives. 13. Sale of Leased Premises: The LESSEE recognizes the right of the LESSOR to sell or otherwise convey ownership of the leased premises to

28

any other interested party, provided the LESSEE's rights under the lease are respected. 14. Hazardous and Prohibited Materials: The LESSEE shall not keep or store in the lease premise any hazardous and obnoxious substance or inflammable material or substance that might constitute a fire hazard or other chemicals and materials or prohibitive drugs in violations of the laws of the Philippines. 5. Rules and Regulations: The LESSEE binds himself to comply with the existing rules and regulations promulgated by the building administrator and/or association and any other environmental or other laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the leased premises. 16. Violations: The LESSOR may, at these options, consider this agreement automatically rescinded and canceled, without need of any court action, upon ten (10) days’ notice given to the LESSEE based on any of the following grounds: a. Failure of the LESSEE to pay two (2) months advance rental and other bills or charges therefore mentioned as they fall due for any reason whatsoever within the period to pay. b. For any violation made by the LESSEE or its agents and representatives of any of the terms and conditions stipulated in this contract. c. In case the leased premises shall be vacated or abandoned for a period of thirty (30) days without prior written notice to the LESSOR. Consequently, the LESSOR is hereby permitted authorized by the LESSEE to enter the premises, either by force or otherwise, without being liable to prosecution therefor. Upon termination of the contact of lease based on any of the foregoing grounds and upon demand, the LESSEE shall immediately vacate and peacefully surrender possession of the lease premises to the LESSOR or his duly authorize representative. 17. Remedies: In addition to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the LESSEE hereby acknowledges and recognizes the right of the LESSOR to avail or resort to any or all of the following remedial measures without need of court action: a. In case of failure of the LESSEE to pay or settle any due and unpaid obligations (rentals, electricity, water, telephone, association dues etc.) as provided for under this lease contract, the LESSEE hereby authorizes the LESSOR, who is hereby given the right, to disconnect all facilities such as but not limited to disconnect all facilities such as but not limited to electricity, 29

telephone, water in the leased premises without need of further notice to the LESSEE. b. Likewise, until the aforesaid unpaid obligations are paid or settled, the LESSEE hereby given the rights, to re-renter the lease premises, remove all persons therefrom, take possession of any of all furniture, fixtures and equipment's found thereon or therein and/or padlocked the door of the premises. c. Moreover, by way of a security or to secure the payment of any of the unpaid obligations of the LESSEE, the LESSEE consents and authorizes the LESSOR to retain possession of any of all the furniture, fixtures and equipment's that may found on the premises as belongings to the LESSEE until such time that all the unpaid obligations of the LESSEE are paid or settled. d. If after ten (10) days from the date the LESSOR shall have taken possession of the aforesaid furniture, fixtures and equipment by way of security, the LESSEE still fails to pay or settle its unpaid obligations to the LESSOR the LESSEE hereby consents and authorizes the LESSOR to sell by way of public or private sale any or all the furniture's fixtures equipment as may be sufficient to pay or settle the lessee's unpaid obligations plus the accrued interests and attorney's fee equivalent to 25% of the total amount due and unpaid. All expenses that may be incurred in the sale shall be for the account of the LESSEE. For purposes of selling the aforesaid properties, the LESSEE hereby irrevocably appoint the LESSOR as its attorney-in-fact to sell and dispose of any or all of the aforesaid the property of the LESSEE in a private or public sale at a price as may be determined to be just and reasonable by the LESSOR and to apply the proceeds therefrom to any or all the unpaid obligations of the LESSEE. If the sale proceeds should prove to be inadequate to fully payer settle the unpaid obligations of the LESSEE, the LESSEE shall remain liable to the LESSOR for any of the deficiency. Should the proceeds of the sale of any of the aforesaid properties be sufficient to pay or settle all of the lessee's unpaid obligations, the LESSEE may get back its other properties not sold by the LESSOR. If after thirty(30) days from written notice of the LESSOR directed to the last known address of the LESSEE, the LESSEE still fails to get back the remaining properties, said properties shall then be deemed abandoned in favor of the LESSOR. The above enumerated remedies proved for the LESSOR shall not be exclusive, but shall be cumulative and without prejudice to any court action 30

that may be instituted by the LESSOR for any causes of action that may arise under this contract of lease. 18. Attorney's Fee: In case the LESSOR resorts to judicial action base upon or in connection with this lease contract, the LESSEE hereby agrees to pay attorney's fee equivalent to ten (10%) percent of the total amount involved pr claimed by the LESSOR as against the LESSEE plus all court expenses and/or costs of litigation. 19. Venue: All court actions from this contact of lease shall be filed only in the proper courts of Cebu City, Philippines to exclusion of all other courts. 20. Time of Essense: Time is the essence hereof any waiver by the LESSOR of a breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained, whether express or implied, shall not constitute of a waiver of any subsequent breach thereof, or a breach of covenant to pay the rent so accepted. No waiver by the LESSOR shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by the LESSOR.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands, this 16th day of March at Cebu City, Philippines. JANE GADINGAN LESSOR

PEDRO SY LESSEE

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: JUAN DELA CRUZ

MARIA CLARA

31

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF CEBU

) S.S.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

BEFORE ME, this 16th day of March 2019 at the City of Cebu, Philippines, personally came and appeared the following persons with their competent identifications to wit:

NAME

ID NO.

JANE GADINGAN. PEDRO SY

DATE/ PLACE 123-456-7

March 2010/ Cebu City

891-112-1

March 2010/ Cebu City

All known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the forgoing instrument and acknowledge to me that the same is in their own free voluntary act and deed and that of the corporation they purport to represent.

This instrument refer to a CONTRACT OF LEASE which consists of two (2) pages including this page where the acknowledgement is written by the same parties and their instrumental witnesses at the fact thereof and in the other pages at the left hand margin and which is sealed with my notarial seal.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first above mentioned.

ATTY. GLYZA S. DALIRE Notary Public for Province and City of Cebu Reg. No. 2 Until December 31, 2019 Gaisano Capital Building, NRA, Cebu City Roll of Attorneys No. 62765 PTR No. 235628/January 09, 2019/Cebu CITY IBP No.52587926 /January 09, 2019/Cebu City

32

MCLE Compliance No. VI-0008220/march 22, 2018

Doc. No. 12; Page No. 20; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

33

V. Simple Contracts Contract of Lease [ Lease of Office Building ]

CONTRACT OF LEASE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This CONTRACT OF LEASE is made and executed at the City of Cebu, this 28th day of May, 2018 by and between: OFELIA CENTEÑA DEGAMO, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the LESSOR. -ANDEMELIE STEWART, of legal age, Filipino, and with residence at Costa Del Sol, Marigondon, Lapu-lapu City, Cebu, Philippines hereinafter referred to as the LESSEE. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the LESSOR is the declared owner of a COMMERCIAL BUILDING on Lot No. 115 located at Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu; WHEREAS, the LESSEE intent to lease Door 302; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the LESSOR leases unto the LESSEE and the LESSEE hereby accepts from the LESSOR the LEASED premises, subject to the following: TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. That the term of this lease contract shall be for ONE(1) Year commencing on June 1, 2018 and will terminate on December 1, 2018, renewable at the option of the LESSOR under new terms and condition; 2. That the agreed rental of the leased area/ premises shall be at TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php 10,000.00), Philippine Currency per month collectible every 6th of the month;

34

3. That as agreed and upon preparation of this agreement the LESSEE shall give a total amount sum/amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20,000.00), Philippine Currency to the LESSOR equivalent to one (1) month advance and the down payment of TEN THOUSAND PESOS(Php 10,000.00), Philippine Currency ; 4. That monthly consumption of electric and water bills and any other necessities applied shall be for the exclusive account/responsibility of the herein LESSEE; 5. That the LESEE is prohibited to sublease portion of the leased commercial building to any third party; 6. That the LESEE shall not introduced any and whatever improvements on the leased area unless the LESSOR shall permit to do so and if ever the LESSOR permitted the improvements the same shall be at the account/expenses of the LESSEE, however whatever improvements that cannot be detached/removed shall belong to the exclusive property of the LESSOR without need of reimbursement from the herein LESSOR; 7. That the LESSEE during the period of their occupancy shall hold the LESSOR free from any damages, liabilities, responsibilities to any person or property arising from or as a consequence of the use of the leased premises; 8. That the LESSEE shall keep the premises clean, provide a fire extinguisher and to maintain the leased premises in its good and habitable condition; 9. That taxes of the land shall be in the sole expenses of the LESSOR however whatever taxes as regards to the business of the LESSEE shall be at the sole account of the latter as well as whatever minor/major repairs and alterations in the leased commercial building; 10. That should the LESSEE fail to pay for one (1) month (in delay) or more and violates any of the conditions herein mentioned shall entitle to terminate this contract by notifying the herein LESSEE in writing giving he thirty(30) days to vacate the premises and forfeiting whatever payments made in advance; This contract of lease supersedes and renders void and any all agreements and understanding, oral and written previously entered into by the parties covering the leased property, and this contract may not hereafter be modified or altered except by another instrument in writing duly signed by the parties hereto.

35

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein affixed their signatures on the date and place above written. OFELIA CENTEÑA DEGAMO EMELIE STEWART LESSOR LESSEE ID# SSS ID 80312 UMID ID # CRN-0111-4932333-3 Signed in the presence of: 1.______________________

2._________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines ) City of Cebu ) S.S. BEFORE ME, personally appeared OFELIA CENTEÑA DEGAMO and EMELIE STEWART who exhibited to me their respective proof of identity indicated below their respective names, known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. This instrument consisting of two (2) page/s, including the page on which this acknowledgement is written, has been signed on each and every page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses, and sealed with my notarial seal. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.

ATTY. BONIFACIO JO S. DEGAMO II Notary Public Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu IBP NO. AP18720000-1/3/18 Cebu City PTR No. 1643815-1/3/18 Cebu City Roll of Attorneys No. 31311 MCLE COM. CERT. NO. VI- 0010732 issued on 23rd day of July 2017 and valid until April 14, 2021 Notarial Commission No. 68-15

Doc. No. 13; Page No. 27; Book No. III; Series of 2019. 36

37

V. Simple Contracts Contract of Lease [ Lease with Option to Purchase ]

CONTRACT OF LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE This Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase (Rent-to-Own Contract) made and executed this 15TH day of March 2019, Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines by and between. JUAN P. DELA CRUZ, Filipino, of legal age, single, with post address at Punta Princesa, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the LESSOR/SELLER. -- AND – MARIA F. CLARA, Filipino, of legal age, single/married to, with postal address Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the LESSEE/BUYER. WITNESSETH: THAT, for and in consideration of the payment of rent and the faithful compliance by the LESSEE/BUYER of all the stipulations and covenants hereinafter contained, the LESSOR/SELLER has agreed to lease unto the LESSE /BUYER the premises located at Dona Maria II, Punta Princesa, Cebu City, Cebu under the following terms and conditions. 1. PURPOSE: That

the premises hereby leased shall be used exclusively by the LESSE/BUYER for residential purposes only and shall not be diverted to other uses. It is hereby expressly agreed upon that if at any time the premises are used for other purposes, the LESSOR/SELLER shall have the right to rescind this contract without prejudice to its other rights under the law.

2. TERM: The term of this non–renewable lease is for 3 years from

March 15, 2019 to March 15, 2022 inclusive. 3. RENTAL RATE: The monthly rate for the leased premises shall be

in PESOS: TWENTY THOUSHAND PESOS [Php 20,000.00], Philippine currency. All rental payments shall be made payable to LESSOR/SELLER or his authorized representatives. 4. DEPOSIT: That

the LESSEE/BUYER shall deposit with the LESSOR/SELLER upon signing of this contract and prior to move 38

two months advance rental or in an total amount of PESOS: FOURTY THOUSAND PESOS [ Php 40,000.00 ], Philippine currency. 5. RENTAL PAYMENT: The LESSE/BUYER shall issue, likewise,

upon signing of this contract and prior to move in, Thirty (30) postdated checks to cover monthly rental for the months of April 2019 to March 2022, each check dated on the 15th day of each month. 6. DEFAULT

IN PAYMENT: In case of default by the LESSEE/BUYER in the payment of the rent, such as when the checks are dishonored, the LESSOR/SELLER, at its option may terminate this contract and eject the LESSEE/BUYER as hereinafter provided. However, the LESSE/BUYER is given seven (7) days grace period within which to settle the account from date rental payment is due. Granting an extension to the aforesaid grace period may not be deemed as a waiver of LESSOR/SELLER right to terminate this contract and eject the LESSE/BUYER but in the event the LESSOR/SELLER so opts to grant a written request for extension, a penalty equivalent to three (3%) percent per month of the rental due, with a fraction of a month considered as one month shall be charged and assessed for delayed payments.

7. SUB–LEASE: The LESSEE/BUYER shall not directly or indirectly

sublet, allow or permit the leased premises to be occupied in whole or in part by any person, form or corporation; neither shall the LESSEE/BUYER assign its rights hereunder to any other person or entity and no right of interest thereto or therein shall be conferred on or vested in anyone by the LESSEE/BUYER without LESSOR/SELLER’s written approval. 8. LESSE’S VISITORS, etc…: In case of damage to leased premises

attributable to the LESSEE/BUYER, agents and/or visitors, repair of the same shall be for the account of the LESSEE/BUYER without prejudice to LESSOR/SELLER’s availment of any other right under the law. 9. POWER,

WATER CONSUMPTION & ASSOCIATION DUES: Power, water and association dues shall be for the account of the LESSEE/BUYER.

10. OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES: The LESSEE/BUYER shall pay for

its telephone, cable and electrical services and other public services and utilities. 11. REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: The LESSOR/SELLER shall

deliver the leased as is where is. The LESSEE/BUYER hereby expressly acknowledges that the leased as is where is. The 39

LESSE/BUYER hereby agrees and binds itself to undertake at its exclusive expense all minor and major repairs as may be required to maintain the leased premises in good state of repair, any provisions of law, present or future, or any stipulation in this agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. 12. IMPROVEMENTS, ALTERATIONS AND RENOVATIONS:

The LESSEE/BUYER shall not make any improvements, alternations and renovations in the leased premises without prior written consent of both the Association and the LESSOR/SELLER. It is understood that all permanent improvements shall be owned by the LESSOR/SELLER and may not be removed without the express and written consent of the LESSOR/SELLER. 13. INJURY OR DAMAGE: The LESSEE/BUYER hereby assumes full

responsibility for any damage which may be caused to the person or property of third person/s while remaining either casually or on business in any part of the premises leased. LESSEE/BUYER further binds itself to hold the LESSOR/SELLER harmless and free from any claim for such injury or damage. Provided, however, that the LESSOR/SELLER shall make necessary actions to correct said deficiencies to ensure that premises are in good and tenantable condition. 14. DISTURBANCE OF POSSESSION: Disturbance or discontinuance

of possession of the LESSEE/BUYER due to “force majeure” shall confer nor right of any kind to the LESSEE/BUYER as against the LESSOR/SELLER, by reason of inconvenience, annoyance or injury to business arising out of the necessity of repairing any portion of the leased premises. 15. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS: The LESSEE/BUYER, shall, at

its own expense and risks, comply with all the laws, ordinances, regulations and orders of any agency of the government, national or local, affection or pertaining to the leased premises and to any effects or articles which said LESSEE/BUYER may have in its possession therein. 16. ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES: Should the LESSEE/BUYER

abandon the leased premises for a period of THIRTY (30) DAYS or vacate the premises before expiration of this Contract of Lease without notifying the LESSOR/SELLER and check payment for the current month is dishonored, the LESSOR/SELLER’S may immediately re-enter the leased premises and this lease shall thereon be automatically terminated. 17. BREACH

OF CONDITIONS: In case of breach by the LESSEE/BUYER of any of the conditions and covenants of this lease 40

as herein stipulated, the LESSOR/SELLER at its option, may forthwith terminate and cancel this lease and the LESSEE/BUYER shall be liable for any and all damages as a result of such default and termination. Forfeiture of whatever rental desists and advances shall apply in case the LESSEE/BUYER violates any of the provisions in the contract. Forfeiture shall likewise apply should the LESSEE/BUYER fails to exercise his option to purchase after the expiration of this contract. OF LESSOR’S RIGHT: Failure of the LESSOR/SELLER to enforce strict performance by the LESSEE/BUYER of any of the terms, conditions and covenants of this agreement shall not be construed as waiver of any right or remedy that the LESSOR/SELLER’S may have, nor shall it be deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the terms, conditions, and covenants contained therein. No waiver by the LESSOR/SELLER of its rights hereunder shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by the LESSOR/SELLER.

18. NON-WAIVER

19. EXPIRATION

OR CANCELLATION OF LEASE: At the expiration of the term of this lease or cancellation thereof, as herein provided, the LESSEE/BUYER will promptly deliver to the LESSOR/SELLER the leased premises with all corresponding keys and in as good and tenantable condition as the same is now, ordinary wear and tear excepted, devoid of all occupants, movable furniture, articles and effects of any kind. Non-compliance with the terms of this clause by the LESSEE/BUYER will give the LESSOR/SELLER the right, at latter’s option, to refuse to accept the delivery of the premises and to compel the LESSEE/BUYER to pay therefrom at the same rate as herein provided plus an additional sum equal to Twenty Five (25%) percent thereof as penalty until the LESSEE/BUYER shall have complied with terms hereof. The same penalty shall, likewise, be imposed in case the LESSEE/BUYER shall refuse to leave the leased premises after the expiration of this Contract of Lease or the termination for any reason whatsoever.

20. OPTION TO PURCHASE: For good & valuable consideration, the

receipt whereof is hereby acknowledge from the LESSEE/BUYER. The LESSOR/SELLER hereby extends an option to the LESSEE/BUYER to purchase for the amount of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS [Php 250,000.00 ] of Lease on the 18th month or the period from 1st to 15th of September 2020.The LESSEE/BUYER, at his/her/its exclusive option, conditioned on faithful compliance with all payments and undertakings contained herein, may convey his/her/its decision to avail of option to purchase in writing to the LESSOR/SELLER.

41

21. TRANSFER EXPENSES: Documentary stamp tax, capital gain tax,

registration fees, transfer tax, and other necessary expenses connected with the execution and registration of the sale shall be for the account of and paid by the LESSEE/BUYER. 22. TAXES,

UTILITIES AND OTHER ASSOCIATION IMPOSITIONS: For the duration of this lease, LESSEE/BUYER shall pay the Realty Taxes. However, should the LESSEE/BUYER not exercise the option to purchase, LESSOR/SELLER shall reimburse the LESSEE/BUYER of all the taxes, exclusive of penalties for delayed payments, if any, it had paid as well as the start-up fund of the Homeowners Association.

23. JUDICIAL RELIEF AND PENALTY: Should any one of the

parties herein be compelled to seek judicial relief against the other, the losing parties shall pay an amount equivalent to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the amount claimed in the compliant as attorney’s fees which shall in no case be less than P 100,000.00 pesos in addition to other cost and damages which the said party may be entitled to under the law, to recover from the other party. Provisions of penal character in this Contract of Lease shall be considered as cumulative to the relief granted by this section. 24. RIGHTS AND INTERESTS: The rights and interests of the

LESSOR/SELLER subject under this instrument shall be fully assignable by the LESSOR/SELLER subject only to previous written notice thereof to the LESSEE/BUYER. 25. FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT: Forfeiture of whatever rental deposit

and advances shall apply to any of the following: a. When the LESSEE/BUYER is in default in payment for three (3) months. In such a case, the LESSOR/SELLER shall have the right to prohibit entry of the LESSEE/BUYER, visitors, guests and his employees in the premises and the right to padlock the leased premises until indebted is satisfied; b. When LESSEE/BUYER pre-terminates lease with or without cause; c. When LESSEE/BUYER violates any of the provisions of this contract; and d. When the LESSEE/BUYER fails to exercise his/her option to purchase. 26. PENAL PROVISION: The parties agree that all covenant and

agreements herein contained shall be deemed conditions as well as covenants that if default or breach be made of any such covenants and conditions, then this lease may be terminated and cancelled and the party in breach shall be liable for any and all damages, actual and 42

consequential, resulting from such breach or termination; provided however, that no default shall be declared under this lease unless the party in default has given written notice to cure such default within thirty (30) days. In the event of violation of this contract, other than the non-payment of rentals, the party in breach must immediately take remedial steps to cure the breach not later than thirty (30) days. 27. RIGHT OF ENTRY: LESSOR/SELLER or its authorized agent/s

shall, after giving due notice to the LESSEE/BUYER, have the right to enter the premises in the presence of the LESSEE/BUYER or its representative at any reasonable hour to examine the same or to make repairs therein or for the operation of regular maintenance of the building or for any other lawful purpose which it may deem necessary. This RENT TO OWN CONTRACT (CONTRACT OF LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE) shall be valid and binding, between the parties, their successors-in-interest and assigns. No amendment of the terms of the instrument shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the parties therein. IN WITNESS WHEROF, parties herein have affixed their signatures on the date and place first above written. _______________________ JUAN P. DELA CRUZ LESSOR/SELLER

____________________ MARIA F. CLARA LESSEE/BUYER

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

ANDRES T. BONIFACIO

BRAVE MANDIRIGMA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, this 15th day of March 2019 personally appeared the following to witness: NAME Juan P. Dela Cruz Maria F. Clara

SSS No. 000-111-222-333-000 000-111-222-333-000

43

Date/Place Issued June 14, 2017/Cebu City April 26, 2017/Cebu City

Known to me to be the same persons who have executed the foregoing, instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is of their own free will and voluntary act and deed as well as of the corporation herein represented. This instrument consisting of five (5) pages, including the page on which this acknowledgement is written, has been signed on the left margin of each page and every page thereof by the parties and their instrumental witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, the day, year and place above written.

ATTY. JACINTH D. DELA CERNA Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 1234567 IBP No. 1234567 Roll No. 1234567 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111111 Office Address: 3rd Floor, TEP Building, Tres de Abril, Cebu City

Doc. No. 14; Page No. 30; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

44

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Realty [ Registered Land ]

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: WE, SPOUSES LEO B. EBLAMO AND CHARLITA E. EBLAMO, both of legal age, Filipinos, married, with residence and postal address at Emerald Street, Casals Village, Mabolo, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the SELLERS in favor of STEPHANIE UY CHUA, married to KEVIN CHUA, of legal age, Filipino, with address at Sitio Tawagan, Tayud, Consolacion, Cebu, hereinafter referred to

WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the above-named SELLERS are the exclusive owner of a house and lot located Emerald Street, Casals Village, Mabolo, Cebu City, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. before the Registry of Deeds for Cebu City in the name of LEO B. EBLAMO married to CHARLITA E. EMBLAMO and declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. C-04-028-0009 (land), and Tax Declaration No. C-04028-00010 (building) described as a parcel of land ( Lot 7 Block 11, of the subdivision plan ( LRC ) PSD-81580 being a portion of Lot 836 of the Banilad Estate. L.R.C. ( GLRO) Record No. 5988; situated in the City of Cebu, Island of Cebu. Bounded on the NE., points 4 to 1; by lot 8. Block 11; , on the S.E . points 1 to 2, by Road Lot 6 (10.00 m. wide) on the SW., points 2 to 3 , by Lot 6 Block 11, all of the subdivision plan; and on the N., point 3 to 4, by lot 835, Banilad Estate; Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan, being N; 44 deg. 36.E 493.11 m. from monument No. 3 Banilad Estate, thence S. 38 deg. 13 W., 12.00 m. to point 2 thence N 52 deg, 08. W., 20.37 m to point 3, thence N 42 deg. 09’E., 12.00 m to point 4; thence S. 52 deg. 14’E., 19.75 m. to the point of beginning containing an area of TWO HUNDRED FORTY ONE (241) SQUARE METERS, more or less. All points referred to acts indicated on the plan and marked on the ground by P.S cylindrical conc. Rate monuments, 15 x 60 centimeters; 15 x 60 centimeters; declination 1 deg. E., date of the original survey August 1906 – July 1907, and that of the subdivision survey, August 25 – September 25, 1967.

45

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of THREE MILLION PESOS (Php3,000,000.00) Philippine Currency, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged in full form from the BUYER to the entire satisfaction of the SELLERS, said SELLERS do by these presents, SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY in a manner absolute and irrevocable unto the BUYER, her successors and assigns, the above-described parcel of land with improvement. The property is paid from the exclusive funds of the BUYER and shall form part of her exclusive property. That, the SELLER hereby warrant valid title to and peaceful possession of the property herein sold and conveyed and further declare that the same are free and clear of all liens and encumbrances of any kind whatsoever and for purposes of the present sale the provisions of Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code have been complied with; that they have perfect right to convey the same, and that they will warrant and forever defend their title to the same and its subsequent transfer in favor of the BUYER, its successors and assigns, against the lawful claims of third persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the SELLERS _______________ in ___________________

sign

this

on

LEO B. EBLAMO SELLER CHARLITA E. EBLAMO SELLER WITNESSES: ________________________

_____________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines ) Cebu City ) S.S BEFORE ME, a notary for and in the City of Cebu, personally appeared:

46

Name

Identification No.

Date/Place Issued

LEO B. EBLAMO CHARLITA E. EBLAMO known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Deed of Absolute Sale consisting of 2 pages and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.

ATTY. CARLITO L. DONQUE JR. Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 123503 IBP No. 053235 Roll No. 305445 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111201

Doc. No. 15; Page No. 37; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

47

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Realty [ Unregistered Land ]

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made, executed and entered into by: JOSE D. MANALO, of legal age, single, Filipino, and with residence and postal address at Hillside Talamban, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the SELLER -ANDJAKE Y. CUENTA, Filipino and with residence and postal address at Tabunok Talisay, City Cebu, hereinafter referred to as the BUYER. WITNESSETH, THAT: For and in consideration of the amount of P 350,000 , paid to me today by JAKE Y. CUENTA, of legal age, Filipino, single and resident of Tabunok Talisay, City Cebu, the SELLER does hereby SELL, TRANSFER, and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto said BUYER his heirs and assigns that parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated at Sitio Santo, Banilad Cebu City, and more particularly described as follows: (A portion of land situated at Sitio Santo Nino, Banilad Cebu City, containing an area of 50 sq. meter more or less, declared in the name of JOSE D. MANALO under tax dec. No. 002958 with an assessed value of Php. 8,000 of 2017 revision for taxation purposes. The SELLER hereby declare that the boundaries of the foregoing land are visible by means of Trees; that the land is assessed for the current year at Php 8,000 as per Tax Declaration No.002958, and that the property is in the present possession of the SELLER. The SELLER hereby covenants and agrees with the said BUYER that he/she is lawfully seized in fee of said premises, that they are free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, that he/she has a perfect right to convey the same, and that he/she will warrant and forever defend the same unto said BUYER, his/her heirs and assigns against the lawful claims of third persons whomsoever;

48

The above described real estate, not having been registered under Act No. 496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law, the parties hereto have agreed to register this instrument under the provisions of Act 3344. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this deed this 15th day of March, 2019 at CEBU CITY. JOSE D. MANALO (SELLER)

Signed in the Presence of: CHARMAINE L. ESTOYA

LEONARD I. MENOZA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) PROVINCE OF CEBU) CEBU CITY) S.S. ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, a NOTARY PUBLIC for and in the above jurisdiction, this 15TH day of March , 2019, personally appeared the following persons NAME IDENTIFICATION Date/Place of Issuance JOSE D. MANALO DRIVERS LICENSE 09-28-2017 JAKE Y. CUENCA DRIVERS LICENSE 07-19-2018 Known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged to me that the same is their own free and voluntary act and deed and of the corporations herein represented. This instrument refers to a deed of sale and consists of two pages including the page on which this acknowledgment is written and signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses on each and every page thereof. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and at the place above written.

Doc. No. 16; Page No. 40;

Atty. LARS CHRISTIAN ECHAVEZ NOTARY PUBLIC Until Dec. 30, 2019 IBP No. 010134, 07/15/2017, Cebu City P.T.R No. 0853456, Cebu City

Book No. III; Series of 2019.

49

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Realty [ Under Pacto de Retro ]

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WITH PACTO DE RETRO KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Deed of Absolute Sale with Pacto de Retro made and executed by and between: BOB SPONGE, of legal age, Filipino, widow, and with postal address at Santol Tae, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the SELLER; and DONALD DHUCK, of legal age, Filipino, single with residence address at Tubo’lee Village, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the BUYER. WITNESSETH: That the SELLER is the absolute owner of a certain parcel of land situated in Sanciangko Village, Brgy. Kalubihan, Cebu City and more particularly described and bounded as follows: TCT No. T-123456 A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 9 of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-501, being a portion of the consolidation of Lots 1 and 2, Psu-12223 Amd., LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. N-18322), situated in Sanciangko Village, Brgy. Kalubihan, Cebu City. Bounded on the NW., points 2 to 4, by Lot 84; on the S., points 8 to 1 by Lot 35; on the SE., points 1 to 2, by Lot 31; and on the N., points 2 to 3 by Lot 39, all of the consolidation-subdivision plan. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being N. 52 deg. 29' E., 1211.74 m. from B.L.L.M. No.1, Brgy. Kalubihan, Cebu City (a copy of which title is hereto attached as Annex "A") THAT the SELLER, for and in consideration of the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 3, 500,000.00), Philippine Currency, receipt in full is hereby acknowledged by him to his satisfaction, hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY under PACTO DE RETRO unto said BUYER, his heirs and assigns, the above described property with all the

50

buildings and improvement thereon, free from liens and encumbrances whatsoever; THAT the SELLER, in executing this conveyance, hereby reserves the right to REPURCHASE, and the BUYER, in accepting the same, hereby obligates himself to RESELL the property herein conveyed within a period of five (5) years from and after the date of this instrument for the same price of THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P3, 500,000.00), Philippine Currency: Provided however, that if the SELLER fails to exercise her right to repurchase as herein granted within the period stipulated, then this conveyance shall become absolute and irrevocable, without the necessity of drawing up a new deed of absolute sale, subject to the requirements of the law regarding consolidation of ownership of real property.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this 17th day of March 2019 in Manila, Philippines.

BOB SPONGE Seller

DONALD DHUCK Buyer

Signed in the presence of:

JEAN CLAUDE WITNESS

ARNOLD SWARTSE WITNESS

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of March, 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines. Further, I certify that I personally examined the herein Seller who furnished his Tax Identification Number 38299 issued at Cebu City. known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged to me that the same is the free and voluntary. This Instrument consists of only of two (2) page/s, including this page in which this Acknowledgement is written, duly signed by SPONGE BOB and his instrumental witnesses on each and every page hereof. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 17th day of March, 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.

ATTY. KETH VINCENT GABICA NOTARY PUBLIC st 1 floor, Un Building, Colon Batman St., Cebu City Roll no. 111111 PTR No. 2222222 IBP No. 3333333 04-07-18 Doc. No. 17; 51

Page No. 42; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

52

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Personal Property [ Sale of Personal Property ]

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, made and executed in Cebu City, Philippines, on this 18th day of March 2019 by and between:

MARIA FE CLARA, of legal age, Filipino, widowed, with resident and postal address at 143 Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, herein referred to as the SELLER

- and -

ELIZABETH INGLES, of legal age, Filipino, married, with residence at 144 Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the BUYER.

WITNESSETH:

That for and in consideration of the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20,000.00) Philippine Currency, in hand this date receiverd by the SELLER from the BUYER to the former’s full satisfaction and benefit, the SELLER hereby SELLS, TRANSFERS and CONVEYS, in a manner absolute and irrevocable unto said BUYER, her successors and assigns, that certain 3.02 Carat Diamond Ring of which the SELLER, is the absolute owner, covenants that she has a perfect right to sell and transfer said diamond ring and that she will defend the same against lawful claims from all persons whomsoever.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have hereto affixed their signature this 18th day of March 2019, at Cebu City, Philippines.

53

MARIA FE CLARA

ELIZABETH INGLES

SELLER

BUYER

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

__________________________ AND _________________________

54

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, this 15th day of March 2019 personally appeared the following to witness: NAME Maria Fe Clara Elizabeth Ingles

SSS No. 000-111-222-333-000 000-111-222-333-000

Date/Place Issued June 20, 2009/Cebu City April 26, 2008/Cebu City

Known to me to be the same persons who have executed the foregoing, instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is of their own free will and voluntary act and deed as well as of the corporation herein represented. This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including the page on which this acknowledgement is written, has been signed on the left margin of each page and every page thereof by the parties and their instrumental witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, the day, year and place above written.

ATTY. JACINTH D. DELA CERNA Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 1234567 IBP No. 1234567 Roll No. 1234567 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111111 Office Address: 3rd Floor, TEP Building, Tres de Abril, Cebu City

Doc. No. 18; Page No. 44; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

55

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Realty [ Sale of Motor Vehicle ]

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Deed of Absolute Sale is made and entered into in Cebu City this 1st day of March, 2019 by and between: Gwapa B. Sy, of legal age, Filipino, with residence address at 624 F Pacaña St., Tisa, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as SELLER; - and Gwapo A. Kho, of legal age, Filipino, with residence address at 23 Doña Maria Village, Punta Princessa, Cebu City hereinafter referred to as BUYER; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the SELLER is the absolute and registered owner of the following motor vehicle, more particularly described as follows: MODEL/MAKE : Honda COLOR : Gold Wing BODY : Motorcycle YEAR OF MODEL: 2017 MOTOR NO. : B1-03-5467 SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. : HZ-1234-09 PLATE NO. : JF 2110 FILE NO.: MC12901 C.R. NO.: 00978135 WHEREAS, the SELLER desires to sell the aforesaid motor vehicle and the BUYER is able, willing and ready to purchase the same under the terms and conditions herein below set forth; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum total of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00), Philippine currency, VAT Inclusive and receipt hereof is hereby acknowledged by the said SELLER, the SELLER hereby SELL,CEDE, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto the BUYER, in a manner absolute and irrevocable the above-described 1 Unit of

56

2017 Honda Motor Vehicle, free from any and all liens and encumbrances whatsoever and on an “AS IS WHERE IS BASIS”. The SELLER warrants that the Motor Vehicle is free from any liens and encumbrances and that said SELLER shall defend the title and rights of the BUYER from any claims of whatever kind or nature from third persons.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their signatures on the date and at the place first above-written. Gwapa B. Sy Seller

Gwapo A. Kho Buyer

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: ______________________ ______________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Republic of the Philippines) Cebu City ) S.S. BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in Cebu City, this 1 st day of March, 2019 personally appeared: Name Identification Card Issued On/At Gwapa B. Sy PRC No. 98765 April 13, 2017 / Cebu City Gwapo A. Kho Driver’s License No. 123456 January 05, 2018/Cebu City all known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and hereby acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including this page on which this acknowledgment is written refers to a DEED OF SALE of 1 Unit of 2017 Honda Motor Vehicle and has been signed by the parties and their witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal. WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL.

ATTY. ROSANA A. GO Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 1234567 Doc. No. 19; Page No. 46; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

57

IBP No. 1234567 Roll No. 1234567 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111111 3rd Floor, Third Building, Colon St., Cebu City

58

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Personal Property [ Sale of Personal Property in Installment with Mortgage ]

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This CONTRACT TO SELL, made and executed this 11th day of March, 2019 by and between: JEREMY BACUSMO, of legal age, single, Filipino, and with residence and postal address at 123 Brgy. Pari-an Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the "VENDOR"; -ANDYVONNE GASCON, Filipino and with residence and postal address at Pardo, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the "VENDEE". WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, the VENDOR is the absolute and registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of Two hundred (200) square meters, more or less, located at Pardo, Cebu City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 778899 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City; WHEREAS, the VENDEE has offered to buy and the VENDOR has agreed to sell the above mentioned property under the terms and conditions herein below set forth; WHEREAS, the VENDEE has offered to MORTGAGE his Motor Vehicle to the VENDOR for purposes of securing the payment of the Vendee in this Contract to Sell; WHEREAS, the Motor Vehicle is more particularly described as: MODEL/MAKE : 2011 Isuzu COLOR : Black BODY : Canter MOTOR NO. : 66666 SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. : 999999 PLATE NO. : ABC-456 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the total sum of Two Hundred thousand Pesos Only (Php: 200,000.00) Philippine Currency, and of the covenants herein after set forth the VENDOR agrees to sell and

59

the VENDEE agrees to buy the aforesaid property subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The total consideration shall be Two Hundred thousand Pesos Only (Php: 200,000.00), Philippine Currency, payable as follows: a) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 100,000.00) PESOS, representing earnest money shall be payable by the VENDEE to the VENDOR upon signing of this Contract to Sell; b) The remaining balance in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 100,000.00) PESOS, shall be paid in Cash on or before April 19, 2019. c) That the MORTGAGE vehicle will be released upon completion of the payment and the MORTGAGE CONTRACT incorporated herein shall be rendered VOID; 2. Capital Gains Tax and Real Estate Tax, shall be for the account of the VENDOR; 3. Documentary Stamps Tax, Registration Fee, registration expenses, and all other miscellaneous fees and expenses shall be to the account of the VENDEE; 4. Possession to the subject property shall be delivered by the VENDOR to the VENDEE upon full payment of the total consideration; 5. Upon full payment of the total price, the VENDOR shall sign and execute a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE in favor of the VENDEE. The VENDOR shall likewise execute and/or deliver any and all documents, including but not limited to the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title, Tax Declaration and all other documents necessary for the transfer of ownership from VENDOR to the VENDEE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their signatures, this 15th day of March, 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.

JEREMY BACUSMO Vendor

YVONNE GASCON Vendee

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

60

TARZAN BALTAZAR DAN APRIL MAYFEB ACKNOWLEDGMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, this 15TH day of MARCH 2019, personally appeared the following: Name ID PRESENTED JEREMY BACUSMO PRC ID NO.223 YVONNE GASCON UMID ID NO. 334

Date/Place Issued February 5, 2019/Cebu City January 14, 2019/Cebu City

This instrument, consisting of 3 pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses, and sealed with my notarial seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the day, year and place above written.

ATTY. CESAR P. GULANG Notary Public PTR No. 188118:1-04-18:B.C. IBP No, 696969:1-04-18:B.C. Roll No. 424242:5-10-97: Manila Rm. 4 2/F Cebu Boating Center 180 Jones Ave., Cebu City Doc. No. 20; Page No. 48; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

61

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Personal Property [ Sale of Vessel ]

SALE OF VESSEL KNOW ALL MEY BE THESE PRESENTS:

I, LEISEL HATAMOSA , Filipino, of legal age, single, with residence at Garing Consolacion Cebu, and post-office address at Consolacion, 6001, for and in consideration of the sum of Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand (Php 8,5000,000.00) Philippine currency, to me in and paid by ANDREW PITOGO, Filipino, of legal age, single, with residence and post office address at Bangkal Mandaue City do hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto the said buyer, his heirs and assigns, the following vessel, described as follows, to wit: Name: M/V PRINCESS AGATHA Rig: automatic make – up, doubled – steel gears Materials: high powered steel sheets Principal dimension: 20 meters wide by 30 meters in length Gross Tonnage: 800,000 kilos Place Built: Arizona Year Built: 2014 Name and citizenship of owner: Andrew Pitogo Date of Issuance of Certificate of Phil. Registry: November 15, 2015 my title thereto being evidenced by Certificate of ownership No. CRO – 158 – USA – 213,, dated November 15, 2015, issued by the Collectors of Customs.

Herein provided that inspection and examination of the vessel is open to the Tariff Officers to assure its level of seaworthiness IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 19th day of March, 2019, Cebu, Philippines.

62

LEISEL HATAMOSA Vendor

WITNESSES:

Sgd: NANCY ALIVIO

Sgd: EARNEST PAHAMUTANG

ACKNOWLEDGMENT SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of March 2019 in the City of Cebu, personally appeared:

LEISEL HATAMOSA

CTC# LC101010008

CEBU CITY

ANDREW PITOGO

Voters ID # 21689680

Consolacion Cebu

And known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same persons executing the deed of sale of the herein vessel and that execution is of their own will and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affix my seal on the date and place written.

ATTY. ANALIE HATAMOSA Notary Public Until December 31, 2019 Roll # 183156284 IBP # 00313852 PTR # 313202 – 00 June 23 , 2018 63

Doc. No. 21; Page No. 51; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

64

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Sale of Personal Property [ Sale of Large Cattle ]

SALE OF LARGE CATTLE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This agreement made and executed in the Cebu City, Philippines, on this 15th day of March, 2019, by Juan Dela Cruz, of legal age, Filipino, married to Maria Dela Cruz, with residence and postal address at Consolacion, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as VENDOR, and Pedro Bonifacio, of legal age, Filipino married to Mabini Bonifacio, with residence and postal address at Cebu City, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as VENDEE. WITNESSETH, THAT: 1. That VENDOR is the owner of a carabao described as follows: Class: Large cattle Color: Black Sex: Female Brand: Chinese buffalo Cowlicks (remolinos): Donesia Other marks of identification: white color on four feet 2. For and in consideration of the sum of fifteen thousand pesos (PHP 15000), Philippine Currency, and other valuable consideration, payment of which is acknowledged to have been received, VENDOR hereby sells, transfers and conveys unto the vendee, absolutely free from any encumbrances, his carabao. 3. VENDOR shall assume the risk of the loss of the sugar herein conveyed by reason of fire, rain, locusts, and other accident or force majeure, and if due to said causes the VENDOR cannot deliver to the VENDEE not later than March 31, 2019, the carabao, then it shall be the obligation of the VENDOR to deliver an equal quantity of carabao referred to above to the Vendee, and, in default thereof, then the VENDORshall deliver to the VENDEE its equivalent in money. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective signatures at the place and on the date first above written. MABINI BONIFACIO Vendee

JUAN DELA CRUZ Vendor 65

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: __________________ ___________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S. BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for Cebu, personally appeared Juan Dela Cruz, with Community Tax Certificate No. CI692511 issued on January 20, 1019 issued at Cebu City, and presented to me a document called Sale of large Cattle, who is personally known to me ( or identified by me through competent evidence of identity, namely, drivers license) and represented to me that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed. (and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 15th day of March, 2019 at Cebu.

ATTY. CRISANTO B. HERMOSILLA Notary Public Until December 30, 2019 Roll of Attorney No. 000000 MCLE Complaince XXX-XXXX 7th Floor, UV Building Colon Street, Cebu City Doc. No. 22; Page No. 53; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

66

V. Simple Contracts Deed of Donation

DEED OF DONATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

RODOLFO R. RAMOS married to ZENAIDA M. RAMOS, both of legal age, married, Filipinos, with address at San Vicente Village, Mandaue City, Cebu, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the "DONORS";

IN FAVOR OF:

ROZEN REALTY, INC., a corporation duly organize and existing by under the laws of the Philippines, with principal address in A.C Cortes Avenue, Ibabao, Mandaue City, Cebu, represented by SHIRLEY RAMOS ARGUELLES , as per Secretary’s Certicate registered in the Notarial Register of Atty. Marie Dee Seares-Del Rosario under Doc No. _, Page No. _____ Book No. ______ Series of _________hereinafter referred as “DONEE”

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the above-named DONORS are the exclusive owners of a parcel of land located in Ibabao, Mandaue City and registered in the Registry of Deeds for the City of Mandaue under TCT No. 9216 in the name of RODOLFO R. RAMOS. and covered by Tax Declaration No. 2017-01300802 described as follows:

A parcel of land (Lot No. 60, Gss, 592 ) situated in the Barangay of Ibabao, City of Mandaue, Island of Cebu. Beginning at a point marked “1” of lot 60, Gss- 592, being N. 05-35 E., 813.51 m. from BLLM # 1, Gss-592; thence S. 30-03 W., 35.17 m. to point 2; thence N. 57-52 W., 41.39 m. to point 3; thence N. 42-03 E., 67.52 m. to point 4; thense S. 70-48 E., 27.21 m. to point 5; thence S. 29-08 W., 37-51 m. to point 1; point/ of beginning, containing an area of TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY (2,360 ) SQUARE METERS. ALL POINTS ARE MARKED ON THE GROUND BY b.l CYL. CONC. MONS. Bounded on the SE., along line 1-2 by lot 59, Gss-592; on the SW., along line 2-3 by Road; on the NW., along line 3-4 by Creek; on the NE., along line 4-5 by lot 71, Gss-592; and on the 67

SE., alone line 5-1 by lot 966, Gss-592. Bearings true. This lot was surveyed in accordance with law and existing regulations promulgated thereunder, by C. Zabala, Public Land Surveyor, on June 14, 1962. The DONEE is the owner of the building erected in the subject land of the DONORS and covered by Tax Declaration No. 2017-013-00805.

NOW THEREFORE, the DONORS in consideration and as an act of the DONORS generosity and liberality, the DONORS freely gives, transfers and conveys, by way of donation, unto said DONEE, all the rights, title and interests which the said DONOR has over the said parcel of land.

THAT the DONORS have reserved sufficient property for themselves which are necessary and adequate for their support and financial standing in society.

ACCEPTANCE That the DONEE through its authorized representative does hereby accepts the foregoing donation of the above-described property for which he/she expresses his/her sincerest appreciation and gratitude for the kindness and liberality shown by the DONOR.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES _______________ in ___________________

RODOLFO R. RAMOS DONOR ZENAIDA M. RAMOS DONOR ROZEN REALTY INC. DONEE By: 68

SIGN

this

on

SHIRLEY R. ARGUELLES WITNESSES: ________________________

_____________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines ) _____________________ ) S.S BEFORE ME, a notary for and in the City of Cebu, personally appeared:

Name

Identification No.

Date/Place Issued

RODOLFO R. RAMOS ZENAIDA M. RAMOS ROZEN REALTY INC. SHIRLEY R. ARGUELLES known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Deed of Donation consisting of 3 pages and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.

ATTY. JOVAN N. LANUGON Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 123503 IBP No. 053235 Roll No. 305445 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111201

69

Doc. No. 23; Page No. 55; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

70

V. Simple Contracts Easement of Right of Way

EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This AGREEMENT OF EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY, entered into this 18th day of March 2019 by and between JUAN DELA CRUZ owner of the dominant estate, of legal age, single and a resident of 123 Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City and MARIA FE CLARA, owner of the servient estate, also of legal age, single, and a resident of 126 Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City witnesseth:

That JUAN DELA CRUZ is the owner of a parcel of agricultural land located in the municipality of Minglanilla, province of Cebu, and more particularly described as follows, to wit:

A PARCEL OF LAND located at Minglanilla, Cebu City, bounded in the north by the property of Maria Fe Clara; in the east by the property of Elizabeth Ingles; in the south by the property of Juanita Duhaylungsod; and in the west by the property of Ben Datu, with an area of 9,985 square meters more or less.

which property is covered by T.C.T. No. 9876 of the Register of Deeds of Minglanilla, province of Cebu, which lot is adjacent to MARIA FE CLARA property, and more particularly described as follows, to wit:

A PARCEL OF LAND located at Minglanilla, Cebu City, bounded in the north by the property of Elizabeth Ingles; in the south by the property of Juan Dela Cruz; in the west by the property of Ben Datu; and in the east by the property of Juanita Duhaylungsod, with an area of 10,987 square meters more or less.

which property is covered by T.C.T. No. 7844 of the Register of Deeds of the province of Cebu.

71

That JUAN DELA CRUZ in order to have an access to and from, and to cultivate the above-mentioned land, and so as to have an outlet to travel the goods from his crops and for his pasture, which is the nearest public road and least burdensome to the servient estate and to third persons, it would be necessary for him to pass through MARIA FE CLARA property, and for this purpose, a path or passageway of not less than two (2) meters wide through the whole length of the western side of MARIA FE CLARA property is necessary for the use of JUAN DELA CRUZ and for all his needs in cultivating his estate;

That said path or passageway is particularly described in the attached plan, “Annex A’,

WHEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by MARIA FE CLARA, the latter agrees and permits JUAN DELA CRUZ to have a permanent easement of right of way over the abovementioned property of said MARIA FE CLARA limited to not more than two (2) meters wide throughout the whole length of the western side of said property and as specifically indicated in the attached plan which is made an integral part of this contract, as “Annex A”.

It is further agreed that MARIA FE CLARA shall deliver unto JUAN DELA CRUZ all the necessary papers, deed, and titles in relation to the servient estate in order to facilitate the registration of the above-mentioned right of way, in accordance with.

This agreement shall be binding between the parties and upon all their heirs, successors, and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement the day and the year first above written, in the municipality of Minglanilla, province of Cebu, Philippines.

JUAN DELA CRUZ

MARIA FE CLARA

Owner of Dominant Estate

Owner of Servient Estate

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

72

_____________

_____________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, this 15th day of March 2019 personally appeared the following to witness: NAME Maria Fe Clara Elizabeth Ingles

SSS No. 000-111-222-333-000 000-111-222-333-000

Date/Place Issued June 20, 2009/Cebu City April 26, 2008/Cebu City

Known to me to be the same persons who have executed the foregoing, instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is of their own free will and voluntary act and deed as well as of the corporation herein represented. This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including the page on which this acknowledgement is written, has been signed on the left margin of each page and every page thereof by the parties and their instrumental witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, the day, year and place above written.

ATTY. ANN ONIMOS ABOGADA Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 1234567 IBP No. 1234567 Roll No. 1234567 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111111 Office Address: 7th Floor, Inday Pining, UV, Colon

Doc. No. 24; Page No. 58; Book No. III; Series of 2019. 73

74

VII. Quitclaim in Labor Cases Republic of the Philippines ) Province of Cebu ) S.S. Municipality of Consolacion ) x--------------x

WAIVER, RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM I, Edgar Allan Damasu Ponsi, Filipino, of legal age, married , and a resident of Bamboo Hills, Poblacion Occidental, Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines, after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state: 1. That by these presents, I hereby state that I have voluntarily resigned as Branch Manager of DYO Road Side Marketing Corporation; 2. That I hereby acknowledge to have received from my employer the sum of FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (Php 57,890.00) which is in full and final satisfaction of my salary and other benefits that may be due me for the service which I have rendered for the latter employer; 3. That I hereby declare that I have no further claims whatsoever against my employer, its President, members of the Board, officers or any of its staff and that I hereby release and forever discharge all of them from any and all claims, demands, causes of actions of whatever nature arising out of my employment with the latter; 4. I further agree that this WAIVER, RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM may be pleaded in bar to any suit or proceeding (Civil, SSS, PhilHealth, Medicare, Labor, etc.) to which either I, or my heirs and assigns, may have against my employer in connection with my employment with the latter and that the payment which I have received as provided herein abovementioned should not in any way be construed as an admission of liabilities on the part of my employer and is voluntarily accepted by me and will, if need be, serve as full and final settlement of any amount(s) due me or any claims or causes of actions, either past, present, future, which I may have in connection with my employment with my employer; 5. As such, I finally make manifest that I have no further claim(s) or causes of actions against my employer nor against any person(s) connected with the administration and operation of the latter and forever release the latter from any and all liabilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this March 15, 2019 at Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines. 75

EDGAR ALLAN DAMASU PONSI Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 15th day of March 2019, by EDGAR ALLAN DAMASU PONSI, who exhibited to me his valid identification card, UMID No. 12345678, issued at SSS Main Office, Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines on June 18, 2017. Atty. Myrna Orque Luyao, CPA NOTARY PUBLIC–Mandaue City Until December 31, 2019 Per Notarial Commission No. 5678-9, Mandaue City Luyao, Orque, Yaun & Associates 3578 Lopez Jaena Street, Subangdaku, Mandaue City PTR No. 9876543, Mandaue City, 01/13/2019 IBP No. 85738, Cebu City, 08/23/2018 Roll of Attorneys No. 135789 MCLE Commission No. 3456789,Cebu City,07/08/2018 TIN 123-456-789 Doc. No. 25; Page No. 61; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

76

VII. Notice of Hearing and Explanation

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT CEBU CITY BRANCH 39

Please submit the foregoing motion to the court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt thereof and kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing on Friday, 13 February, 2019 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning.

SHALLONA ACOSTA DELPOSO BULACAO STREET CEBU CITY

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 13 February, 2019 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning.

JUN CARLO FUELLAS MAHINAY Counsel for Defendant JCFM Firm Sanciangko St., Cebu City

Copy furnished through registered mail: Atty. Jun Carlo Fuellas Mahinay Counsel for the defendant JCFM Firm Sanciangko St., Cebu City Registry Receipt No: 12345 Post Office: Cebu City Date: January 28, 2019 Doc. No. 26; Page No. 63; Book No. III; 77

Series of 2019. VIII. Settlement of Estate Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu . . . . . . . . . . . ) S.S.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT WITH PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: This settlement of estate with partition is executed by and among the heirs of the late ELPIDIO RICAFORT, Filipino and married. EUSEBIO LUSTE RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to MARIAFE LIMPIO and a resident of Pondol, Balamban, Cebu City, Philippines. CARMEN R. LOGRONO, Filipino, of legal age, and married to DEMOSTHENIS LOGRONO and a resident of Arpili, Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. DOMINGA R. LABUGA, Filipino, of legal age, and married to RODRIGO LABUGA and a resident of Tungkop, Minglanilla, Cebu, Philippines. MAGDALINA R. MINOR, Filipino, of legal age, and married to FERDINAND MINO and a resident of Arpili, Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. ANTONIO L. RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to LOURDES RICAFORT and a resident of Pondol, Balamban, Cebu City, Philippines. This settlement of estate with partition is executed by and among the heirs of the late MAMERTO RICAFORT, Filipino and married.

78

GULI RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to JOSE MAGALFO and a resident of Proper Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. BASILISA R. DUBLIN, Filipino, of legal age, and married to GENARO DUBLIN SR. and a resident of Poblacion, Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. SANDALIA RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to CARLITO SALINAS and a resident Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to DIVORA LISADA and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. LUCIO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age, and married to FANNY MABAQUIAO and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. CRISPINIANO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to BISENTA BIAY and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. EVARISTO VISTAS RICAFORT Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. This settlement of estate with partition is executed by and among the heirs of the late FLORINTINO RICAFORT, Filipino and married. EVARESTO L. RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to DIOSDADA RICAFORT and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. LOSILO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to LOURDES BENIGNOS and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. BELEN R. CUEVAS, Filipino, of legal age married to JOSE CUEVAS and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. BESENTA R. DUMDUM, Filipino, of legal age married to MARCELO DUMDUM and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. RUDOLFO RICAFORT, Filipino, of legal age married to JUDY PEREZ and a resident of Balamban, Cebu, Philippines. Was constituted as Lot No. 1339, 1349 and 1350 all of my legal age, Filipino and residing in Balamban, Cebu.

DECLARE AND MAKE MANIFEST That the deceased left a certain of land at Balamban, Cebu, containing the 1/3 share with an area of 13, 144 square meters more or less covered by 79

Original Certificate of Title No. 20489 of the Register of Deeds of Cebu and more particularly described as follows to wit: LOT NO. 1339, 1349 and 1350 A parcel of land (Lot No. 1339, 1349 and 1350 of the Cadastral Survey of Balamban with the improvement thereon, situated in the Municipality of Balamban, bounded on the N and E by Lots No. 1342 on the S by 1351 and on Lots 1338 and 1334, 1330, 1329, 1340, 1341, 1342 beginning at a point marked E on plan, being N 10 deg 25 W: 226.7 from B.B.M. No. 5 thence N 85 deg 44 S: 204.36m to point 2’ thence S 15 deg 32’ E 21.07m to point 3’ thence S 14 deg 43 E; 46.15m to point ‘4’ thence S. 86 deg. 20’ W; 74.65m to point ‘5’ thence 33’ W; 25.14 to point ‘7’ thence S. 73 deg 16; W 18.34m to point ‘8’ thence N. 81 deg. 57’ W; 26.41m to point ‘9’ thence N. 57 deg. 54’ W’ 13.42m to point ‘10’ thence N. 33 deg. 46’ W; 25.20m. to point 11” thence N. 65 deg. 51’ E. 12.02m. to point ‘12’ thence N 24 deg. 44’ E; 16.59m. to point ‘13’ thence N. 61 deg. 38’ W m. to point ‘14’ thence deg. 22’ W; 38. 19m to point ‘14’ thence N. 41 deg. 22W; 38.19 to point ‘15’ thence N.88 deg. 50’ W; 12.83m to point ‘16’ thence N 21 deg. 31 ‘W; 8.07m. to point of beginning an area of Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Two (39, 432 square meter, more or less. All point referred to are indicated on the plan, bearing true; declaration 1 deg. 24’ E date of Survey on December 23, 2016. That parties herein agree that it must be divided into Three (3) Lots and Settle the aforementioned Real Property between them pro indiviso. That for and consideration of the foregoing the parties herein by these presents do hereby accepted and designated lot: 1. Lot No. 1339-A, 1349-A and 1350 containing an area of 13, 144 square meters more or less in the name of EUSEBIO LUSTE RICAFORT, CARMEN R. LOGRONO, DOMINGA R. LABUGA, MAGDALINA RICAFORT and ANTONIO RICAFORT; 2. Lot No 1339-B, 1349-B containing an area of 13, 144 square meters more or less in the name of EVARESTO RICAFORT, LOSILO RICAFORT, BELEN R. CUEVAS, BESENTA R. DUMDUM and RUDOLFO RICAFORT; 3. Lot No. 1339-C containing an area of 13, 144 square meters more or less in the name of GULI RICAFORT, BASILISA R. DUBLIN, SANDALIA RICAFORT, FRANCISCO RICAFORT, LUCIO RICAFORT, CRESPINIANO RICAFORT and EVARESTO RICAFORT;

80

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our hands this 16 of March, 2019, at Cebu City, Philippines. th

EUSEBIO LUSTE RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

BESENTA R. DUMDUM HEIR ID No. _________________

CARMEN R. LOGRONO HEIR ID No. _________________ DOMINGA R. LABUGA HEIR ID No. _________________

RUDOLFO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________ GULI RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

MAGDALINA RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

BASILISA R. DUBLIN HEIR ID No. _________________

ANTONIO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

SANDALIA RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

EVARESTO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

FRANCISCO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

LOSILO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

LUCIO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

BELEN R. CUEVAS HEIR ID No. _________________

CRESPINIANO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. _________________

EVARESTO RICAFORT HEIR ID No. __________________

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: ___________________________ (Witness)

___________________________ (Witness)

81

ACKNOWLEDGMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF CEBU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) S.S. BEFORE ME, a Notary Public this 16th of March, 2019, at Cebu City, Philippines, personally appeared both parties with ID Nos. above written below their names, known to me to be the same person and acknowledge to me that the same is their own free act and deed. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, this date and place first above written.

ATTY. GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON Notary Public for Cebu City, Carcar City San Fernando, Cebu Until Dec. 31, 2019 COMM NO. 0281 11/25/2010 CEBU CITY PTR No. 8894089, 1/10/2018 CEBU CITY LIFE TIME IBP No. AR001264, IBP Cebu City, 1/10/18 ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 56281 D Jakosalem Street, Cebu City

Doc. No. 27; Page No. 64; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

82

VIII. Settlement of Estate Extra-Judicial Deed of Partition

EXTRAJUDICIAL DEED OF PARTITION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This AGREEMENT OF PARTITION made and executed by and between:

SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH, of legal age, Filipino, married to Jessica S. Fortich, with residence and postal address at 1478 Begonia St., Ladislawa Village, Buhangin, Cebu City, Philippines,

and

JOSHUA C. DIONISIO, of legal age, Filipino, married to Mika M. Dionisio, with residence and postal address at 163 Santol St., Buhangin, Cebu City, Philippines;

WITNESSETH

That the Parties herein are the registered co-owners of the parcel of land described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6557 of the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan of Ts-V-941-D, being N.49-38’E., 314.70 m. from Triangulation Station Cebu Townsite; thence N.34-00 E., 40.00 m. to point 2; S. 56-00’E., 17.00 m. to point 3; thence to S.23-30’E, 12.00 m. to point 4; S.13-00’W., 35.94 m. to point 5; N 56-00’W m. to point 1, point of beginning. Containing an area of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED (1,400) SQUARE METERS. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground by PLS cys. conc. mons. Bounded on the NW., along line 1-2 by Public Land (Lot 1, Block 4, Dona Vicenta Subdivision); on the NE., and E., along lines 2-3-4 by Road; and on the SW, along 5-1 by 83

Public Land (Lot 3, Block 4, Dona Vicenta Subdivision). This survey was executed under authority of Chapter XI, Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, and in accordance with existing regulations of the Bureau of Lands, Regie Andrei Lastimosa, Deputy Public Land Surveyor, on May 28, 2009 and approved on November 8, 2009.

That the said Parties have caused the subdivision of the aforesaid parcel of land into two (2) lots, each having an area of SEVEN HUNDRED (700) SQUARE METERS, more particularly described as Lots 1 and 2 in the subdivision plan (LRC) PSD-4829882 which was duly approved by the Land Registration Commissioner, to wit;

Lot 1 (LRC) Psd- 4829882 A parcel of land (Lot 1 of the Subdivision plan (LRC) Psd4829882 being a portion of the parcel of land described on TS-V542-C, LRC Rec. T.S. Sales Pat.) situated in the Res. Sec. “B”, City of Cebu. Bounded on the N.E., points 2 to 5 by Subdivision Road (10.00 m. wide); and on the SW., points 5 to 1 by Lot 2, of the Subdivision Plan; and on the NW., points 1 to 2 by Lot 1, Block 4. Beginning at a point marked “1” on Plan. This containing an area of SEVEN HUNDRED (700) SQUARE METERS, more or less.

Lot 2 (LRC) Psd- 4829882 A parcel of land (Lot 1 of the Subdivision plan (LRC) Psd4829882 being a portion of the parcel of land described on TS-V542-C, LRC Rec. T.S. Sales Pat.) situated in the Res. Sec. “B”, City of Cebu. Bounded on the SE., points 2 to 3 by Subdivision Road (10.00 m. wide); on the SW., points 3 to 1 by Lot 3, Block 4; and on the NW., points 1 to 2 by Lot 1 of the Subdivision Plan. This containing SEVEN HUNDRED (700) SQUARE METERS, more or less.

That the above Parties have agreed and covenanted, as by these presents, do hereby agree and covenant, that Lot 1 as above described shall appertain and belong to SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH, his heirs and assigns, and that Lot 2 as likewise above described, shall appertain and belong to JOSHUA C. DIONISIO, his heirs and assigns.

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above agreement, the Parties herein shall have the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 84

T-3805 CANCELLED by the Register of Deeds of Cebu City, and in lieu thereof to ISSUE two (2) new certificates of title for the two lots in favor of the two owners, respectively.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto set their hands below, this 16th day of March 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH

(Sgd.) JESSICA S. FORTICH

(Sgd.) JOSHUA C. DIONISIO

(Sgd.) MIKA M. DIONISIO

In the presence of:

(Sgd.) ALMUND SARMIENTO

(Sgd.) LEANDRO LUI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu

) S.S.

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

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the City of Cebu, Philippines, personally appeared the following, with their residence certificate Nos., SEAN VINCENT R. FORTICH, CTC No. 72294, issued at Cebu City on January 5, 2019 and JOSHUA C. DIONISIO, CTC No. 67542, issued at Cebu City on January 18, 2019, known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument consisting of four (4) pages only, including this page, and they acknowledge that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed.

85

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place above written.

(Sgd.) ATTY. BRIAN C. MONTECILLO NOTARY PUBLIC Commission valid until December 31, 2020 P.T.R. No. 765532, January 3, 2013, Cebu City IBP No. 918225, Attorney’s Roll No. 14344 MCLE Compliance Cert. No. 66587 G/F J King Bldg., Jose L Briones St., NRA, Cebu City Mobile No.: (+63) 933 8650 903 Email: [email protected] Doc. No. 28; Page No. 69; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

86

VIII. Settlement of Estate Extra-Judicial Settlement

EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This DEED OF EXTRAJUDICIAL ESTATE made and entered into by and between:

SETTLEMENT

OF

Charmaine L. Santos, Christine L. Santos and Christian L. Santos all of legal age, single, Filipino and resident of Block 1 Lot 2 Colorful Subdivision, Barangay Linao, Talisay City, Cebu herein referred to as the HEIRS; WITNESSETH :

1. That the above-named HEIRS are the only surviving and lawful heirs of spouses Christopher Z. Santos and Claribell L. Santos, who both died intestate on 14 February 2019 at Block 1 Lot 2 Colorful Subdivision, Barangay Linao, Talisay City, Cebu which was the place of residence at the time of their death;

2. That the deceased spouses at the time of their death left certain real and personal properties;

3. That the spouses died without any no known debts or obligations due against the estate of the said decedents and without any will, the only surviving heirs are above-mentioned Charmaine L. Santos, Christine L. Santos, and Christian L. Santos;

4. That the heirs affirm that they have executed this instrument voluntarily, freely and without force, intimidation or violence upon their person, that they have hereby received their just and proper share, and that they have no claim or demand against each other.

87

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and invoking the provision of Sec. 1 Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, the said HEIRS above named have agreed to settle the estate extra-judicially and to this effect do hereby partition and adjudicate the same unto themselves and the foregoing inheritance, subject however to the liabilities imposed by Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court for a period of two years in favor of any other possible heirs, creditors or any other person deprived of the lawful participation over the said estate of the deceased and encumbrances;

The parties agree to publish this instrument in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Talisay, Province of Cebu once a week for three consecutive weeks.

In the remote event that any other property of the decedent should ever be found which is not included hereinabove, the HEIRS hereto further agree as they do so agree to settle and distribute the same in like manner and proportion as herein established and disposed.

That the HEIRS hereby covenant and further warrant that should there be preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living or not at the time of the execution of this Deed, will not invalidate/nullify the terms and conditions of this Deed. Instead, the HEIRS shall proportionately oblige themselves to pay to the omitted Heirs or the latters’ heir(s) the share which belongs to him/them, in accordance with the rules of succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affix our signature this 22 day of March 2019, at Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines. nd

___________________ ____________________ __________________ Charmaine L. Santos

Christine L. Santos

Christian L. Santos

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

__________________________

_________________________

88

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Republic of the Philippines) City of Talisay

)S.S

BEFORE ME this22nd day of March 2019 at Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines, personally appeared the following persons, who are identified by me through competent evidence of identity:

Name

Competent Evidence of Identity Date/Place Issued

Charmaine L. Santos

TIN No. 666-888-999

3/2/19- Cebu City

Christine L. Santos

TIN No. 111-222-333

4/5/20- Cebu City

Christian L. Santos

TIN No. 444-777-555

6/7/20- Cebu City

known to me and to me made known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is their own free voluntary act and deed.

This instrument refers to a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of consisting of four (4) pages including this page on which the acknowledgment is written and duly signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the date and place first above written.

ATTY. CHENNIE LYNN O. NEDIA NOTARY PUBLIC 2ND FLOOR PNB BLDG., TABUNOK TALISAY CITY, CEBU PHILIPPINES IBP NO. 8886789 89

PTR NO. 6666769 ROLL NO. 5559714 MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-12345

Doc. No. 29; Page No. 72; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

90

VIII. Settlement of Estate Affidavit of Self-Adjudication

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SELF- ADJUDICATION I, GLORIA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, respectively, and presently residing at Blk 55, Lot 66, Ibarra Homes, Labangon, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state: 1. I am the sole heir of the late JUAN CRUZ, being his only biological daughter; 2.

The late JUAN CRUZ passed away on January 2, 2019, and died without any last will and testament;

3.

At the time of death my father, he had no debts, liabilities or obligations to any persons, agency or institution;

4.

The only property left by my late father is a house and lot, more particularly described as follow: TCT No. T-2222 A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 32 of the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-5141, being a portion of the consolidation of Lots 1 and 2, Psu-112287 Amd., LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. N-17511), situated in the South District, City of Cebu, Island of Cebu. Bounded on the NE., points 3 to 6, by Lot 85; on the S., points 6 to 1 by Lot 30; on the SW., points 1 to 2, by Lot 31; and on the N., points 2 to 3 by Lot 35, all of the consolidation-subdivision plan. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being N. 51 deg. 36' E., 1321.76 m. from B.L.L.M. No.1, Cebu City.

5.

As sole heir of the herein decedent, I hereby adjudicate the abovementioned property solely for and in my name as well as any and all liabilities arising from the said property;

6.

I hereby execute this affidavit for the purpose of processing the transfer of the said property in my name, the settlement of the estate of the late JUSN CRUZ, as well as for the release of any other claim or benefit in relation to his death before any government/private office and banking institution and for any other legal purpose this may best serve. 91

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19Th day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines. GLORIA CRUZ Affiant Voter's ID No. 5555 SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her valid proof of identification.

ATTY. RENIL B. OLIVA Notary Public Until December 30, 2019 7th Floor, UV Building Colon Street, Cebu City

Doc. No. 30; Page No. 75; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

92

XI. Mortgage Contracts Real Estate Mortgage

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This MORTGAGE made and executed by

Jonathan Dela Cruz, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of _ Brgy. Baguer, Libongan, North Cotabato herein called the Mortgagor

-and-

Judith Villamora, Filipino, of legal age, single/married, and a resident of Blk 9, Lot 15, Phase II, Kalapati St. DDF Subd, Mandug, Davao City herein called the MORTGAGEE;

W I T N E S S E T H: 1. That as security for the payment of the loan in the principal sum of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00), and such other loans or advances already obtained, or still to be obtained by the MORTGAGOR(s) as MAKER(s), CO-MAKER(s), or GUARANTOR(s) from the MORTGAGEE plus interest at the rate of 4 % per month, payable on the dates mentioned in the corresponding loan agreement, the MORTGAGOR(s) by way of first mortgage, mortgages the parcel(s) of land described hereunder, together with the improvements now existing, or which may hereafter be made thereon, of which MORTGAGOR(s) represents and warrants that MORTGAGOR(s) is/are absolute owner(s) and that the said parcel of land is/are free from all liens and encumbrances. The MORTGAGOR hereby transfer and convey by way of mortgage unto the MORTGAGEE, their heirs, successors, executors, administrators or assigns the following parcel of land covered by and described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1234 issued by the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Kidapawan, North Cotabato which title is attached hereto as Annex 1.

93

2. That if the obligations herein secure, or any of the amortization of such indebtedness should be unpaid when due or upon non-compliance with any of the conditions and stipulations herein agreed, or if the MORTGAGOR or the person availing of the credit accommodations herein secured shall, during the time the mortgage is in force, instituted solvency proceedings or be involuntarily declared insolvent, or if the proceeds of this loan/credit line should be used or applied for purposes other than those specified herein, or if this mortgage cannot be recorded in the corresponding Registry of Deeds, then all the obligations secured by this mortgage and all the amortization thereof shall immediately become due, payable and defaulted and the MORTGAGEE may immediately foreclose this extrajudicially in accordance with Act No. 3135, as amended, and for the purpose, the Mortgagor hereby names, constitutes and appoints the Mortgagee as it’s Attorney-in-Fact, to enable it to extrajudicially foreclose the herein Mortgage and as well as to sign all documents and perform any act requisite and necessary to accomplish said purpose and to appoint its substitutes as such attorney-in-fact with the same powers as above-specified. In case of judicial foreclosure the MORTGAGOR hereby consents to the appointment of the MORTGAGEE and/or its duly authorized representative or of any of its designates as receiver, without any bond, to take charge of the mortgage property at once, and to hold possession of the same and the rents, benefits and profits derived from the mortgaged property before the same, less the costs and expenses of the receivership; the MORTGAGOR hereby agrees further that, in all cases, attorney’s fees is hereby fixed at 25% of the total indebtedness then unpaid, which in no case shall not be less than Php 5,000.00 exclusive of all cost and fees allowed by law, and the expenses of collection shall be the obligation of the MORTGAGOR and shall with priority, be paid to the MORTGAGEE out of any sums realized from the sale of said property and this mortgage shall likewise stand as security therefor. It is hereby agreed that the period or periods granted for the payment of the amortization and/or obligations secured by this mortgage is for the mutual benefit of both MORTGAGOR and the MORTGAGEE. The MORTGAGEE may be a bidder at the sale of the properties hereby mortgage to it, whether under foreclosure proceedings, or under the powers of sale herein provided, or otherwise. The remedy of the MORTGAGEE under the powers of sale hereby conferred upon it shall be, and is in addition to and cummulative with such right of action as the MORTGAGEE may have in accordance with the present or any future laws of the Philippines. It is hereby agreed that in the case of foreclosure of this mortgage under Act No. 3135, the auction sale shall be held at the capital province; and in case of judicial execution of this obligation or any part of it, the debtor waive all their rights under the provisions of Rule 39 Section 12 of the Rules of Court, Art. 232 of Republic Act No. 386, known as the Civil Code of the Philippines, and the proper venue of the foreclosure suit thereto corresponding, where the mortgage may institute the foreclosure suit is the Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court of Davao city or elsewhere at the election of said MORTGAGEE;

94

3. It is of the essence of this contract that if the MORTGAGOR fails to pay the principal obligation then this mortgage shall be foreclosed and the above-mentioned property/ies shall be sold in accordance with law; but, if the MORTGAGOR pay said obligation together with the interests, then this mortgage shall become null and void and of no effect. In Witness Whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this December 18, 2015 at Davao City, Philippines.

Jonathan Dela Cruz

Judith Villamora

Mortgagor

Mortgagee

With my marital consent: _______________________ Husband of Mortgagor Signed In The Presence Of: ______________ & ________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Republic of the Philippines) Davao City

) S.S

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for Davao City this 18th day of December 2015 personally appeared: ID Number Lorena H. Camino

SSS No. 000-111-222-333

Judith C. Villamora

SSS No. 222-333-444-555

All known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing real estate mortgage and who acknowledged the same to be their free voluntary act and deed, and that of the entities represented.

95

This document refers to a loan agreement which consists of three (3) pages including this page on which this Acknowledgement is written, and duly signed by the parties together with their instrumental witnesses on each and every page hereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first above written. ATTY. ERIC PAGODON Notary Public 102 Maryjoy Bldg. Gen Maxilom Avenue Cebu City. Roll No. 50308 Doc. No. 31;

PTR NO. 1855380

Page No. 77;

IBP No. 805831, 05-04-18

Book No. III;

MCLE Compliance No. V11- 00053803, Jun. 12, 2018.

Series of 2019.

96

XI. Mortgage Contracts Chattel Mortgage

DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That I, OLIVE OLIVIANO, of legal age, married and resident of Brgy. Pari-an Cebu City, for and in consideration of the loan of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), granted to me by LUCKY AWANGAN, also of legal age, married and resident of 800 St. Brgy. Labangon Cebu City, to be paid one (1) year from date hereof, have transferred and conveyed by way of chattel mortgage unto said LUCKY AWANGAN, his heirs, successors and assigns, free from all liens and encumbrances that certain motor vehicle, presently in my possession, more particularly described as: MODEL/MAKE : 2011 Isuzu COLOR : Black BODY : Canter MOTOR NO. : 123456 SERIAL/CHASSIS NO. : 789666 PLATE NO. : XYZ-123 of which I am the true and absolute owner by title thereto, being evidenced by Registration Certificate of Motor Vehicle No. 1122 issued in my name by the Land Transportation Office on July 6, 2017.

This chattel mortgage has been executed in order to secure the full and faithful payment of my obligation to LUCKY AWANGAN in accordance with the terms and conditions of this instrument. Upon payment, this contract shall become canceled; otherwise, it shall continue in full force and effect and may be foreclosed in accordance with law. IN WITNESSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this deed of chattel mortgage, this 5th day of March 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines. OLIVON OLIVIANO Mortgagor With my marital consent (if married):

97

MARIA OLIVIANO Mortgagor’s wife AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD FAITH We, the undersigned MORTGAGOR and MORTGAGEE, severally swear that the foregoing chattel mortgage is made and executed for the purpose of securing the obligation specified therein, and for no other purpose, and that the same is a just and valid obligation, and one not entered into for the purposes of fraud.

OLIVON OLIVIANO Mortgagor

LUCKY AWANGAN Mortgagee

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: MARIA MAKILING Witness

JUAN TAMAD Witness

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Makati ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in the City of Cebu, this 25th day of March 2019 personally appeared: Name LUCKY AWANGAN OLIVON OLIVIANO

Identification Card Issued On/At PRC ID NO. 6789 2/04/2018|CEBU CITY UMID ID NO. 4869213 4/02/2018|CEBU CITY

all known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and hereby acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. This instrument consisting of two (2) pages, including this page on which this acknowledgment is written refers to a DEED OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE and has been signed by the parties and their witnesses and sealed with my notarial seal. WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL. ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE PANANGANAN Doc. No. 32;

Notary Public

Page No. 80; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

98

Until December 30, 2019 7th Floor, UV Building Colon Street, Cebu City

99

IX. Mortgage Contracts Deed of Release of Real Estate or Chattel Mortgage

DISCHARGE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, Lelanie Rubia, Filipino, of legal age, married to Reynaldo Rubia with residence and post-office address at Block 11 Lot 25 Deca Homes 5 Basak, Lapulapu City, having received the full consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), to me in hand paid by Mariz Macasaquit, of legal age , married to Froilan Macasaquit with residence and pot-office address at Block 10 lot 86 Corinthian Homes Basak, Lapulapu City, hereby by these presents forever RELEASE and DISCHARGE that certain mortgage of real estate with all the improvement thereon, covered by Transfer ( or Original) Certificate of Title No. 00000 of the Registry of Deeds of Lapulapu City, which real estate mortgage was executed on 10th day of May, 2017, by the said Mariz Macasaquit , before Notary Public ED BINZ as per his Notarial register document no. 00000, Page no. 00000, Book no. 00000, series of 00000, and duly registered in the Registry of Deeds of Lapulapu City, on 15 th of May, 2017 as per Primary Entry No. 0000, Volume 00000 of the Day Book of the said Registry of Deeds, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 18th of February, 2019 in City of lapulapu, Philippines.

________________________________ Lelanie Rubia

WITNESSES:

Myrna Perez

Jasmine Credo

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Republic of the Philippines) City of Lapulapu ) S.S. 100

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in the City of Lapulapu, this 20th day of February 2019 personally appeared: Name

Identification Card

Issued On/At

Lelanie Rubie 00000 00000 Mariz Macasaquit 00000 00000 all known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and hereby acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL. ATTY. MABINI O. PELAGIO 2nd Floor Patalinghug st., Pajo, Lapulapu City Roll No. 98289 PTR No. 78921, 6 Jan 2019 IBP No. 89892, 8 May 2o18 MCLE Compliance NO. 95287391, 16 June 1977 Doc. No. 33; Page No. 82; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

101

X. Pre-Nuptial Agreements

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF CEBU) S.S

PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT, entered into this 1st day of Februrary 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines , by and etween CARLITO M. PLANDO and NINFAG. QUINTANA, both of legal age, and residing at Buena Hills Sundivision, Guadalupe, Cebu City. WITNESSETH: THAT the parties hereto are about to enter into a ontract of marriage, tentatively scheduled to take place sometime in the 31 st of December 2019; THAT they hereby mutually agree that all the property, real and personal. Now owned by the future wife, NINFA G. QUINTANA, shall remain to be owned exclusive and separate property, subject to her disposition, administration, and enjoyment; while those of the future husband, CARLITO M. PLANDO, shall likewise remin also to be his own exclusive and separate property, subject to his absolute disposition and administration; THAT all properties and earnings acquired after marriage by any party or jointly by both parties shall constiute conjugal properties or funds which, among other common purposs shall defray or take care of family expenses, including the rearing and education of future chldren that may be begotte or that may be adopted during marriage; THAT this agreement shall take effect upon the celebration of the marriage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed their names unto this document on the date and at the place first above written. CARLITO M. PLANDO Future Husband

NINFA G. QUINTANA Future Wife

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: BASANIO G. QUINTANA

LEILANIE Q. YALUNG 102

ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, in and for Cebu City, Philippines, this 1st day of Februrary 2019, personally appeared: Name GSIS ID No. CARLITO M. PLANDO 196431 NINFA G. QUINTANA 196160 known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and theyacknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand andaffix my notarial seal on the date and place first above written.

ATTY. NINF QUENNIE Q. PLANDO 7th Floor UV Building, Colon St., Cebu City Roll No. 121212 PTR No.232323, 6 Jan 2019 IBP No. 343434, 8 May 2018 MCLE Compliance NO. 95287391, 16 June 1977

Doc. No. 34; Page No. 84; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

103

XI. Deed of Assignment of Credit

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF CREDIT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THIS PRESENTS This deed, made and entered into this 14th of March 2019 at the City of Cebu, by and between:

JUAN DELA CRUZ, Filipino citizen, of legal age, with residence and postal address at Escario, St. Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the “ASSIGNOR”

-AND-

PEDRO DELA ROSA, Filipino citizen, of legal age, with residence and postal address at Colon Street, Cebu City, hereinafter referred to as the “ASSIGNEE”

WITNESSETH THAT-

WHEREAS , the ASSIGNOR is the buyer of a 2-bedroom unit located at 27C, Grand Tower, Cebu CitY with an area of Fifty Five (55) square meters more or less, covered by condominium certificate title no. 458327 of the Register of Deed of Cebu, registered in the name of the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR has offered to assign all his rights, title and interest over the above unit, as referred in the said contract to sell and the ASSIGNEE hereby accepts the assignment in accordance with the terms herein set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and consideration of the forgoing premised and the sum of TWO MILLION PESOS (2,000,000.00) Philippine currency which the ASSIGNOR hereby acknowledged to have received from the ASIGNEE, the ASSIGNOR hereby assigns, transfer and 104

conveys unto the ASSIGNEE , all his rights, title and interest to the aforementioned property and appurtenant interest in the condominium project pursuant to this agreement and the ASSIGNEE by these presents hereby accepts the assignment and agrees to be bound by the terms and condition of the Contract to Sell and the rules, and regulations and restrictions pertaining to the said unit.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the date and place first above written.

J UAN DEL A CRUZ

PEDRO DELA ROSA

ASSIGNOR

ASSIGNEE

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF

ANA MARIA ABAD

SANTOS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu

) S.S.

Before me, a notary public, for and in the City of Cebu, this 14 th day of March 2019, personally appeared: NAME /AT

IDENTIFICATION CARD

JUAN DELA CRUZ July 24, 2017/Cebu City PEDRO DELA ROSA 2017/Cebu City

PASSPORT

NO.

PASSPORT NO. 09495593

105

ISSUED ON 58I258925 June 12,

All known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that the same are their free act and deed.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on the date and place above written.

ATTY. MARCY JO T. RABILLAS Notary Public 3rd Floor, ABC Building Osmena Street, Cebu City Roll No. 58241 PTR No. 7462621, 05-25-18 IBP No. 684391, 03-25-18 MCLE Compliance No. VII – 00043741, June 4, 2018

Doc. No. 35; Page No. 86; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

106

JUDICIAL FORMS & PLEADINGS I. Captions and Titles Supreme Court

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

SPS. EMERSON ARCEO, and BOJOY ALAD-AD ARCEO, Petitioners. -versus-

G.R. No. 14314369 (RTC Civil Case No. CEB-14369)

JACINTH DELA CERNA, and DANE PAULINE ADORA, Respondents. x-----------------------------------------------------/

107

I. Captions and Titles Court of Appeals

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Manila

MANNY KENT S. REGULACION Petitioner, -versus-

C.A. G.R. No. 6989 (ACTION FOR INJUNCTION)

CRISANTO HERMOSILLA Defendant, x-----------------------------------------------------/

108

I. Captions and Titles Regional Trial Court

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Cebu City Branch 10 ARLYN SANCHEZ Plaintiff, -versus-

CRIMINAL CASE No: 1022548 FOR: ESTAFA

LOVELY LIM, Accused x--------------------------------------------------x

109

I. Captions and Titles Special Proceedings

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Region Makati City Branch 21 Guardian’s Bond for the Property of the Minors Jacinth and Jovan, both surnamed Abrenica, Sp. Proc. No. M-6710 KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA Petitioner, x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

110

I. Captions and Titles Criminal Proceedings

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Seventh Judicial Region Branch 45 Oslob, Cebu

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus-

Crim. Case No. 4344 For: Murder

JUAN DE LA CRUZ, Accused. x--------------------------------------/

111

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Interpleader

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 4, CEBU CITY

JUAN DELA CRUZ, Plaintiff, – versus – _______

Special Civil Action No. Petition for Interpleader

JUAN TAMAD and JUAN TANGA, Defendant, x--------------x COMPLAINT I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, through the counsel, respectfully states that: 1. Plaintiff and defendant are all of legal age; plaintiff resides at 1234 Pelaez street Cebu City, whereas defendants resides at 4321 Pelaez street Cebu City and 9012 Ramos St. Cebu City respectively, where they may be served the respective notices; 2. That on January 31st of 2019, plaintiff found a Bag containing Macbook laptop, 1 Hard Drive, a check worth twenty five thousand pesos (pay to cash) and a Blackberry playbook that said properties where in the possession of the plaintiff. 3. On 10th of February 2019, defendants made similar representations to the plaintiff as the rightful owner of the said properties without even showing proof that he own as such. 4. Plaintiff who claims no interest on the said properties cannot determine the conflicting claims of defendants and thus seeks to compel defendants to interplead and litigate their several claims between themselves.

PRAYER

112

WHEREFORE, I respectfully prayed before this Honorable Court to issue and order directing defendants to interplead with one another and to determine their respective rights and claims and to allow plaintiff to recover his expenses and the costs of this suit as first lien upon the subject of this action Cebu City, 21st of February 2019.

(sgd.) Atty. Raphael Aaron Wilwayco Counsel for the Plaintiff Unit 1234 Gran Turino, Cebu City Roll of Attorney No. 111 IBP No. 111 MCLE Compliance

CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION OF NON FORUM SHOPPING Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu )S.S. I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, after having been duly sworn in accordance with the law, deposes and states that: 1. I am the plaintiff in the above titled case; 2. I am of legal age and as of the moment in possession of the said

properties mention in the above titled case; 3. I certify that I have not commenced any action or filed any claim

involving the same issues before any other court and quasi-judicial agency; 4. To the best of my knowledge there is no such pending action or claim,

or in case there arise I will personally report to the Honorable Court the status of the same within 5 days; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on 21 st of February 2019.

(Signed) JUAN DELA CRUZ Doc. No. 41; Page No. 93;

113

Book No. III; Series of 2019. II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Action for Declaratory Relief

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 15 Cebu City

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -versus-

G.R. DOCKET NO. 868-SC-922-VI FOR: Petitioner for

Declaratory Relief CITY OF CEBU, represented by MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, Defendant. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MOTION WITH LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO ADMIT ATTACHED COMPALINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Movant-Intervenors, by counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully states:

This is a Complaint for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed on March 15, 2019 to declare Ordinance 7774 prohibiting the admission of customers on a short-time basis or for a short-time rate invalid and unconstitutional.

114

Herein movants are operators and proprietors of various business establishments in the City of Cebu whose main customers are local tourists from far-flung areas in the country having their vacation in the City.

That the passage of the aforesaid Ordinance will adversely affect herein movant’s lawful occupation and businesses, due to the fact that the establishments they operate are tourist-and people-fueled, and the passage of the Ordinance in controversy may affect the patronage of the movant’s customers.

The passage of the aforesaid Ordinance 7774 will adversely affect the business operation and occupation of movants, to their detriment and prejudice.

WHERFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be rendered admitting herein Movants as Intervenors in the above-entitled case.

City of Cebu, 19 March 2019. LOMIBAO LAW OFFICE, 406 Punta Princesa, Cebu City Tel. No. 0917-7056-576 Email Add: LLawOffice @gmail.com

by:

ATTY. KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA Notary Public Until December 31, 2020 PTR No. 123503 IBP No. 053235 Roll No. 305445 MCLE Compliance No. VI-1111201

115

Doc. No. 42; Page No. 95; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

NOTICE OF HEARING

HONORABLE SUPREME COURT CITY OF MANILA

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof.

KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA

116

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Petition for Certiorari

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS CEBU CITY

SPOUSES ARA ECHAVEZ AND VAN ECHAVEZ, ET. AL., Petitioners, CA G.R. CV-No. XXXXXX

-versusRTC CEBU CITY, Branch XX R.T.C. No. CEB-XXX

FOR: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, ETC.,

PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 12, CEBU CITY, And EUTIQUITA ARA, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

117

Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court of Appeals, most respectfully file this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Order of the respondent court dated November 3, 2006, dismissing the above complaint, and the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiffs-petitioners on February 5, 2007 at RTC Branch 12, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB -19530 for Specific Performance, Etc., entitled SPOUSES ARA. ECHAVEZ AND VAN ECHAVEZ, ET. AL., versus EUTIQUITA ARA, and further state, THAT:

1. Petitioners are all of legal ages, Filipinos, married, with postal address c/o undersigned counsel, where they may be served with summons and other court processes;

2. Public respondent, Hon. ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO, is made a party to this case in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, where summons may be served;

3. Private respondents are of legal ages, Filipinos, married, and with postal address c/o their respective counsels, where they may be served summons, notices and other court papers;

4. On November 10, 2006, plaintiffs -petitioners received a copy of the Order of RTC Branch 12, Cebu City, dated November 3, 2006, dismissing the above-mentioned case;

5. A certified true copy of the decision being assailed is hereto attached as Annex “A”, together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto;

This order of the court a quo transpired from the events chronologically enumerated and described as follows:

6. After a protracted hearing, constant changes of counsels, and immediately towards the last stage of the hearing of the case, the trial court issued an order dated July 17 , 2006, requiring plaintiffs-petitioners to formally offer their exhibits. Initially, during the incipient period of his illness due to hoarseness of voice complicated by high blood sugar and 118

pneumonia, plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel of record was advise d by his attending physician to rest. For this reason plaintiffs petitioners failed to formally offer their exhibits on time, hence, they were given another thirty (30) days from July 17, 2006 or until August 16, 2006 within which to file same;

7. Consequently, due to the failure of plaintiffs -petitioners to file their formal exhibits within the extended time, and upon motion, the lower court extended the period of filing same for another thirty (30) days from August 16, 2006, or until September 18, 2006;

8. However, as fate would have it, a matter of life and death supervened. His illness having worsened and complicated, i.e. Hemothysis secondary to PTE, active with Lower Respiratory Tract Infection; Diabetes Mellitus, type 2, poorly controlled; Hypertensive Cardiovacular Disease; and, Anemia secondary to blood loss from hemothysis, counsel of record of petitioners was confined at the H.W MILLER MEMORIAL SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL from September 6 to 19, 2006, for which reason the attending physician advised counsel of record for a complete rest for three (3) months after being released from confinement at said hospital. The Physician’s Certificate even labored for a consideration regarding counsel of record’s absence from work. The sheer impossibility of plaintiffs-petitioners’ submitting their offer of exhibits within the reglementary period given by the court a quo was because of compelling reasons involving life and death brought about by counsel of record’s being admitted to the hospital due to said complicated illnesses. A machine copy of said Physician’s Certificate is hereto attached a Annex “B”;

9. On October 10, 2006, defendant -respondent Arañas, filed a Motion to Dismiss herein complaint. At the hearing of said motion, plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel of record again failed to appear as he was still suffering from the aforementioned illnesses;

10. On November 2, 2006, plaintiffs -petitioners received a copy of the Order of the court a quo giving them ten (10) days from receipt thereof within which to file their Comments/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by 119

defendant, herein respondent Arañas. hereto attached as Annex “C”;

A copy of said order is

11. On November 10, 2006, or two (2) days before the expiration of the period to file their Comments/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant -respondent Arañas, plaintiffs-petitioners filed their Comments/Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss With Leave Of Court To Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, and the Formal Of fer of Exhibits, through registered mail. A copy of said Motion and Formal Offer of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit are hereto attached as Annexes “D” and “D-1”, respectively;

12. On the same date however, plaintiffs -petitioners through counsel, received a copy of the Order of the court a quo, the dispositive portion of which is quoted in paragraph 31 hereof, dismissing herein complaint for the alleged reasons, among other things, that plaintiffs-petitioners lack interest in pursuing the case and that they had delayed the case without any justifiable reasons;

13. On February 5, 2007, plaintiffs -petitioners through counsel of record, filed their Motion for Reconsideration of the Court Order dated November 3, 2006. A copy of said motion is hereto attached as Annex “E”;

14. On February 1, 2007, a hearing was conducted to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein plaintiffs petitioners, and where parties are directed in open court to file appropriate pleading regarding the dismissal of herein case, ten (10) days from said date. A copy of the order to this effect is hereto attached as Annex “F”;

15. On February 23, 2007, herein plaintiffs -petitioners received a copy of respondent Arañas’s Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Court dated November 3, 2006;

16. On May 18, 2007, plaintiffs -petitioners received a copy of the Order of the court a quo dated May 2, 2007, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioners, for the reason that plaintiffs-petitioners “still have not advanced any ground 120

upon which to excuse their delay in the filing of their formal offer of exhibits”. A copy of said order is hereto attached as Annex “G”;

17. In fine, the reasons given by the court a quo in dismissing plaintiffs-petitioners’ complaint are, among other things, that they lacked interest in pursuing the case, and that they had allegedly delayed the case without any justifiable reasons, and the reason denying plaintiffs -petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was that they had not allegedly advanced any grounds upon which to excuse their delay in the filing of their formal offer of exhibits. These grounds of the order of dismissal and order of denial of the motion for reconsideration are amply rebutted and negated in the next succ eeding paragraphs;

18. Surprisingly, what made this order of dismissal unique in itself, if not gross and whimsical, is that it was issued and dated two days before the expiry of the period to file the required pleading – the same day that the offer of exhibits was filed, together with the Comments/Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss With Leave Of Court To Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits;

19. Hence, since said order of dismissal was issued two days before the expiry of the reglementary peri od, it is believed that same was issued prematurely and irregularly, if not wantonly and capriciously, considering that the period given has not yet even lapsed. On the other hand, for whatever it is worth, public respondent should not have even dismisse d the case but instead order it terminated;

20. Furthermore and with all due respect, it bears stressing that plaintiffs-petitioners could not be said as lacking interest in pursuing this case. In fact, despite personal and health problems, plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel of record had exerted efforts to inform the court of his complicated illnesses, and his subsequent confinement to a hospital, hence could not possibly comply with the order of the court on time – that is if it was really filed out of time. This, in itself, is a reasonable ground upon which to excuse their delay in the filing of their formal offer of exhibits;

121

21. And, compounding counsel of record’s predicament was the fact that his wife was also hospitalized for advanced diabetes resulting to the amputation of her leg;

22. To stress this point even further, contrary to the reasons stated in the order of dismissal, plaintiffs -petitioners had indeed showed their interest in pursuing this case by filing the appropriate pleadings ordered by the trial court. Following the order of dismissal, they have in fact filed a motion for reconsideration stating plausible reasons but which was denied nevertheless. Having no other recourse in sight, their plight in pursuing this case even now reached this Honorable Court of Appeals. So, where is the lack of interest? What more could be asked of plaintiffs-petitioners to show their interest in pursuing this case? 23. Though admittedly, there is really a delay in the resolution of the case, it is not without any justifiable reasons. As stated above, had not misfortune intervened, and instead had fate and nature been favorable, this case would have been resolved with proper dispatch. Be it noted that these misfortunes were not of plaintiffs-petitioners’ own making. So why could the trial court be reasonable and lenient? The trial court should have reconsidered the motion for reconsideration and allowed admission of the Formal Offer of Exhibits so filed;

These are not only justifiable but COMPELLING grounds and reasons enough to merit reconsideration of the honorable court a quo;

24. As a result of this seeming indifference of the trial court, counsel of record seemed to have lost focus on the case considering his failing health condition. Thus, in order to be relieved of the legal duties as counsel to herein petitioners, and in order not to exacerbate his failing health, counsel of record had decided to eventually withdraw from this case. This he eventually did by filing his mo tion to withdraw as counsel on June 20, 2007. Copy of the Notice to Withdraw as Counsel is hereto attached and marked as Annex “H”;

25. By the withdrawal of their counsel of record, plaintiffs-petitioners were then at the moment left out in the cold. With the last day of filing the next appropriate available remedy closing in on them, plaintiffs -petitioners must need to 122

secure the services of another lawyer at the soonest possible time. And seeing this precarious situation they were in wherein time is already of the essence, herein plaintiffs -petitioners then approached and tried to persuade the services of undersigned counsel on July 15, 2007, or just barely two (2) days before the reglementary period to file this petition would lapse;

26. Pursuant to Sec. 4 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and reckoning from the Order of the court a quo dated May 2, 2007, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein plaintiffs petitioners, which was received by plaintiffs -petitioners’ counsel on record on May 18, 2007, the latter had only until July 17, 2007 within which to file their Petition for Certiorari, thereby already putting undersigned counsel in a tight time constraint;

27. Eventually, taking their plight into consideration, and anxious to help plaintiffs-petitioners get their day in court in order to protect their interests, undersigned counsel acceded to be engaged as their counsel on that day July 15, 2007. Thus, quite naturally, due to present office workloads, court appearances, and other previous commitments, undersigned counsel, now under pressure because of time constraint, had to file plaintiffs-petitioners’ Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 before this Honorable Court of Appeals. The reason obviously i s that undersigned counsel needs more time to study the case thoroughly in order to prepare an intelligent petition for certiorari under Rule 65. By anyone’s standard, this appears to be an insurmountable task considering that undersigned had only barely two (2) days to prepare said motion. But this he had to do soonest and finish until the afternoon of July 17, 2007;

28. Again however, misfortune seems to continue to play a cruel joke on plaintiffs-petitioners. Though now ready on the afternoon of July 17, 2007, when plaintiffs-petitioners went to the Court of Appeals to file their Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 before this Honorable Court of Appeals, Cebu City, the court’s cashier had already left the court premises. Some court personnel thereat, however, advised plaintiffs-petitioners to just file their motion first thing the following day;

29. Thus, early the following morning at 8:30 on July 18, 2007, plaintiffs-petitioners filed their Motion for Extens ion of 123

Time to File Petition for Certiorari Under Rule 65 before this Honorable Court of Appeals.

This, after payment of the required docketing and other lawful fees and the deposit as for costs as, evidenced by the hereto attached original and photocop ies of O.R. No. 21283304 in the amount of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTEEN (P1,418.00) PESOS, O.R. No. 21283331 in the amount of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY (P1,130.00) PESOS, O.R. No. 4107113A in the amount of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS, and O.R . No. 5405738C in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY (P530.00) PESOS, or a total of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY (P4,530.00) PESOS;

30. Although technically, plaintiffs filed said motion a few hours after the reglementary period to file same had already elapsed, plaintiffs-petitioners are respectfully appealing for the kind indulgence and magnanimity of this Honorable Court of Appeals, to consider the lapse considering that they had only engaged the services of undersigned counsel just barely two (2) days before the expiration of the reglemantary period to file same;

Considering this, and the fact that when plaintiffs petitioners really tried to file the said motion on the afternoon of the last day of the period, the Honorable Court’s cashier had already left, and that they, by advise of court personnel, filed the same at 8:30 the following day, they had therefore shown to all and sundry their good faith and intention to file their motion, which they could have done on time had misfortune not intervened;

Moreover, and more importantly, in a further show of good faith and intention of filing same within the reglementary period, copies of said motion for extension of time to file this petitione were served by plaintiffs on the counsels of respondents by registered mail on July 17, 2007, the last day of the reglementary period, as shown on page 6 in the original copy of said motion thus filed in the early morning of the following day;

31. Be that as it may, we come to take the issue at hand. Subject to this petition is the assailed order of the court of RTC 124

Branch 12, Cebu City, dated November 3, 2006, dismissing the above-mentioned case, the dispositive portion of which states: “WHEREFORE, for lack of interest on the part of the plaintiffs to further prosecute this case, the same is hereby ordered DISMISSED, pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.

Set the continuation of the hearing of this case for the presentation of evidence on the counterclaim on the part of the defendants on February 1, 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

SO ORDERED.

Cebu City, Philippines, November 3, 2006.

(Sgd.) ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO Presiding Judge.”

32. The bone of contention advanced in the assailed order is whether or not plaintiffs -petitioners indeed “lack interest in pursuing the case” and that they had delayed the case “ without any justifiable reasons”, as allegedly pointed out by the trial court;

33. With all due respect, we beg to disagree with the reason given in said order. With the foregoing confluence of events, it is very clear that these reasons are nothing farther from the truth. And, taking into consideration t he above circumstances, it can hardly be said that plaintiffs lacked interest in pursuing the case. As a matter of fact, as stated earlier, counsel on record, despite his illnesses, even took pains in informing the court of this fact, hence, in his fragil e condition, he could not possibly perform the desired duty as counsel of plaintiffs. Clearly, the will and interest is there, only that plaintiffs-petitioners’ counsel could not perform the function as adequately, effectively, and intelligently as when s till of sound health. To their minds, these reasons are plausible and

125

COMPELLING enough to merit the sound and favorable discretion of the court;

34. For paucity of reasons contained in the assailed order of dismissal, and for reasons cited above, the court a quo, in said order, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of her jurisdiction, despite the reasonable inability of counsel to formally offer their exhibits;

Thus, plaintiffs-petitioners are assailing and questioning said order via this petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court;

Section 1, of said Rule states: “Section 1. - Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

Xxx

xxx

xxx.”

As quoted by HON. JUSTICE FLORENZ D. REGALADO, in page 718 of his Remedial Law Compendium Vol. 1, 8 t h Revised Ed. First Printing: “And there is grave abuse of discretion where the respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Alafriz vs. Nable, 62 Phil. 278; Abad Santos vs. Prov. of Tarlac, 66 Phil. 480)”.

126

Indeed, while the public respondent might not be “despotic” in the manner of the dismissal of plaintiffs petitioners’ complaint, and the subsequent denial of plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, surely the dismissal and the denial were done capriciously and whimsically, by the fact that she had not even considered the plausible and COMPELLING reasons of their counsel’s failure to formally offer their exhibits;

35. Even more crucial, what makes this decision so paten t, gross, capricious and whimsical is that, despite the fact that on November 10, 2006, or two (2) days BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD to file their Comments/Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant-respondent Arañas, plaintiffs -petitioners filed their Comments/Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss With Leave Of Court To Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, and the Formal Offer of Exhibits, through registered mail, the court a quo, ON THE SAME DATE, dismissed herein complaint for reasons, among other things, that plaintiffs -petitioners “lack interest in pursuing the case” and that they had delayed the case “without any justifiable reasons ”;

36. Even then and more importantly, public respondent still refused to reconsider the fact that plaintiffs -petitioners had, on November 10, 2006, or two (2) days BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD, indeed filed their Comments/Opposition To Defendants’ Mo tion To Dismiss With Leave Of Court To Formally Offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits, and the Formal Offer of Exhibits itself, by denying the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs -petitioners of the assailed order of dismissal;

Hence, the foregoing premises considered, and for the reason that public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of her jurisdiction in the exercise of her judicial functions, and that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy i n the ordinary course of law, plaintiffs-petitioners are now assailing the order of dismissal of herein case under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court;

36. This petition is not intended to delay the early disposition of the case but for reasons aforecited;

127

-PRAYER-

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises and for compelling reasons, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court of Appeals to give due course to this petition, and the motion for reconsideration dated February 5, 2007, and the and that a writ of certiorari be issued, ordering public respondent to reconsider her order of dismissal dated November 3, 2006, and the motion denying the motion for reconsideration dated May 2, 2007, and allow herein petitioners to file their Formal Offer of Exhibits in due course, in the interest of justice and fair play.

Minglanilla (for Cebu City), Cebu, Philippines, August 1, 2007.

ADLAWAN ADLAWAN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsels for Petitioners 2 n d Floor Larrobis Building Poblacion, Miglanilla, Cebu Tel No. 273-1034

By: SAMUEL ADLAWAN PTR NO. 1607006, 1-02-07 IBP NO. 6865241, 12-28-06 CEBU PROVINCE

128

C.C.: THE PRESIDING JUDGE

Reg. Receipt No. ________

RTC Branch 12

Issued on August 1, 2007

Palace of Justice, Cebu City At Minglanilla, Cebu

ATTY. SISINIO ANDALES Reg. Receipt No. ________ Counsel for Respondents Eutiquita Issued on Aug. 1, 2007 Arañas, Elmer Arañas Caparida,

At Minglanilla, Cebu

Alfred Arañas, Euvel Arañas Ouano, Engie Arañas, & Jocelyn Arañas dela Calzada. Andales Bldg., 28 Balagtas St., Cebu City

ATTY. GRENARDO MACAPOBRE Reg. Receipt No. _____ Counsel for Respondents Cubello & Issued on Aug.1, 2007 Lidzustre. At Minglanilla, Cebu Mezzanine Floor, Gorones Bldg. Osmeña Blvd, Cebu City

EXPLANATION

Served thru registered mail due to lack of personnel and distance.

SAMUEL ADLAWAN

Doc. No. 43; Page No. 97; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

129

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Petition for Prohibition

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 7th JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 3, Cebu City

ANDRES BONIFACIO Petitioner,

- versus -

SCA No. ______ For Prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction

SANGGUNIANG BARANGAYNG LAHUG CEBU CITY Respondent, x-------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR PROHIBITION

PETITIONER, thru counsel respectfully avers that: 1. ANDRES BONIFACIO, is Filipino, of legal age,and a residentof Barangay Lahug, Cebu City. 2. EMILIO AGUINALDO, is Filipino, of legal age, and is being sued in his official capacity as Punong Barangay of Barangay Lahug, Cebu City. (State the capacity and residence of the petitioner and the respondent.) 3. On 14th of February 2019 Dangerous Drugs Board issued Board Regulation No. 3 Series of 2017, herein attached as Annex “A.” Under the regulation, a Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Council (BADAC) would be formed with a Punong Barangay as the chairperson and the Sangguniang Barangay as members. The council is tasked to conduct aninventory of identified drug personalities. The 130

intelligence gathering of the list comes from anonymous and unverified tips. Those listed are tagged as drug personalities without final conviction. Some listed persons are reported in the news as having been summarily executed by unknown assailants. On the 3 rd of March 2019, the BADAC of Barangay Lahug convened and announced though public notices that with the Philippine National Police they were going to conduct door-to-door summons of the drug dependents/pushers/couriers in the barangay to voluntarily surrender based on a partial list. 4. Petitioner is a recovering drug dependent for over a year and has tested negative on a drug test last 1 st of March 2019, herein attached as Annex “B.” Petitioner reported to the BADAC of his status on the 6th of March 2019 to prevent his name his name from being included on the watch list. Petitioner is exercising his constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty from being violated by the respondent without or in excess of his jurisdiction. Petitioner also fears for his life and his family. (State the facts and circumstances under which the respondent [tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions] has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.) 5. There is no other plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.The DDB Regulation provides no mechanism/process/procedure to remove the name of one listed on the watch list. 6. That a certified true copy of the DDB Regulation No. 3 Series of 2017 herein sought to be reviewed is here attached, together with copies of all documents relevant and pertinent thereto.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that pending the proceedings in the action, a preliminary injunction be granted ordering the respondent EMILIO AGUINALDO to desist and refrain from further proceedings, and that after due notice and hearing, a Writ of Prohibition be issued, commanding said respondent to desist absolutely and perpetually from further proceedings (in the action or matter in question), with costs.

Incidental reliefs as law and justice may require are likewise prayed for. Cebu City, Philippines, this 15thday of March 2019.

JOSE RIZAL, Esq. 131

Counsel for Petitioner Rizal Law, Kalayaan Street, Barangay Socorro, Quezon City Roll No. 19061861 IBP No. 30121896 PTR No. 12301896

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF Cebu

) S.S.

I, ANDRES BONIFACIO, Filipino, of legal age residing at Barangay Lahug, Cebu City, after being sworn to in accordance with law, deposes and says that: 1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case; 2. The facts stated in the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and authentic records; 3. I have not 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 in them; and 4. If I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five days from notice to the court or where the petition has been filed. Cebu City, Philippines, this 15thday of March 2019.

Andres Bonifacio ANDRES BONIFACIO Affiant SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 15thday of March 2019, in the City of Cebu by ANDRES BONIFACIO with Passport No. 30111863 issued on 10th of May 2017 at Department of Foreign Affairs - JMall.

132

ATTY. DANE PAULINE ADORA NOTARY PUBLIC Commission Serial No. 123 Until December 31, 2019 Roll of Attorney 8456 IBP No. 1235 PTR No. 78922366

Doc. No. 44; Page No. 108; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

133

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Petition for Mandamus

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila HAZEL M. BOROMEO Petitioner,

GR SP No. 12345

---versus---

FOR: MANDAMUS

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents. PETITION FOR MANDAMUS PETITIONERS, by counsel, respectfully state that: 1. That the petitioner is of legal age, (state the capacity and residence of the petitioner, and of the public and private respondents); 2. That (state the facts and circumstances under which the respondenttribunal, board or officer) unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the enjoyment of a right or office to which the petitioner is entitled; 3. That the petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law other than this action; 4. That (state the material dates showing when notice of judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new consideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received). 5. That the petitioner by reason of the wrongful act of the respondent has sustained damages in the sum of Five Thousand pesos (Php5000); WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed, that after due notice and hearing, a Writ of mandamus be issued, commanding the respondent forthwith to: (here state the act required to be done, with damages and costs.) Mandaue City, Philippines, this15th day of March 2019

134

Atty. Faith B. Agwayas Appointment No.321 Roll of Attorney No. 9798 PTR No.1, 21 NOVEMBER 2017 Manila IBP No. 21, 21 November 2018 Cebu Office Address 421 Cortes street Mandaue City, Cebu Contact No. 09123456789 MCLE Compliance (or Exemption) No.3

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Hazel M. Boromeo, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of Centro Mandaue City Cebu, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case; 2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition and I have read all the allegations therein which are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and authentic documents; 3. That I further certify that there is no pending action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action is pending, I shall undertake to inform the Honorable Court of this fact within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 15 day of March in Mandaue City, Cebu. th

Hazel M. Boromeo Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day ofMarch 2019 in Mandaue City Cebu, with Driver’s License No.G06-14-007006 valid until year 2021 and I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant herein and that I am fully satisfied that she voluntarily executed the foregoing petition and she understood all the allegations herein. Atty. Faith B. Agwayas 135

Appointment No.321 Roll of Attorney No. 9798 PTR No.1, 21 NOVEMBER 2017 Manila IBP No. 21, 21 November 2018 Cebu Office Address 421 Cortes street Mandaue City, Cebu Contact No. 09123456789 MCLE Compliance (or Exemption) No.3 Doc. No. 45; Page No. 111; Book No. III; Series of 2019. II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Petition for Quo Warranto

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT MANILA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner, G.R. No. __________ - versus –

For: Quo Warranto under Sec. 5(1), Article VIII of

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent.

the 1987 Constitution and Rule 66 of the RulesofCourt

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

COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. Petitioner Republic is a sovereign entity with capacity to sue and be sued. It has the authority to commence a quo warranto proceeding under Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. It is represented in this petition by the Solicitor General who has the mandate to “represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation, or matter 136

requiring the services of a lawyer.”4 The Solicitor General’s authority to institute a quo warranto petition on behalf of the Republic is provided under Section 2, in relation to Section 7, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno may be served with the writs, orders, and processes of the Court at 31 Hunt Street, Filinvest East, Antipolo City, through the Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila.

2. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was appointed as a permanent faculty member of the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1986.6 She continued teaching in UP until June 1, 2006. While employed with UP, Respondent submitted her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as of December 31, 2002.8 She also submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, on December 16, 2003, her SALN ending in December 1998. Respondent took a leave of absence from UP on the following periods: 1. June 1, 2000 – May 31, 2001 2. June 1, 2001 – May 31, 2002 3. November 1, 2003 – May 31, 2004 4. June 1, 2004 – February 10, 2005 5. February 11, 2005 – October 31, 2005 6. November 15, 2005 – May 31, 2006. On June 1, 2006, Respondent resigned from the UP College of Law. In July 2010, Respondent applied for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.12 In support of her application for appointment, she submitted her SALN for 2006.13 Respondent was later appointed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in the same year. After the position of Chief Justice became vacant in 2012, the Judicial and Bar Council issued an Announcement for the opening of the position. In the Announcement, the JBC directed that candidates submit the following requirements, in addition to the usual documentary requirements:

1. Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN) a. for those in the government: all previous SALNs (up to 31 December 2011) b. for those from the private sector: SALN as of 31 December 2011 2. Waiver in favor of the JBC of the confidentiality of local and foreign bank accounts under the Bank Secrecy Law and Foreign Currency Deposits Act. On June 5, 2012, the JBC made another Announcement for vacancies in several positions, including that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In this Announcement, the JBC iterated that applicants to the position of Chief Justice must meet the following Constitutional qualifications: A member of the Supreme Court must: a. be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines 137

b. be at least forty (40) years of age but not seventy years old or more c. have been for fifteen (15) years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines; and d. be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

The announcement emphasized that candidates for the Chief Justice post must submit “all previous SALNs (up to 31 December 2011) for those in the government or SALN as of 31 December 2011 for those from the private sector;” and reminded applicants that those with “incomplete or out of date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination. In her application for the Chief Justice post, Respondent submitted to the JBC her SALNs for the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. She also submitted an Explanation Letter dated July 23, 2012 on why she submitted her SALN only for the mentioned years.18 In it, she requested that the requirements she submitted “be viewed as that from a private sector [sic], before [her] appointment to the Government again in 2010 as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”19 It does not appear that Respondent’s request was even approved by the JBC. On July 2, 2012, Respondent accepted her nomination for the position of Chief Justice.21 On August 24, 2012, she was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Five years later, that is, on August 30, 2017, Atty. Larry Gadon filed against Respondent an impeachment complaint based on the following grounds: culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. Gadon alleged, among others, that Respondent failed to truthfully declare her SALNs.23 Gadon also claimed that Respondent failed to disclose "exorbitant lawyer's fees in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS ($745,000.00) or THIRTY-SEVEN MILLION PESOS (₱37,000,000.00), which she received from the Philippine government."The complaint was endorsed by twenty-five congressmen.25 Finding the complaint sufficient in form and substance, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Justice conducted hearings on the complaint. During the proceedings, the invalidity of Respondent’s appointment as Chief Justice was exposed in view of her failure to submit her SALNs for several years from 1986 to 2006 when she was a professor at the UP College of Law. It was discovered that aside from her SALNS for the years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011 which she submitted in her applications for Associate Justice and Chief Justice, Respondent only filed SALNs for the years 1998, 2002, and 2006 during her tenure as law professor at the UP College of Law from 1986 up to 2006.26 Respondent was nominated to the positions of Associate Justice and Chief Justice despite her failure to file her SALNs 138

which were required to determine whether she passed the Constitutional requirement of integrity. Thereafter, the Solicitor General received a letter dated February 21, 2018 from Atty. Eligio Mallari requesting the filing of quo warranto proceedings against Respondent.

3. That plaintiff has demanded that defendant to vacate said office and deliver it to plaintiff but that defendant has unlawfully refused to do so.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of quo warranto issue ousting and excluding defendant from occupying the office of ____________ and declare that plaintiff is entitled to the said office and that he be placed forthwith in possession thereof. Quezon City; 7 July 2007.

ATTY.JOY ALMARIE D. ALAD-AD Counsel for the Plaintiff City,Philippines

Mambaling

Doc. No. 46; Page No. 113; Book No. III; Series of 2019. II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Complaint for Expropriation

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 99, CEBU CITY REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff, Civil Case No. For: Expropriation -versusAAA and CCC, 139

Defendants, x--------------------------------------------------/ COMPLAINT (With Prayer for Extra-Territorial Service and Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession) Plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), by counsel, respectfully states: 1. Plaintiff, through the DPWH, is a sovereign political entity vested with the power and authority to condemn and expropriate private property for public use upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to Section 7 of Executive Order No. 1035 dated June 25, 1985. It is represented in this action by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with the address at 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, where it may be served with pleadings, motions and other papers, and court processes. 2. Defendant AAA is the registered owner of the property for expropriation. As per Affidavit of Waiver of Rights, Possession and Ownership dated March 22, 2011, and Special Power of Attorney dated March 18, 2011, said defendants are residing in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. With defendant AAA appointing CCC as her Attorney-in-Fact for certain transactions involving the subject. 3. Defendant AAA may be served extra-territoriallly by publication and registered mail pursuant to Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court while CCC may be served at Saint Jude Acres, Pardo, Cebu City. 4. Pursuant to its rights under Executive Order No. 1035, the DPWH is implementing the construction of the Bohol-Cebu-Negros Toll Expressway Project (BCN) with aims to provide a high-speed toll road along the BoholCebu-Negros corridor and constribute to the development fo the Visayas Urban Belt Way Super Region. Copies of the Projects Road Alignment Plan, Project Profile and Certification of Availability fo Fund covering the amount needed for the acquisition of lots and improvements are hereto attached as Annexes “A”, “B” and “C”. 5. The property sought to be expropriated would be traversed by the construction of the BCN Project, a public purpose authorized by law. In this regard, an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) has been secured from the DENR. A copy of the ECC No. 000000 dated March 19, 2019 is hereto attached as Annex “D”. 6. The Six Hundred Fifty Eight (658) and Two Hundred Eighty (280) square meter property for expropriation, shaged and indicated as Lots 20 and 21 in the plaintiff's parcellary plan hereto attached as Annex “E” and E-1, are portions of Lot 20 and 21 covered by TCT No. ______ and Tax 140

Declaration NO. __________ and _____ in the name of Ellazar married to Juanito Estrada, containing an area of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight (1, 328) for said Lot. 20 and Two Thousand Fifty Six (2, 056) square meters for lot 30, more or less, both located in Brgy. Basak, Cebu City, Cebu. 7. The total valuation of Six Hundred Eight (680) square metter at Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) zonal valuation of Three Hundred Pesos (300.00) per square meter is Two Hundred Eight Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php 289, 500.00). The foregoing details may be summarized as follows: “Copies of the TCT No. _______ and TCT No. _________ and BIR Certification on the relevant zonal valuation are hereto attached as Annexes.” 8. The parcel of referred to above has not been applied to or expropriated for public use and is indispensable in implementing the PROJECT. It was selected by plaintiff in a manner compatible with the greatest public good and with the least injury to private property. 9. Under Section 7 of Executive Order No. 1035 dated June 25, 1985, plaintiff through the DPWH, is authorized to institute expropriation proceedings through the Office of the Solicitor General. 10. Plaintif exerted efforts to acquire the above-described property by negotiated sale pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 8974, but the same failed for with reason expropriation is sought herein. 11. The determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial function, which should be discharged at the trial on the merits with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners pursuant to Sections 5 to 8, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. However, upon the filing of the complaint, or at anytime thereafter, and after due notice to defendant, plaintiff is authorized to take possession and enter into the property involved, upon payment of the amount equivalent to the “one hundred percent (100%) of the zonal value” of the land to be taken based on the current zonal valuation of the BIR, conformably with the Republic Act No. 8974. 12. Plaintiff is able and ready to pay defendant owner Ellazar the amount of the Two Hundred Eighty Nine Five Hundred (Php 289, 500. 00), which is equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the zonal value of the property sought to be expropriated, and to make the necessary deposit with this Honorable Court of such amount in compliance with the required payment under R.A. 8974. The corresponding check, payable in the name of the defendant owner, is available and will be deposited with the Honorable Court prior to the issuance of the writ of possession. 141

PRAYER WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that: (i) Extraterritorial service of summons to non-resident defendant be effected by way of publication once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Province of Cebu with a copy of the said summons and the accompanying of this Honorable Court sent her last known address via registered mail pursuant to Section 15 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court; (ii) Plaintiff be authorized, by proper order and writ to take immediate possession, control and disposition of the subject land sought to be expropriated, upon plaintiff's deposit with the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, of check payment equivalent to the 100% of the BIR current zonal valuation of the affected property in the name of defendant owner;and for the office of said Clerk of Court to safe keep and release the same to said defendant or her Suject Clearance for the plaintiff of her satisfaction or completion of proofs of ownership in accordance with its Road Right-of-Way Implementing Rules and Regulations and Commission on Audit (COA) requirements. (iii) An Order be issued directing the Register of Deeds of the place having territorial jurisdiction over the subject property to enter the Writ of Possession in the Primary Entry Book and annotate the same in the Registration Book Pursuant to Section 69 of P.D.1529. (iv) After decreeing plaintiff's right of condemnation and determining the just compensation therefor, plaintiff be authorized to pay just compensation to the defendant owner, after deducting the sum due the government for the unpaid real property taxes, if any, and amounts paid/deposited as provisional value as well as any amount necessary to discharge any lien or encumbrances; and (v) Judgment be rendered condemning the property subject of the present case, free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, for public use and for the public purpose herein set forth. (vi) Directing the same Register of Deeds to cause the registration and annotation of the decision or judgment to the instant eminent domain/expropriation case covering the road right-of-way of Bohol-CebuNegros Expressway project. Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs and remedies which this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises. Makati City for Cebu City, Cebu. February 25, 2019.

142

RIOJE M. ALCALDE Solicitor General Roll No. 54321 IBP Lifetime No. 89898 – 1/18/18 MCLE Exemption No. III-430092 Office of the Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City; Telephone No. 818-6301-09

143

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Complaint for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Brach 23, Cebu City

MARIO K. NALOKO, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 123 - versus OF REAL MORTGAGE

For: FORECLOSURE ESTATE

BERT S. TAPADOR, Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

COMES NOW, the plaintiff by the undersigned attorney, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states: 1. That both the plaintiff and the defendant are of age, and residents of Cebu City; 2. That on January 5, 2018, the defendant, in order to secure the payment of the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P100, 000.00), acknowledged to have been received by him on said date, executed in favour of the plaintiff a first mortgage on certain real property located in Cebu City, a true copy of said mortgage contract is hereto attached as Exhibit “A”, and made an integral part of this complaint; 3. That the condition of said mortgage, as stated therein, is such, that if within the period of twelve (12) months from and after the execution of the same, the defendant shall pay or cause to be paid to the 144

4.

5.

6.

7.

plaintiff, his heirs or assigns, the said sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P100, 000.00) together with the stipulated interest of 10% per annum, then the said mortgage shall be discharged; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect, to be enforceable in the manner prescribed by law; That the defendant has not paid or caused to be paid the mortgage debt of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P100, 000.00) or any part thereof, in spite of the lapse of the stipulated period; That the plaintiff has demanded of the defendant to pay the above sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos, plus the stipulated interest, but said defendant has failed to pay the same; That the defendant has also agreed in the mortgage contract that should the plaintiff foreclose the mortgage, the latter is entitled to receive the further sum of 20% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees, expenses and costs; That there are no other persons having or claiming an interest in the mortgaged property. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed: a) That, upon due hearing, judgment be rendered: 1) Ordering the defendant to pay unto the Court within the reglementary period of ninety days the sum of One Hundred Thousand (100, 000.00) Pesos together with the stipulated interest at 10% per annum from and after January 5, 2018, plus the additional sum of 20% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees, expenses and costs; 2) And that in default of such payment, the above-mentioned property be ordered sold to pay off the mortgage debt and its accumulated interest, plus 20% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees, expenses and costs, b) That plaintiff be granted such other relief in law and equity.

15 March 2019, Cebu City, Philippines.

APLACADOR & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsel for Plaintiff Unit 3, Lux Tower Cebu City, Philippines

145

By:

Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador Roll No. 222222 IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15 PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15; Cebu City MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CEBU CITY) S.S.

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MARIO K. NALOKO, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, and resident of Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say: 1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; 2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing application for probation and have read the allegations contained therein; 3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my own knowledge and authentic records; 4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding 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; 5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency where the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed; 6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 15 day of March 2019, Cebu City. th

146

MARIO K. NALOKO Plaintiff SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day ofMarch, 2019, in the City of Cebu, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 12345 issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 8, 2019 at the City of Cebu.

Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador Notary Public Until 12-31-19 Roll No. 222222 IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15 PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18

Doc. No. 48; Page No. 120; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Metropolitan Trial Court Cebu City, Branch 23

MA’AM/SIR:

Greetings! Please take notice that on March 22, 2019 at 8:30 in the morning or upon the approval of the Honorable Court the instant Petition shall be heard.

147

Thank you.

ATTY. RAZZEL APLACADOR Counsel for the Plaintiff Cebu City

Copy furnished through personal service:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Metropolitan Trial Court Cebu City, Branch 23

148

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Estate

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Branch ___ Cebu City MR. LUCA D DUNCIC, Petitioner,

CIVIL CASE NO. 123

-versus-

For: Judicial Partition

MR. TREY C YOUNG, Respondent x-----------------------------------x COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this honorable court, most respectfully avers: 1.That plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino Citizen, with postal address at A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City; 2.That Defendant Mr. Trey C Young, is of legal age, Filipino Citizen, with postal address at No. 23 N. Bacalso Ave., Cebu City, where he may be served with summons and other processes by this Honorable Court; 3. That plaintiff and defendant are co-owners pro-indiviso, in two (2) equal parts, of one parcel of land situated at A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City and covered by TCT No. 12345 issued by the Register of Deeds of Legazpi City, which is more particularly described as follows: TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 12345 “A parcel of land located in A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City, known as Lot A-3,bounded on the north by Lot B, on the South by Lot C, on the west by Lot D, and on the South by National Road, with a total area of 200 square meters, registered in the name of Mr. Luca Doncic.”

149

4. That the aforementioned parcel of land has a total land area of 200 square meters more or less, and it is easily divisible into two parcels both of which can conveniently serve as either residential or commercial premises; 5.That plaintiff had several times notified defendant of his desire and intention to partition said property, and, for that purpose had presented and submitted to defendant a project-plan of partition, which was prepared and drafted by EMBBI Surveyor Firm a duly licensed surveyor, and an unprejudiced third party; 6. That the aforementioned project-plan of partition is a very fair and practical division of the property in question; 7. That notwithstanding repeated demands of the plaintiff, defendant refused, and still refuses, without justifiable cause or reason, to accede to the partition of said property. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered as follows: a.Ordering the partition of the parcel of land mentioned and described in Paragraph 2 of thiscomplaint, adopting, for the purpose of said partition, the project-plan perpared by EMBBI Surveying Firm copy of which will be presented at the day of the trial; b. Ordering that the determination as to which of thetwo (2) parcels in said project-plan should pertain to either party be done by the choice of the parties; c. Ordering defendant to execute and sign all necessary papers or deeds which shall give validity and effect to this partition; d. Ordering defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P125.00 which is equivalent to 50% of the amount paid by plaintiff to the licensed surveyor for the preparation of the project-plan; e. Cost of suit and other relief. Other reliefs which are just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Legazpi City, Philippines, March 31, 2005. ABOGADO LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Petitioner Rasi Bldg., Legazpi City 150

By: STEPHEN S. CURRY IBP No. 1231231/2-5-05 PTR No.123/10-2203/Leg. Roll No. 123123

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) CITY OF LEGAZPI )S.S. I, MR. LUCA DUNCIC, of legal age, Filipino Citizen, married, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say: 1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; 2. That I have cause the preparation of the foregoing Complaint/Petition and have read the allegations contained therein; 3. That the allegations in the said complaint/petition are true and correct of my own knowledge and authentic records; 4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issued in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. That if I should thereafter learned that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, court of Appeals or any other tribunal agency, I hereby imdertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed; 6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provision of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___ day of March 2005, in Cebu City, Philippines.

MR. LUCA DONCIC 151

Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of March 2005, in the City of Cebu, with affiant exhibiting to me his SSS ID, with ID No. 1234 issued at Cebu City on April 2001.

ATTY STEVE KERR NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No. 49; Page No. 124; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

152

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Cebu City

MOIRAH JUDE TAG-IYA Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 0004 For: Unlawful Detainer

-versusGUSTO L. MAKALIBRE, Defendant. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/ COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers: 1. That the plaintiff, MOIRAH JUDE TAG-IYA is of legal age, Filipino, single, with residence and postal address at W. Claro Street, Cebu City; 2. That the defendant, GUSTO L. MAKALIBRE is of legal age, Filipino, married with residence and postal address at Karapatan Street, Cebu City, where he may be served summons and other court processes; 3. Plaintiff is the absolute owner and lessor of that certain townhouse situated at Beverly Hills, Cebu City and now leased and occupied by the Defendant; 4. The Defendant leases and occupies the said townhouse from March 1, 2014 until February 28, 2019 as agreed upon between the plaintiff and the Defendant in the lease contract executed on March 1, 2014 under the express obligation to pay a monthly rental of P20,000.00; (Contract of Lease attached as Annex “A”) 5. The lease contract of the Defendant for the occupation of the building has been terminated on February 28, 2019 and has not been renewed or extended;

153

6. During the course of the Defendant’s occupation of the said townhouse, Defendant has failed to pay his rentals for the months of June 2018 to February 2019; 7. Defendant has continued to occupy the said townhouse notwithstanding the fact that her contract of lease has been terminated on February 28, 2017 thus depriving the plaintiff from having the said townhouse leased by other persons; 8. Several demands to vacate was made by plaintiff to Defendant, both oral and written (Demand letter attached as Annex “B”), but Defendant refused to vacate the said townhouse and return possession to the plaintiff; 9. Until now Defendant still refuses to vacate and restore possession and pay her rentals for the months June 2018 to February 2018 during her occupation of the townhouse; 10.Thus, Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the subject townhouse from the plaintiff despite last and final demand, to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff; 11.Before filing of this complaint, the dispute has been referred to the Lupong Tagamayapa of Barangay 143 but the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement; (Certificate to File Action attached as Annex “C”) PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff: 1. For the restitution of the abovementioned townhouse; 2. For the payment of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP180,000.00) PESOS, representing the arrears of rent now overdue; 3. To pay the costs for this suit. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Cebu City, Philippines, March 16, 2019

BAYANI AND ASSOCIACIATES LAW OFFICE Heroes Street, Cebu City

154

By:

ATTY. JUAN C. DELA CRUZ Roll No.: ____________ PTR No: ____________ IBP No.: ____________ MCLE Compliance No.: __________

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPPING I, Moirah Jude Tag-iya, of legal age, Filipino, single, and a resident of W. Claro Street, Cebu City after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby, depose and say: 1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case and have caused this complaint for unlawful detainer to be prepared; that I read and understood its contents which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records. 2. That I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom. IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of March 2019

Moirah Jude Tag-iya Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_16th day of March, 2019.

NOTARY PUBLIC

155

Doc. No. 50; Page No. 128; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

156

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Complaint for Forcible Entry

Republic of the Philippines REGION VII METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT CEBU CITY Branch 19

PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH Plaintiff,

-versus-

CIVIL CASE No. Q-12345 For: EJECTMENT (FORCIBLE ENTRY)

ARIADNA GUTIERREZ Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits this Complaint for Forcible Entry and in support hereof makes the following assertions:

1. Plaintiff PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH, is residing at #1 Paseo Anabelle Maria Luisa Estate Park, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, where he may be served with court order and other processes;

157

2. Defendant ARIADNA GUTIERREZ is a resident of #2 Paseo Anabelle Maria Luisa Estate Park, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, where he may be served with summons, order and other court processes;

3. Plaintiff became owner of a certain parcel of land, through a Deed of Sale from the original owner, PAULINA VEGA. (A copy of the Deed of Sale is hereto attached as Annex “A”);

4. The parcel of land, situated in #12 Paseo Anabelle Maria Luisa Estate Park, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, is covered by Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 713618 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu City and is more particularly described, as follows:

(Description)

(Copy of TCT- 713618 is hereto attached as ANNEX “B”);

5. Herein Defendant, through stealth and strategy, occupied the parcel of land in question and refuses to vacate the same despite repeated oral and written demands. (Copy of the written demand is hereto attached as Annex “C”);

6. The same acts of the Defendant compelled the Plaintiff to incur damages consisting of attorney’s fees in the amount of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) pesos and filing fee, cost of transportation and other miscellaneous accommodation of its lawyers and other personal expenses to be incurred in attending the hearings of this case in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 25,000.00).

7. This action is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure;

PRAYER

158

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after the proceedings, judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and ordering the Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him to:

(a) Permanently VACATE the premises in question and give the immediate right of possession to the Plaintiff;

(b) Pay plaintiff the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) by way of attorney’s fees and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), by way of other litigation expenses; and,

(c) Pay the cost of this suit.

Plaintiff prays for such other remedies and reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.

March 15, 2019, Cebu City, Cebu.

ATTY. RENATO G. BENIGAY JR. Counsel for Plaintiff Cebu City Roll of Attorneys No. 1234567 IBP No. A-1234567 PTR No. A- 1234567 MCLE No. A-1234567 VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON- FORUM SHOPPING

I, PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH, of legal age, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and attest:

That I am the petitioner in the above-titled case; that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition and understood the contents thereof, and I hereby declare that all the allegations contained therein are true and correct according to my knowledge and belief. 159

Furthermore, I hereby certify that I have not filed nor caused to be filed any other similar case involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency and that, should there be any other such case/s that may have been filed, I hereby bind myself to inform the Court of such fact within five (5) days from the discovery thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hand this 15th day of March 2019, City of Cebu, Cebu, Philippines.

PIA ALONZO WURTZHBACH Affiant CTC No. 1234567 Issued On: February 14, 2019 Issued At: Cebu City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Cebu, this 15th day of March 2019, City of Cebu, Cebu, Philippines, affiant having ex habited to me his Driver’s License No. __1234567___, issued at Cebu City, Philippines.

ATTY. RENATO G. BENIGAY JR. Notary Public Until December 31, 2019 PTR No. A-1234567 Issued at Cebu City On May 19, 2018

Doc. No. 51;

160

Page No. 131; Book No. III; Series of 2019. II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Escheat

Republic of the Philippines METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Branch 77, Quezon City

NAPOLEON C. GATMAITAN Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 588 For: Collection of a Sum of Money

EDGARDO A. SANTOS Defendant. x--------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, thru the undersigned Counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. That Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, married to Nancy A. Gatmaitan, and with residence at #11 Bohol St., Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City; 2. That Defendant is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married and with residence at #15 Bohol St., Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City, where he could be served with summons and other processes of the Court; 3. That the above-named spouse of Plaintiff is the erstwhile business partner of the Defendant from 2007 t0 2009; 4. That in the course of their business, the plaintiff’s spouse made financial contributions through the requests and assurances of the defendant that such amount will be repaid. That, however, after several months and 161

upon inquiry, plaintiff’s spouse found out that defendant misappropriated the financial investment made for his own personal use. That, despite demands, defendant failed to remit to and/or settle with the plaintiff’s spouse the aggregate amount of Ninety-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Pesos (PHP 98,700.00); 5. That in recognition of defendant’s obligation in favor of plaintiff’s spouse, the former executed an Acknowledgment of Debt in favor of the plaintiff on January 26, 2008, a photocopy of which is attached hereto as Annex “A”; 6. That by reason of the kindness and generosity of plaintiff’s spouse, defendant’s obligation through the Acknowledgment was reduced to the sum of Sixty Thousand Pesos (PHP 60,000.00), and transferred in favor of the plaintiff as formalized in a duly-notarized Loan Agreement entered by and between the plaintiff and the defendant on January 29, 2008, a photocopy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”; 7. The part of said Loan Agreement is the obligation of the defendantdebtor to pay the plaintiff-creditor the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP 2,500.00) in monthly installments for thirty six (36) months, in the form of cash from February 2008 to March 2011, and in the form of post-dated check from February 2008 onwards up to the full satisfaction of said loan, including interest, set at two percent (2%) per month; 8. That after paying Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP 2,500.00) in February 2008 and One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (PHP 1,500.00) only on March 2008, the defendant-debtor has started defaulting in the payment of his due accounts; 9. That plaintiff-creditor sent separated letters (dated April 7, 2008 and May 21, 2008) to the defendant-debtor containing a demand for the payment of his outstanding payable, photocopies of which are hereto attached as Annexes “C ” and “C-1”; 10. That the continued refusal of the defendant to settle his account prompted the plaintiff-creditor to lodge a complaint with the barangay officials of Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City. A Certificate to File Action, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “D”, was subsequently issued for failures of the parties to come to an Agreement.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed before the Honorable Court to render decision in favor of the plaintiff and order the defendant to pay the following:

a.The sum of Fifty Six Thousand Pesos (PHP 56,000.00) plus interest at the rate of two percent (2%) per month as stipulated in the Loan Agreement;

162

b. Moral and exemplary damages at the sum discretion of the Honorable Court; c.Attorney’s fees amounting to Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10, 000.00); d. Litigation expenses amounting to Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10, 000.00).

Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable under the foregoing premises are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, June 8, 2008.

ATTY. RALPH ANTHONY P. LABRADO Counsel for Petitioner Labrado-Caballero Law Office, Alta Tierra Village, Quezon City Roll of Attorneys No. 88548 PTR NO. 12345 12/15/2010, Quezon City IBP NO. 85857 10/10/2010, Quezon City MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009887, 10/23/2010 Republic of the Philippines ) PROVINCE OF QUEZON CITY ) ss. x--------------------------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION

I, NAPOLEON C. GATMAITAN, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident at #11 Bohol St., Barangay Horseshoe, Quezon City, Philippines, after being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

(1) That I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled case; (2) That I have caused the preparation of the above Complaint and I have read the same and understood the contents thereof; (3) That the allegations contained therein is true and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records; (4) That I further certify that I have not therefore commenced any other action or proceeding or filed any claim involving the same issues or matter in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best 163

of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending therein; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day of June 2008 at Quezon City, Philippines.

Affiant

NAPOLEON C. GATMAITAN TIN 98765-005, Quezon City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me , this 10th day of June 2008, affiant exhibiting to me his Tax Identification Card as show above below his name as competent evidence of his identity.

ATTY. ANTONIO P. CABALLERO Commission No. 108 Expires on December 31, 2009 Labrado-Caballero Law Office, Alta Tierra Village, Quezon City Roll of Attorneys No. 88548 PTR NO. 12789 12/18/2009, Quezon City Doc. No. 52; Page No. 134; Book No. III; Series of 2008;

IBP NO. 85857 10/23/2009, Quezon City MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009887, 10/23/2009

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Guardianship

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT City of Cebu 164

PEDRO Y. SY, Petitioner, Spec Pro No. __________________ For:

Guardianship of a Minor

x---------------------------------------/

PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF A MINOR

PETITIONER, by undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully avers:

1. That the Petitioner, of legal age, and a resident of 12 Street, Lahug, Cebu City, is the father of minor, CARA G. SY, (hereinafter referred to as a “MINOR”); 2. That the MINOR is presently a resident of City of Cebu; 3. That the MINOR is ten (10) years of age; 4. That the MINOR is the owner of a parcel of land located in the City of Cebu valued at One Million Pesos (P 1,000,000.00) and as such minor can make no transactions regarding the same; 5. That the nearest kin of the MINOR are the following: Carlo G. Sy

Carissa G. Sy

Pedro Y. Sy

18 Brother

14 Sister

45 Father

12 St., Lahug, Cebu City

12 St., Lahug, Cebu City

12 St., Lahug, Cebu City

Morteza O. Go 70 Maternal Grandmother City

165

34 St., Lahug Cebu

Santiso P. Go Cebu City

71 Maternal Grandfather

34 St., Lahug

6. That due to the minority of the said MINOR, it is necessary and convenient that a guardian over her person be properly appointed; 7. That, as above stated, Petitioner is having the said MINOR in his care, and that he possesses all qualifications of a person to who letters of guardianship should issue; 8. That Petitioner has furnished a bond amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100, 000.00) or Ten Percent (10%) of the value of the property owned by the MINOR; PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and hearing petitioner be appointed guardian over the estate of the MINOR. Cebu City, 16 March 2019.

Atty. JUAN O. YU Roll of Attorneys No. 62765 PTR No. 235628/January 09, 2019/Cebu CITY IBP No.52587926 /January 09, 2019/Cebu City MCLE Compliance No. Vi-0008220/march 22, 2018 Gaisano Capital Group Building General Maxilom Ave. Ext. North Reclamation Area, Cebu City Tel No.: 254-8888 loc. 17107

Doc. No. 52; Page No. 137; Book No. III; Series of 2008; 166

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Adoption of Minors

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Seventh (7th) Judicial Region Branch ___ Cebu City

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR SASHA GREY SP. PROC . NO. ___ SPOUSES

FOR: ADOPTION

MARU POK and DINAMARU POK, Petitioners. X -------------------------------------------------/

PETITION

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully states, THAT:

1. Petitioner MARU POK is a Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu. He is the paternal grandfather of the minor child sought to be adopted. He may be served with orders, notices and other legal processes of this Honorable Court through his undersigned counsel at the address stated below.

2. Co-petitioner DINA MARU POK is a Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of Talamban, Cebu City. She is the paternal grandmother of the minor child sought to be adopted. She may be served with orders, notices

167

and other legal processes of this Honorable Court through her undersigned counsel at the address stated below.

3. The minor child sought to be adopted by the Petitioner is Sasha Grey (subsequently referred to as “Sasha” for brevity), born on February 26, 2014 in Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu, to parents Romula Grey and Ernesto Pok. He is one year and eight months old as of this date of the Petition and a resident of Talamban, Cebu City. A copy of the certificate of live birth of Sasha is attached hereto as Annex A. 4. Sasha’s mother, Romula Grey (subsequently referred to as “Romula” for brevity), abandoned him and has not been heard of since deserting him on July 22, 2014. All possible efforts to contact Romula have been exhausted but to no avail. 5. The minor’s father, Ernesto Pok (subsequently referred to as “Ernesto” for brevity), is living with the minor and the petitioners. 6. The said minor’s parents, Romula Grey and Ernesto Pink, were never married to each other but they lived with the petitioners upon Sasha’s birth.

7. Ever since Romula left Sasha, Ernesto and the petitioners have taken care of Sasha.

8. Petitioners are in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights; of good moral character; has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; physically, financially, emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for Sasha; at least sixteen (16) years older than Sasha; capable to maintain, care for, educate, and support Sasha in keeping with the means of the family; and physically healthy. Petitioner Maru earns his income by working as a hospital physician. His wife, Dinamaru, is likewise gainfully employed with the same hospital as a nurse.

9. Thus, Petitioners have all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the law to adopt Sasha, who is not disqualified by law to be adopted. It will be for the best interest of the minor child to be adopted by his paternal grandparents.

168

10. In conjunction with this petition, Petitioners seeks that a Certificate of Live Birth with the following details be issued, to wit:

Name of Child:

Sasha Grey

Sex:

Female

Date of Birth:

February 26, 2014

Name of Mother:

Romula Grey

Citizenship

Filipino

:

Religion:

Roman Catholic

Occupation:

N.A

Age at the time of this birth: 51 Name of Father:

Ernesto Pok

Citizenship:

Filipino

Religion:

Roman Catholic

Occupation:

Self-employed

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, after due notice, publication, and hearing to issue a decree of adoption declaring that the minor child Sasha Grey be considered as the legitimate child of Petitioners, and that the Local Civil Registrar be directed to issue a Birth Certificate with the following details: Name of Child:

Sasha Grey

Sex:

Female

Date of Birth:

February 26, 2014

Name of Mother:

Dinamaru Pok

Citizenship

Filipino

:

Religion:

Roman Catholic

Occupation:

Nurse

Age at the time of this birth: 51 Name of Father

Maru Pok 169

Citizenship:

Filipino

Religion:

Roman Catholic

Occupation:

Hospital Physician

Other relief and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for. BONIFACIO JO S. DEGAMO III Notary Public Poblacion, Cordova, Cebu IBP NO. AP18720000-1/3/18 Cebu City PTR No. 1643815-1/3/18 Cebu City Roll of Attorneys No. 31311 MCLE COM. CERT. NO. VI- 0010732 issued on 23rd day of July 2017 and valid until April 14, 2021 09423821780

Doc. No. 52; Page No. 139; Book No. III; Series of 2008;

170

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Habeas Corpus

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Manila

JAIME L. DOWA Petitioner, SP Case No. 4489 In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of the minor JANE DELA CRUZ

PEDRO C. DELA CRUZ Respondent. x------------------------x

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, by counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully states:

1. Petitioner is the mother of the minor JANE DELA CRUZ who was born out of the valid marriage between petitioner and respondent Pedro C. Dela Cruz; 2. Petitioner and respondent have been separated de facto since 2014; 3. The minor has been living with the petitioner in the house of the latter’s mother and the minor’s maternal grandmother since the petitioner and the respondent separated; 4. Sometime in January 2016, the respondent, unknown to the petitioner, went to the house where the minor was residing and abducted the latter and has kept her incommunicado and out of petitioner’s reach; 5. Being below seven (7) years of age, custody of the minor is naturally presumed to belong to the petitioner, as her mother. Consequently, respondent’s refusal to allow petitioner to regain custody over the minor is unlawful and unjustified. 171

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that a Writ of Habeas Corpus be issued directing respondent to make a return showing his legal authority to detain the minor child, subject of this petition, and thereafter, present the minor child personally before the Court on a date and time it chooses. Cebu City, Philippines, April 21, 2016. ATTY. MARIA SANTOS Counsel for Petitioner VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING Republic of the Philippines (City of Cavite ) S.S.

I, JAIME L. DOWA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that: 1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession; 4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. 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 tribunal or agency; 6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. Cavite City, Philippines, April 21, 2016 __________________ JAIME L. DOWA

172

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Amparo

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA VICENTE DE RAMOS Petitioner

CA GR No. ______________ For: Writ of Amparo and

-versusGILBERTO TEODORO JR., in his capacity as the SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, in his capacity as the CHIEF OF STAFF of the ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, BRIG. GEN. ROMEO PRESTOZA, in his capacity as the CHIEF of the INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES x ------------------------------------------------------- x PETITION (With Application for Interim Reliefs) NATURE OF PETITION

1. This is a petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus, filed under A.M No. 07‐9‐12‐SC, known as the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, promulgated on 25 September 2007 and which took effect on 24 October 2007, and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, respectively. 2. The purpose of the petition is to require the respondents to produce the person of Danielle de Ramos, as well as to disclose and explain their participation in the enforced disappearance and/or extrajudicial killing of Danielle de Ramos. PARTIES 4. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, and residing at 123 Cotabato Street, New Manila, Quezon City. He is the father of the aggrieved party. 5. Public respondent Gilberto Teodoro Jr., is the Secretary of the Deparment of National Defense, responsible for guarding against external and internal threats to peace and security in the country. It exercises executive supervision over the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Office of Civil Defense (OCD), the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO), the National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP), and the 173

Government Arsenal (GA). He may be served with orders and processes at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City. 6. Public respondent Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, is the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the military defense organization of the Republic of the Philippines. He may be served with orders and processes at AFP‐GHQ, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo Quezon City. 7. Public respondent Brig. Gen. Romeo Prestoza, is the current chief of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines is a support unit of the AFP engaged in intelligence and information gathering. He may be served with orders and processes at AFP‐GHQ, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City. MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS

8. The aggrieved party, Daniella de Ramos, is a private individual, residing at 123 Cotabato Street, New Manila, Quezon City and is an executive officer at the Human Rights Organization. 9. She regularly travels from her place of residence to his place of work by driving her own car. 10. She is regularly in contact with her parents especially the petitioner. It is her practice to call or send a text message to petitioner before she heads home from work. 11. Her family last saw her during the morning of 5 September 2008 and by co‐workers at the evening of the same date. 12. On 5 September 2008, at 8:00 in the evening, petitioner received a text message from her, stating therein that she was on her way home from work. 13. At 8:30p.m of the same evening, the security guard on tour of duty in her office building witnessed her being forcibly taken by three large‐built men with holstered guns forcibly inside a van and speedily left. One of the men was wearing a fatigue pair of pants. This was duly logged by the security guard on the logbook of the building. 14. Since then, no communication has been made to her family, friends, and co‐workers. 15. She also owns a handbag with personal property such as keys, wallet, etc., which properties were uncharacteristically left on the parking lot of her office, together with her car, remain uncollected by the aggrieved party since date of disappearance. 174

In support of the foregoing allegations, the affidavits of the petitioner and of witnesses, namely Christopher Nepomuceno and Jeffrey Flores, are hereto attached and made integral part of this Petition as Annexes A, B, and C, respectively. 16. Shewas known to be presently engaged in an investigative project against certain officers of the AFP and ISAFP for alleged corruption practices and high crimes. 17. Since her disappearance, her relatives have tried to locate the aggrieved party through inquiries at her usual places of destination. 18. Failing to find her, petitioner sought the help of local authorities but they were not able to produce the person of the aggrieved party. 19. However, during the course of investigation, it was found out that days before her disappearance, mysterious men were noticed to have been conducting operations in the vicinity of the aggrieved party’s office. 20. It was also found out that on 4 September 2008, day before date of disappearance, the office building’s security guard was asked by a mysterious man who identified himself as an officer of ISAFP on whether aggrieved party holds office in the area. 21. Petitioner now comes to this Honorable Court to seek relief for the aggrieved party whose exact whereabouts remain unknown. 22. Considering the fact that the aggrieved party is a private individual and that she has failed to communicate with any of her family, friends, and co‐workers until this time, aggrieved party’s remaining in the custody would have to be against her will and in violation of her rights of liberty and security.

ISSUE STATEMENTS 1. The writ of habeas corpus shall entend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The aggrieved party was witnessed by a security guard to have been forcibly taken by their large-built men into a van which speedily left thereafter last 5 September 2088. Since, then, her whereabouts is unknown notwithstanding her relatives trying to locate the aggrieved party through inquiries as her usual places of destination but failed to find her. No communications has been made to her family, friends or 175

co-workers 2. A witness protection order is iussued fot the protection and safety of the witnesses who helped in the investigation and witnessed the enforced disappearance of the victim. One security guard testified to being questioned by an alleged ISAFP officer about the victim while he was on tour of duty last 4 September 2008. Another security guard witnessed on 5 September 2008, the abduction of the victim by three large‐built men with holstered pistons, with one wearing fatigue attire. Given the power and resources available to the respondents, the two witnesses need protection and safety from them.

Should the witness protection order be issued?

3. A temporary protection order is issued for the safety and security of the petitioner, victim’s immediate members of her family, and even the co‐officers of the victim’s organization. The aggrieved party was known to be involved in an investigative project with respect to certain anomalies and atrocities of officials of the AFP and ISAFP. On 5 September 2008, she was subject to an enforced disappearance perpetrated allegedly by the ISAFP or AFP. Petitioner is the father of the aggrieved party who presently filed this petition against the said organizations. Given the power and resources of respondents, petitioner and the rest of his family are vulnerable to harm and danger.

Should the temporary protection order be issued?

4. A production order is issued for the production of designated documents, letters, papers, books, accounts, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute evidence relevant to the petition.

Investigation showed that mysterious men, days before the forced disappearance of the aggrieved party, conducted surveillance on the premises of her office. On 4 September 2008, a man who introduced himself as an ISAFP agent approached the security guard on duty in her office and inquired about the aggrieved

176

party. Records may have been kept on these surveillance activities.

Should the production order be issued?

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner prays that this Honorable Court: A. Immediately after the receipt of this petition. 1. Issue the writ of habeas corpus 2. Issue the writ of amparo 3. Declare all documents signed by the victim since the time of disappearance unless proof is adduced that there has been compliance with her constitutional rights; 4. Require res[pendent to produce all information his office pertaining to the victim, the victim’s home, the victim’s family, and victim’s correspondence; 5. Require respondent to disclose why such information has been gathered and used; 6. Issue a temporary protection order in favor of the petitioner, his family, and his witnesses by directing an agency or institution to ensure their protection; 7. Issue a witness protection order in favor of the witnesses who helped in the investigation regarding the aggrieved party’s forced disappearance. B. Upon notice and hearing 1. Issue a production order to person who may be un possession or custody of other evidence in this case; 2. Issue an inspection order of properties which may contain additional information or evidence regarding the enforced disappearance an/or extrajudicial killing of the aggrieved party 3. Order respondent to immediately and without delay release the victim to the care and custody of the petitioner. 177

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. September 10, 2018, City of Cebu, Philippines

By: ATTY CARLITO DONQUE Counsel for Petitioner No. 25 Woodrose St., Makati City Telefax No. 1234567; Email: [email protected] Roll of Attorney No. 123456 IBP No. 78901 PTR No. 23456 MCLE Compliance No. 7890 II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Habeas Data

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

ISAAC ASIMOVA, Petitioner, -versus-

MAJ. GEN. JOVITA PALPARA,

G.R. No. _____________

Armed Forces of the Philippines

For: Writ of Habeas Data

Respondent. x ------------------------------------------- x

PETITION FOR HABEAS DATA 178

Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states that:

I. NATURE OF PETITION

1. This is a petition for the writ of habeas data filed under AM No. 08-1-16 SC, also known as the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data to require the respondents to produce and, if necessary update and rectify, or, in the alternative, suppress or destroy information within its control and/or contained in its database, which relates to petitioner, his family, his home and his correspondence.

2. Petitioner respectfully submits that respondents obtained the information through an unlawful act, has unjustifiably failed to disclose the information to petitioner, and/or has unjustifiably refused to update, rectify, suppress or destroy the information. 3. This act or omission of respondent to comply with petitioner’s demand is a violation of, or poses a threat of violation to, petitioner’s right to privacy in life, liberty and security.

4. In view of the foregoing, petitioner brings this petition before this Honorable Court praying that the respondent be required to cause the immediate production of the information requested so that the same may be revealed to petitioner for proper updating, rectification or, in the alternative, for its suppression or destruction, whatever may be necessary to protect petitioner’s privacy. 5. Finally, petitioner respectfully submits that he is an indigent person and prays that this Honorable Court exempt him from docket and other legal fees in this case, subject to the submission of proof of his indigency within fifteen days from the filing of this petition.

II. PARTIES

6. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, and residing at Sitio Dos, Smokey Mountain, Tondo, Manila. He may be served with notices from this Honorable Court through his undersigned counsel. 179

7. Respondent is being impleaded in her capacity as a public officer or employee, in charge of the information or database of AFP Central Intelligence and Security Group, which office is engaged in the gathering, collecting, and storing data. He may be served summons and other processes of this Honorable Court at the Intelligence and Security Department, Army Headquarters, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

III. MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines whose right to privacy is protected by the Bill of Rights found in Article III of the 1987 Constitution, especially Section 3, paragraph (1) and Section7.

9. On March 20, 2009, petitioner requested access to all information held about him by the respondent, within fifteen days from respondent’s receipt. A copy of the written request is attached as Annex “A”.

10. The period given to respondent to allow petitioner access to its database has already lapsed. 11. As a result of respondent’s failure or unjustifiable refusal to allow access to its database, petitioner’s right to privacy is being violated.

12. The use and possible dissemination of the information held by respondent is an unlawful intrusion into petitioner’s privacy, which intrusion threatens to ultimately violate petitioner’s right to life, liberty and security.

13. Information which remains hidden from petitioner is in the database of respondent located in the Office of the Intelligence and Security Group, Armed Forces of the Philippines Headquarters, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

IV. RELIEFS

180

WHEREOF, petitioner prays that this Honorable Court give due course to this petition and issue the writ of habeas data and rule, as follows: 1. Upon the filing of the petition, ENJOIN respondent from disseminating the information; 2. Upon notice and hearing, ORDER respondent to: a. Produce the information in its possession regarding petitioner’s person, his family, home and correspondence; b. Correct, suppress or destroy the information in its database, whatever may be applicable as determined by this Honorable Court; and c. Rectify the damage caused to petitioner’s reputation by making a public apology to petitioner, which shall be circulated in the manner and to such persons as the petitioner may deem appropriate.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

April 9, 2009, City of Manila.

AYN RANDY Counsel of Petitioner 34C The Columns, Ayala Avenue, Makati City Telefax No. 123456, Email: [email protected] Roll of Attorneys No. 1234567 IBP No. 123456 PTR No. 123456 MCLE Certificate of Exemption No. M-12345

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines) 181

(City of Manila

) S.S.

I, ISAAR ASIMOVA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that: 1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession; 4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. 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 tribunal or agency; 6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. Manila, Philippines, April 21, 2016 __________________ ISAAR ASIMOVA

182

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Change of Name

Republic of the Philippines 7th Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 16 Cebu City

Re: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE CHANGE OF NAME OF CHARMIANE E. ESTOYA TO CHARMAINE ECHAVEZ,

DEODIVINA C. ECHAVEZ

SP. PROC. CASE NO 28

Petitioneer -versusLOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CEBU CITY AND THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, Respondent. X…………………………………../

PETITION

PETITIONER, DEODIVINA C. ECHAVEZ, by the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court respectfully states that: 1.Petitioner Deodivina C. Echavez (Deodivina for brevity) is of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of Barangay Guba, Cebu City and she may be served with notices, orders and other processes of the Honorable Court at her counsel address at UV Law Building Colon St. Cebu City;

183

2.Minor child Charmaine Echavez (Charmaine for brevity) is a resident of Barangay Guba, Cebu City together with her mother since the day she was born as evidenced by the Barangay Certification hereto attached as Annex “A” and is made an integral part of this petition;

3.Respondents herein are being sued in their official capacities being the concerned agencies and official custodian of the Certificate of Live Birth of the subject minor child with office addresses at Ground floor, City Health Building, Gen. Maxilom Ave., Cebu City and Solicarel Bldg., Ramon Magsaysay Blvd., Sta. Mesa Manila respectively where they may be served with notices, orders and other processes of the Honorable Court;

4.Charmaine was born in the City of Cebu on May 8, 2010 and registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cebu City as evidenced by her certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office here to attached as Annex “B” and is made an integral part of this petition;

5.Charmaine was born to parents to Deodivina C. Echavez and Bonifacio P. Estoya (Bonie for brevity). Her mother was never married to his father at the time she was born and has never been married as evidenced by a certification issued by the National Statistics Office hereto attached as Annex “C” and is likewise made an integral part of this petition;

6.Since Charmaine was born out of wedlock then she is an illegitimate child of Deodivina and Bonie; 7.However, at the time of Charmaine’s birth, she was acknowledged by her father. Hence, the surname indicated in her birth certificate is the same as that her father; 8.However, Bonie and Deodivina’s relationship turned sour and did not consummate into marriage. Charmaine was barely two months old when Bonie decided to leave Deodivina and his child;

9.After such time and up to the present, Bonie failed to take up his responsibilities as a father to his child on matters of financial, physical, emotional and spiritual concerns and doesn’t even acknowledge his own child in public as though he was ashamed of her. They are only related by blood and ends in that, and he was never been a father to Charmaine in every sense of the world;

184

10.It is of common knowledge to the people who knew Deodivina that she was never been married and that there was no one who stood as a father to his child all this year. The child was raised by Deodivina alone. They never knew or only few of them knew the identity of her child’s father and even the child herself doesn’t even know him;

11.Hence, it bears a great confusion to the general public as to why the child bears a different surname from her mother. The child felt like an outcast from her mother and the rest of her relatives as though she does not belong to the family because the difference in the surname;

12.The mother and the child was and will always be propelled with questions as to why their surnames are different and you could only imagine the great deal of embarrassment and ridicule that may be felt by both the mother and the child every time the circumstance is being explained to other people;

13.They had to explain, with utmost awkwardness and discomfiture, as to why the child is bringing a different surname when she has no father. This brings a negative impact on the child emotionally and not to mention the legal implications and troubles she may encounter in the future because of her different surname;

14.If only Charmaine will have a surname the same with that of her mother, all of these will be avoided and may other legal complications in the future will be evaded;

15.In the case of the Republic of the Philippines vs. Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that: “ A person can effect a change of name under rule 103 ( CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious ground including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a 185

Filipino to erase former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing everybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired changed of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.” emphasis supplied.

16.Avoiding confusion and undue embarrassment on the part of both the mother and especially the child in the main thrust of this petition and solely filled furtherance of the best interests of the minor child Charmaine. Thus, it is covered under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court;

17.This petition is not in any way filled to mislead the public or for any other fraudulent purposes and does not in any way prejudiced public interest. PRAYER WHEREFORE, In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, after due notice, publication and hearing to grant this petition and render a decision ordering the public respondents to cause the change of name of minor child from CHARMAINE E. ESTOYA to CHARMAINE ECHAVEZ.

Such other relief just and equitable under the premises is likewise prayed for. March 15, 2019. Cebu City Philippines

UV Law Building Colon St. Cebu City (032) 252- 1888 [email protected]

186

By: Atty. LARS CHRITIAN ECHAVEZ PTR No. 12225; 07/08/2018; Cebu City MCLE Compliance No. IV- 101010; 8/19/18 Attorney Roll No. 12345

187

II. Pleadings: Civil and Special Civil Actions Change of First Name and Civil Entries

Republic of the Philippines Office of the City Civil Registrar Province: Cebu City/Municipality: Cebu City

Republic of the Philippines) City of Cebu

) S.S.

PETITION FOR CORRECTIONAL ENTRY

I, CLARK JOSEPH O. MARTINEZ, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Tres de Abril, Labangon, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby declare that:

1. I am the petitioner seeking correction of the clerical and typographical errors in my Certificate of Birth.

2. I was born on December 21, 1994 in Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.

3. The birth was recorded under registry no. 90-8908.

4. The errors to be corrected are:

Item No.

Description

From

1

First Name

KLARK JOSEPH

CLARK YOSEPH

2

Gender

FEMALE

MALE

188

To

5. The grounds for filing this petition are the following: a. I have habitually and continuously used Clark Yoseph as a first name and I have been publicly known in the community with the first name; b. I have been born as male and have been known as a boy in the community; and c. For purposes of legal matters.

6. I submit the following documents to support this petition: a. Transcript of Records; b. Medical Records; c. Baptismal Certificate; d. Medical Certificate; e. Certificate of Employment; f. NBI Clearance; g. Police Clearance.

7. I have not filed any similar petition and that, to the best of my knowledge, no other similar petition is pending with any LCRO, Court or Philippine Consulate. 8. I have no pending criminal, civil or administrative case in any court or any quasi-judicial body; 9. I am filing this petition at the LCRO of Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.

CLARK JOSEPH O. MARTINEZ Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, CLARK YOSEPH O. MARTINEZ, the petitioner, hereby certify that the allegations herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

189

CLARK JOSEPH O. MARTINEZ Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of March 2019 in the City of Cebu, petitioner exhibiting his Community Tax Certificate No. 002A123 issued at Cebu City on March 11th 2019.

LADY JEN DELITA Administrator

Doc. No. 57; Page No. 157; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

190

III. Provisional Remedies Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary Attachment

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA National Capital Judicial Region Branch ____, Iloilo City

JUANITA ALANDUNON,

Civil Case No. _____

Plaintiff,

For: Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer of writ for the issuance of Preliminary Attachment

-versus-

PEDRO MAIRITA, Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, most respectfully avers:

(1.)

That plaintiff, JUANITA ALANDUNON is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, single and a resident of 111 Libertad St. Sampaloc Manila, whereas, defendant Juan Jamero is likewise a Filipino, of legal age, single, and residing at 222 Juan Luna St., Tondo Manila, at which address the party herein may be served with summons and other court processes;

191

(2.)

That on January 3, 2008, defendant borrowed from plaintiff the amount of one million pesos (Php. 1,000,000.00) , which indebtedness is due and payable on or before January 3, 2009, with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum within one (1) year, in accordance with the promissory note executed by the defendant on the said date. Photostatic copy of said promissory note is attached and marked as Annex “A” and made as a integral part hereof;

(3.)

That the defendant has failed and refused and still fails and refuses to pay the said indebtedness on due date, with corresponding interest thereon to the herein plaintiff, despite repeated requests and demands.

(4.)

That the plaintiff served several demands to the defendant, attached is the last demand letter executed on July 01, 2009 by the plaintiff as annex “B” and made as an integral part hereof;

(5.)

That the defendant shall pay for the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of Php. 75,000.00 and a fee of P3,000 for every appearance in court, and to pay the cost of this suit;

(6.)

That the plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance of a preliminary attachment in an amount to be fixed by the court, not exceeding the sum of one million pesos which is the plaintiff’s claim herein;

Allegations for the Issuance of for Preliminary Attachment

Plaintiff further states and alleges:

(7.)

That Plaintiff has a valid and sufficient cause of action against the herein defendant regarding the collection of sum of money which is already due and demandable;

(8.)

Defendant has removed or disposed of or is about to remove or dispose of her property, with intent to defraud her creditors thereby rendering nugatory and ineffective 192

whatever money judgment this honorable court may render in the above entitled case; (9.)

That the defendant does not have sufficient security for the claim sought for the plaintiff against him;

(10.)

That the plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance of a preliminary attachment in an amount to be fixed by the court, not exceeding the sum of one million pesos which is the plaintiff’s claim herein;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that pending hearing of this case a writ of preliminary attachment be issued against the property of the defendant to serve as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered herein; and that after due hearing on the principal cause of this action, judgment be rendered against the defendant for the sum of the following:

(1.) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of one million pesos (Php. 1,000,000.00) plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from January 3, 2009, and until the same is fully paid; and (2.) Ordering defendant to pay the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of Php. 75,000.00 and a fee of P3,000 for every appearance in court, and to pay the cost of this suit; Plaintiff likewise prays for such other and further relief or reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.

Manila, Philippines, September 01, 2009.

193

GERICHO CAGAANAN Counsel for the Plaintiff 4321 suite, Makati Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) MANILA PHILIPPINES) S.S.

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

194

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, JUANITA ALANDUNON,Filipino, of legal age, single, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes and states that: 1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-stated case; 2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; 3. I have read and understood the allegations therein contained and the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records; 4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or other tribunal or agency; that I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court , the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I under take to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of September, 2009 in Manila, Philippines. JUANITA ALANDUNON Affiant SSS ID no. 1234567 Issued at: Manila, Philippines Issued on: January 09, 2006 SUBSCIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1st day of September, 2009, in Manila after showing to me his competent evidence of identity indicated below his name. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I personally examined the affiant and I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood his declaration on the place and date above written. Doc. No. 58;

Notary Public

Page No. 159; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

195

III. Provisional Remedies Complaint with Application for Preliminary Injunction

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court 7th Judicial Region Branch 7, Cebu City

Juan Tamad Plaintiff, Civil case no. 11111 For: Sum of Money -versusMaria Makiling Defendant x-------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel respectfully states that: 1. Plaintiff Juan Tamad, of legal age, residing at 22 San Miguel St. Cebu City; while defendant Maria Makiling is of legal age, residing at 42 San Antonio St. Cebu City; 2. Plaintiff is engaged in the exclusive distribution of Nike products in the Philippines; 3. Defendant is also engaged in the sale of Nike products in the Philippines; 4. As a result of defendant’s acts, plaintiff suffered damage amounting to P500,000 a month starting January 20, 2010; 5. Defendant continues to commit the act of illegally interfering with the agreement between plaintiff and Nike; 6. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded in whole or part, such relief consists in the discontinuing of the acts complained of for a limited time or perpetually; 7. Plaintiff hereby applies for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant from the act herein complained of, and for the purpose offers a bond in such sum this Honorable Court may fix; PRAYER WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and having a preliminary injunction be issued forthwith to restrain defendant from doing the act complained of, to cease and desist from selling products 196

of Nike in the Philippine, and that after trial, said injunction be made permanent, with costs and such orders which are deemed equitable. City of Cebu, March 3 2010. ATTY. ROSANA A. GO Legal Counsel

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPPING I, Juan Tamad, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of 22 San Miguel St. Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby, depose and say: 1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case and have caused this COMPLAINT WITH APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to be prepared; that I read and understood its contents which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records. 2. That I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom. IN WITNESS WHEREFOR, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2019. JUAN TAMAD Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of March, 2019.

NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No. 59; Page No. 163; Book No. III; 197

Series of 2019. III. Provisional Remedies Complaint with Application for Receivership

Republic of the Philippines Municipal Trial Court Branch 5 Cebu City Juan Dela Cruz, Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 2 for:Unlawful Detainer

-versusRyan Bangos, Defendant x-----------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT; 1.

The Plaintiff is of legal age, single and a resident of Brgy. Pari-an Cebu City. The Defendant is likewise of legal age, single and residing at Petersville Subdivision, Cebu City.

2.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the two-storey house unit located at the Petersville Subdivision, Cebu City, and having the residential address of PV 123 as evidenced by pertinent documents like tax declaration and deed of sale. ( EXHIBIT “A” )

3.

The Defendant is the lessee of the house unit that is owned by the Plaintiff as evidenced by the written contract of lease that both parties signed. (Exhibit “B”)

4.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant came up with a written agreement of Lease on June 26, 20017, which they both agreed upon and was duly signed by the two parties as shown in their contract of lease. (Exhibit “B”)

5.

Item No. 16 of the contract which the defendant signed expressly provides that he will only be occupying the property for one (1) year, after which, he will vacate the house when that term expires. (Exhibit “B”)

198

6.

The contract also provides that the defendant should also take care of the property and its premises” with the utmost diligence”. 7. On June 28, 2008, the plaintiff, after returning from Japan, was surprised to discover that the defendant did not vacate the property as he expected. Worse, he installed a “sari-sari store” in the original building structure of the house unit. 8.

The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant claimed that it was a “DEED OF SALE” which they signed and not a “CONTRACT OF LEASE” and therefore, the defendant is the new owner of the house unit.

9.

On August 20, 2008, after continuous demands, the defendant constantly refuses to vacate the house unit and even invited relatives to stay with him.

10. The defendant willfully and maliciously violated the agreement which they mutually agreed upon, and which the defendant signed. APPLICATION FOR RECEIVERSHIP I, Juan Dela Cruz, of legal age, single and a resident of the City of Cebu, Philippines, after having duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says: That I am the Plaintiff in the above titled case and that he has read the foregoing complaint and that the facts therein stated are true and correct; That I am the owner of the property as pro-indiviso owner of the same with the defendant; That the defendant is in actual physical possession of the property in litigation and as such, he is in control of the produce of the said property pending litigation; That the produce or income from said property are in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to guard and preserve the same, and the defendant is not only hostile to the plaintiff but also shows his demands to exclude said plaintiff from all the products or proceeds coming from the said property; That the defendant is hopelessly insolvent for he is heavily indebted to various persons; That I am willing and ready to file a bond in the amount which this Honorable Court may fix in favor of the defendant against whom this receivership is presented to the effect that he, the plaintiff will pay to the said defendant all damages which he will sustain by reason of the appointment of receiver in case the plaintiff shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause, and such other bonds which this 199

Honorable Court may require him to file hereafter, as security for such damages. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Juan Dela Cruz Affiant

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the application for RECEIVERSHIP be approved and the judgement be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement; a. The defendant shall vacate the house unit owned by the plaintiff. b. The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 120, 000 for the Attorney’s Fees. Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are likewise prayed for. Cebu City, Philippines, this 15th day of March 2019.

Cesar Pasigna Gulang Counsel for the Plaintiff PTR No. 188118:1-04-18:B.C. IBP No, 696969:1-04-18:B.C. Roll No. 424242:5-10-97: Manila Rm. 4 2/F Cebu Boating Center 180 Jones Ave., Cebu City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION I, Mr., Juan Dela Cruz, of Legal age, single, Filipino Citizen and a resident of Cebu City, after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that; 1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession; 200

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. 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 tribunal or agency; 6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. Juan Dela Cruz Complainant In witness thereof, I, Mr.Cesar Pasigna Gulang, counsel of the plaintiff, have herunto set my hand this 18th day of March 2019 at Cebu City.

Cesar Pasigna Gulang Counsel for the Plaintiff PTR No. 188118:1-04-18:B.C. IBP No, 696969:1-04-18:B.C. Roll No. 424242:5-10-97: Manila Rm. 4 2/F Cebu Boating Center 180 Jones Ave., Cebu City

201

III. Provisional Remedies Replevin

REPLEVIN Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court 7th Judicial Division Cebu City

Armando Tuazon, Complainant

Civil Case No. 204 For: Replevin

- versus

Erlinda Tomarong Accused

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

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff by the undersigned attorney, and unto his Honorable Court, respectfully avers that;

1. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are of age, and residents of Consolacion Cebu.

2. Plaintiff is the owner of a certain personal property namely: an automobile valued at Php 250,000.00, and more particularly described as follows to wit:

Make: Toyota Corolla Plate no.: TYU 268 Body no. CM – 312 – 3160 202

Model: 2014 Color: Blue

And was wrongfully detained due to a unwarranted traffic violation but has been already settled thereof.

3. The said property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed under custodial legis, or is so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody;

4. The plaintiff has demanded of the defendant the delivery of said property but the latter refused and continues to refuse to do so; and 5. Plaintiff hereby executed a performance bond in double the value of the subject property, in favor of the defendant, for the return of the property to the latter if such return be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum as the defendant may recover in this action.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed: (a) That the property in question be ordered delivered to the plaintiff; (b) That defendant be made to pay the costs of this suit; (c) And that plaintiff be granted such further relief consistent with law and equity. Done this 19th day of March. 2019 at Consolacio Cebu Philippines.

AXSEL HATAMOSA Attorney – at – Law Until December 31, 2019 Roll # 2148156 IBP # 0003 – 01010 PTR # 105001501 June 24, 2017

203

VERIFICATION, CERTIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines] City of Cebu

] S.S.

I, ARMANDO TUAZON Filipino, of legal age residing at CONSOLACION, CEBU PHILIPPINES, after being sworn to in accordance with law, deposes and says that: 1. I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case; 2. The facts stated in the above complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and authentic records; 3. I have not 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 in them; and 4. If a should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five days (5) from notice to the court or where the complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Done this 19th day of March. 2019 at Consolacio Cebu Philippines.

Sgd. ARMANDO TUAZON

JURAT SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 19TH day of March 2019, in the City of Cebu by affiant Armando Tuazon his Passport No. 3128-00010 issued on November 18, 2018 at Mandaue City Philippines.

ANALIE HATAMOSA Notary Public Until December 31, 2019 Roll # 183156284 204

IBP # 00313852 PTR # 313202 – 00 June 23 , 2018 Doc. No. 61; Page No. 169; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

205

III. Provisional Remedies Complaint for Separate Support with Application for Alimony Pendente Lite

Republic of the Philippines Municipal Trial Court Cebu City, Cebu Juanita dela Cruz Plaintiff - versusJuan dela Cruz Defendant. x

x

COMPLAINT (With Application for support pendent lite) PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges: 1. Plaintiff is of legal age and with residence at Cebu City, while defendant is also of legal age and at present residing at Cebu City, where hemay be served with summons and other legal processes. 2. Plaintiff’s is the wife of defendant, they having been married on February 14, 2014 and the marriage having been solemnized by Father John Balweg of the Cathedral Church in Cebu City, Cebu. Certified true copy of their marriage certificate is attached hereto as Annex “A”. 3. Plaintiff and defendant have two (2) minor children, aged 1 and 2 years old, named Jose and Joyce, who are living with plaintiff at the above indicated address. Enclosed here with are their respective birth certificates, marked Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively. 4. On or about February 15, 2019, defendant, without any valid reason, abandoned plaintiff and his two children. Plaintiff later learned that he was and still is living with another woman. Since then, defendant had failed and refused and continues to fail and to refuse to provide financial support and maintenance to plaintiff and to his two children. 5. Plaintiff is without any source of income, as she stopped working when she and defendant got married, to devote her time to her children, while defendant is gainfully employed as Vice-President of XYZ Company, where he earns a monthly salary of PHP 45,000, apart from commissions of 10% for real properties he sold. 6. To enable plaintiff and her two children to eat three times a day, she relied on the benevolence of relatives and friends. 7. Considering defendant’s monthly income and earnings and the cost of living, plaintiff and her two children require a monthly support of PHP 206

25000, PHP 7000 a month of which will be used to pay rentals for the apartment in which they stay and the balance for daily needs, which financial requirements will correspondingly increase as the children grow older and their requirements increase. 8. In support of plaintiff’s claim for support pendent lite, enclosed herewith are plaintiff’s affidavit, detailing their daily expenses, lease contract for PHP 7000 a month for the apartment in which she and her children live, and other authentic documents, apart from the documents attached as Annexes hereof, which are attached as Annexes “D”, “E”, and “F” respectively. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: a) Ordering defendant provide plaintiff and his two children monthly support pendent e lite in the amount of PHP 25000 a month, payable within the first (5) days every month starting April 1, 2019. b) After trial, making defendant’s monthly support permanent, without prejudice to its upward adjustment, depending upon plaintiff’s and the two children’s needs and the increasing financial earnings of defendant. c) Ordering defendant to reimburse plaintiff the amount of PHP 5000 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. Cebu City, Cebu on March 15, 2019.

Crisanto B. Hermosilla Counsel for Plaintiff Adreess: Lamak, Consolacion, Cebu Roll No. 8896745 IBP No. 34567, issued on January 20, 2019 at Metro Manila. PTR No. 7895 issued on Dec. 31, 2018 at Metro Manila

207

IV. Miscellaneous Civil Pleadings Notice of Appearance as Counsel

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT City of Cebu Branch ___

TULFO DELA CRUZ, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE No. 12345 FOR: Collection of Sum of Money

-versusRAYMART REYES, Defendant. x—————————————————-x

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Metropolitan Trial Court City of Manila – Branch 1 Please enter appearance of the undersigned as counsel for the defendant RAYMART REYES, with his express conformity as indicated below, in this case. Henceforth, kindly address all pertinent notices to the undersigned at the address given below.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. City of Cebu, Philippines, September 25, 2012.

CRUZ, LANUGON AND TOLENTINO LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Defendant Suite 405 Elizabeth Center Cebu City, Cebu

208

By:

ATTY. JOVAN N. LANUGON Roll No. 23456 IBP No. 22345/1-3-12/Manila PTR No. 33456/1-3-12/Manila With conformity:

RAYMART REYES

Copy furnished: FRETTI LAUREL Counsel for the Plaintiff Unit 1234 Laurel Building Sampaloc, Manila

209

IV. Miscellaneous Civil Pleadings Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT City of Cebu Branch ___

TULFO DELA CRUZ, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE No. 12345 FOR: Collection of Sum of Money

-versusRAYMART REYES, Defendant. x—————————————————-x

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Metropolitan Trial Court City of Manila – Branch 1 COMES NOW the undersigned counsel for the Defendant, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that due to professional and personal reasons, undersigned respectfully requests that he be allowed by this Honorable Court to withdraw his appearance in this case as counsel for the Defendant.

Henceforth, undersigned respectfully prays that future notices/processes of this Honorable Court and pleadings/motions/correspondence from the prosecution in this case be sent directly to the Defendant or to any counsel who may subsequently enter his appearance for the Defendant.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. City of Cebu, Philippines, September 25, 2012.

210

CRUZ, LANUGON AND TOLENTINO LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Defendant Suite 405 Elizabeth Center Cebu City, Cebu

By:

ATTY. JOVAN N. LANUGON Roll No. 23456 IBP No. 22345/1-3-12/Manila PTR No. 33456/1-3-12/Manila

211

IV. Miscellaneous Civil Pleadings Complaint for Damages

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Municipality of Consolacion Branch 13

SHEGI SIA PASIENCIA Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 8 For: Unlawful Detainer

-versusDELLY MAYO ATAG ABANG, Defendant. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully allege: -THAT1.) Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, with residence and postal address at 123 V & G Homes Subdivision, Cansaga, Consolacion, Cebu, where he may be served notices and other court processes; 2.) Defendant is of legal age, Filipino, with residence and postal address at 178 Highway, Tipolo, Mandaue City, Cebu, where he may be served summons and other court processes; 3.) Plaintiff is the absolute owner and lessor of that certain townhouse situated at Golden Ville Townhouses, North Road, Pitogo, Consolacion, Cebu and now leased and occupied by the Defendant; 4.) The Defendant leases and occupies the said townhouse from June 1, 2013 until July 31, 2018 as agreed upon between the plaintiff and the Defendant in the lease contract executed on June 1, 2013 under the express obligation to pay a monthly rental of P25,000.00; (Contract of Lease attached as Annex “A”)

212

5.) The lease contract of the Defendant for the occupation of the building has been terminated on July 31, 2018 and has not been renewed or extended; 6.) During the course of the Defendant’s occupation of the said townhouse, Defendant has failed to pay his rentals for the months of August 2016 to July 2018; 7.) Defendant has continued to occupy the said townhouse notwithstanding the fact that her contract of lease has been terminated on July 31, 2018 thus depriving the plaintiff from having the said townhouse leased by other persons; 8.) Several demands to vacate was made by plaintiff to Defendant, both oral and written (Demand letter attached as Annex “B”), but Defendant refused to vacate the said townhouse and return possession to the plaintiff; 9.) Until now Defendant still refuses to vacate and restore possession and pay her rentals for the months August 2016 to July 2018 during her occupation of the townhouse; 10.) Thus, Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the subject townhouse from the plaintiff despite last and final demand, to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff; 11.) Before filing of this complaint, the dispute has been referred to the Lupong Tagamayapa of Barangay Pitogo, Consolacion, Cebu but the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement; (Certificate to File Action attached as Annex “C”) PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff: 1.) For the restitution of the abovementioned townhouse; 2.) For the payment of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP180,000.00) PESOS, representing the arrears of rent now overdue; 3.) To pay the costs for this suit. Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Consolacion, Cebu, Philippines, this 16th day of March 2019. 213

Atty. Myrna Orque Luyao, CPA Counsel for the Plaintiff Luyao, Orque, Yaun & Associates 3578 Lopez Jaena Street, Subangdaku, Mandaue City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Ms. Shegi Sia Pasiencia, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and a resident of 123 V & G Homes Subdivision, Cansaga, Consolacion, Cebu, after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;

1.) I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case; 2.) I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; 3.) I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession; 4.) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5.) 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 tribunal or agency; 6.) If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

Shegi Sia Pasiencia Complainant

In witness thereof, I, Myrna Orque Luyao, counsel of the plaintiff, have herunto set my hand this 16th of March 2019 at Consolacion, Cebu.

214

Atty. Myrna Orque Luyao, CPA Counsel for the Plaintiff Luyao, Orque, Yaun & Associates 3578 Lopez Jaena Street, Subangdaku, Mandaue City PTR No. 9876543, Mandaue City, 01/13/2019 IBP No. 85738, Cebu City, 08/23/2018 Roll of Attorneys No. 135789 MCLE Commission No. 3456789,Cebu City,07/08/2018 TIN 123-456-789

V. Other Civil Pleadings Answer

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT CEBU CITY BRANCH 12

CHRISTOPHER DIWA Plaintiff Civil Case No. 123456 UNLAWFUL DETAINER -

Versus –

RAMON SOLIS Defendants. x---------------------------------x

ANSW ER (In re: Summons, Received on JULY 15, 2018)

The DEFENDANT xxx, by counsel, respectfully states: I. 1.

ANSWER Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint are admitted. 215

2. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the Complaint are denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to, and are within the control only, of the plaintiff. 3. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Complaint are admitted. 4. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the alleged amounts of attorney’s fees agreed upon between the plaintiff and her lawyer. The said paragraph is likewise denied insofar as it alleges that the defendant has no basis or justification to occupy the subject property, the truth being those alleged in the special and affirmative defenses part herein below. II.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. The title to and ownership in fee simple over the subject property is in the name of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), its registered owner, and not the plaintiff. (See Annex “A”, Par. 3, Complaint). 6. The plaintiff is not “the owner” in fee simple of the subject property, contrary to her allegation in Par. 3 of the Complaint. 7. The alleged Deed of Conditional Sale between the GSIS and the plaintiff is not annotated on the title on the property. (See dorsal side of the title of the property, marked as Annex “A”, Par. 3, Complaint). 8. Although the GSIS has given the plaintiff the right of possession of the property under Par. 4 of the Deed of Conditional Sale (Annex “B”, Par. 4, Complaint), the plaintiff knew or was supposed to know or was deemed by law to be obligated to know and to investigate the fact that at the time of her purchase of the property, the xxx Family were in possession of the property and that it had a vested, beneficial and equitable right thereto by reason of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed in 1975 between its original purchaser xxx, represented by xxx, on the one hand, and the matriarch of the xxx Family, i.e., xxx, on the other. A copy of the said MOA is attached as Annex “1”. A copy of the Special Power of Attorney of xxx (1974) is attached as Annex “2” hereof. 9. Since 1975 up to the present time, the xxx Family has been in possession of the subject property by reason of the said MOA. This fact was known to plaintiff when she investigated the background property until the time she closed her purchase thereof with the GSIS. There is no proof that plaintiff had reported the real situation of the property to the GSIS for a solution or amicable settlement between the parties prior to her purchase 216

thereof. Likewise, the GSIS did not send any investigator to investigate the situation of the property prior to and at the time of its sale to the plaintiff. It did not issue any formal notice to the defendant or the xxx Family about the impending attempt of the plaintiff to purchase the property. Had the xxx Family been notified thereon, they would have taken urgent steps to acquire the same instead of the plaintiff. 10. In 2002, Sps. xxx, the parents of the herein defendant xxx, executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of the herein defendant, a copy of which is marked as Annex “3” hereof. 11. The defendant had answered the demanded letter, dated xxx 2011, of the plaintiff through a letter, dated xxx 2011, of defendant’s counsel, a copy of which is attached as Annex “4” hereof. It requested plaintiff’s lawyer for a special conference to discuss a serious extrajudicial compromise, without admission of guilt on the part of the defendant. It was not formally answered by the plaintiff. 12.GSIS is an (if not “the”) indispensable party in the suit being the registered owner in fee simple of the subject property. The ownership rights of plaintiff under her unannotated Deed of Conditional Sale with the GSIS are merely inchoate and contingent. The Complaint shows no Board Resolution from the Board of Trustees of the GSIS empowering the plaintiff to sue the defendant in behalf of the GSIS in the instant case. III.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

13.By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by reason of the instant precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to defend his rights and interests for a professional fee of P20,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per court appearance; 14. Similarly, the plaintiff’s unfounded suit has caused the defendant mental anguish and suffering and public humiliation and embarrassment, for which the defendant claims moral damages of P100,000.00. IV.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the parties be given ample time to reach an amicable settlement before the Cebu City Mediation Center; and that in case of a failure thereof, and after trial, the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim be granted, i.e.. attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 plus moral damages of P100,000.00, plus costs of suit. The defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. Cebu City, July 20, 2011.

217

JUN CARLO FUELLAS MAHINAY LAW OFFICE Counsel for Defendant xxx Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V Starr Avenue Pure life Village, Cebu City 1740

VERIFICATION AND ANTI-FORUM SHOPPINFG CERTIFICATION I, Ramon Solis of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address Barangay Tisa, Roose Village, Cebu City, under oath, depose: I am the defendant in the foregoing case; that I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer; that I have read its contents; and that the same are true and correct of my own direct, personal knowledge. Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and existing Supreme Court circulars, I hereby certify that 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 tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and that if I should hereafter learn that other similar or related actions or proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court. Cebu City, July 20 2018.

RAMON SOLIS Affiant/Defendant SSS Member ID No. 456987 Issued on JANUARY 12. 1990 SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Cebu City on July 20 2018, the affiant showing his SSS Member ID Card as stated above as competent proof of his identity.

JUN CARLO FUELLAS MAHINAY NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No. 66; Page No. 181; Book No. III; Series of 2019. 218

Cc

:

Atty. Angelica Delposo Counsel for Plaintiff Rm. 144 Star Bldg. Brgy. Labogon, Cebu City

EXPLANATION A copy of this pleading is served via registered mail, instead of via personal service, on the adverse counsel due to the distance of his law office address and the lack of field staff of undersigned counsel at this time.

V. Other Civil Pleadings Petition for Trial by Commissioner

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE

PETITION FOR TRIAL BY A COMMISSIONER FOR THE CASE OF ALEJANDRO ARAGON TELCH AGAINST MARIA ARAGON INEZ

ATTY. GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON Petitioner x--------------------------------------------------------/

(FACT OF ACCOUNT OF MR. ALEJANDRO TELCH) PETITION 219

Plaintiff, thru, counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, alleges that: 1. One of the important issues involved in the above-entitled case is one of fact requiring the examination of a long account; 2. The taking of this account is necessary before judgement; 3. Mr. FERNANDO JOSE ALTAMERANO is an independent certified public accountant, reputable, competent, and is willing to act as commissioner to examine and render a true and correct report of the issue of account in this case; PRAYER

WHEREOF, in view of the foregoing premises, it is most respectfully prayed that an order be issued by this Honorable Court referring to the issue of fact of account to Mr. FERNANDO JOSE ALTAMERANO, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

Most respectfully submitted. Cebu City, Philippines, March 16, 2019

GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON Petitioner REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF CEBU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) S.S.

VERIFICATION I, GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of 08- Noli Me Tangere St. Brgy. Ermita, Cebu City 6000, Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say that: 1. I am the Petitioner of the above-entitled Petition; and 2. I have personally prepared the foregoing Petition and that all the allegations therein are true and correct to my own personal knowledge and based on authentic documents.

220

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines.

GERBY EBORDA MALOLOY-ON Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 16th day of March 2019 in Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his IBP ID issued by IBP Cebu City with Roll No. 56281 as proof of identity.

ATTY. GUSTAVO ALMEDRAS MONTELEBANO NOTARY PUBLIC FOR CEBU CITY, CARCAR CITY SAN FERNANDO, CEBU UNTIL DEC. 31, 2019 COMM NO. 0281 11/25/2010 CEBU CITY PTR No. 8894089, 1/10/2018 CEBU CITY LIFE TIME IBP No. AR001264, IBP Cebu City, 1/10/18 ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 56281 D JAKOSALEM STREET, CEBU CITY

Doc. No. 67; Page No. 185; Book No. III; Series of 2019. V. Other Civil Pleadings Complaint Based on an Actionable Document

Republic of the Philippines Seventh Judicial Region 221

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Branch 1, Cebu City

CUPIDO GWAPO Plaintiff, -versus -

Case No. 100

CUPIDA GWAPA Respondent. x--------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. That the plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino citizen and resident of No. 7 Agoo Street, Cebu City and the defendant is also of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of No. 19 Dagupan Street, Cebu City where he may be served with summons;

2. That on or about January 1, 2018, defendant obtained a loan of ₱20,000.00 from the plaintiff payable within 90 days from date of receipt at 6% per annum;

3. That said loan, now overdue, is evidenced by a promissory note signed by the defendant, a copy of which is hereto attached as “Annex A” and made part of this complaint;

4. That despite repeated demands, both written and oral, defendant has failed, continues to fail and refused to pay said loan;

5. That due to the unjust and unlawful act of the defendant to comply with the said demands, the plaintiff was compelled to institute this action engaging the services of counsel in the amount of ₱1,000.00. 222

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of ₱20,000.00 plus interest of 6% from the date of the instrument until full amount is paid and attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱1,000.00 and costs of the suit.

Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto set their hands below, this 16th day of March 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

(Sgd.) ATTY. BRIAN C. MONTECILLO Counsel for Plaintiff P.T.R. No. 765532, January 3, 2013, Cebu City IBP No. 918225, Roll No. 14344 MCLE Compliance Cert. No. 66587 G/F J King Bldg., Jose L Briones St., North Reclamation Area, Cebu City Mobile No.: (+63) 933 8650 903 Email: [email protected]

223

V. Other Civil Pleadings Complaint in Intervention

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7TH Judicial Region Branch 17 Talisay City, Cebu

LEONARDO BASTARDOS Intervenor,

CIVIL CASE No. 128-9456 For: INTERVENTION

VS. DEREK MARTINEZ Plaintiff -x------------------------------------------- x

COMLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

INTERVENOR, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully states and prays that: 1. Intervenor, a Russian but naturalized Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Jessica Sotto, a Filipino citizen and a resident of 456 St., Linao, Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines. 2. Herein Intervenor is the true owner of the property which is the subject of controversy in Civil Case No. 128-9456, embraced in the alleged new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11919, originally under TCT No. 12345, (hereto attached as Annex “A-1”) with an area of five thousand square meters (5,000 sq m) located at Brgy. San Isidro, Talisay City, Cebu Philippines. 3. Said property in question, was acquired by the Intervenor from Fidget Travola on June 7, 2005 in consideration of P1,500,000.00 as stated in the Deed of Sale registered under the name of Fidget Travola and

224

Jessica Sotto, recorded in the Registry of Deeds in the Province of Cebu. (copy attached as Annex” A-2”) 4. The litigants in this case, (plaintiff) as claimant and (defendant) who is in actual used and possession of the property in question, have no legal standing of their claims on the basis that all transactions and performances subsequent to the transaction executed between herein Intervenor and Ms. Fidget Travola in relation to the property in question described in the original title TCT 12345 and in TCT 11919 is presumed to be void considering that said property was already sold to Intervenor and now is the subject of this complaint.

5. The Intervenor deeply affected of the fraudulent transactions initiated by the irresponsible vendor (Fidget Travola) of the questioned property, which is the subject matter in this case, that caused him to initiate legal remedy for the relief and recovery of damages inflicted to his person, and bring the matter to this honorable court in a way of intervention.

WHERFORE, it is prayed: (d) That all transactions and performances executed by the litigants in relation to the property-in-question, including related documents in their possession shall be declared void. (e) That the litigants be ordered by this Honorable Court to voluntarily turn-over the questioned property to the rightful owner who is the Intervenor in this case. (f) That if voluntary turn-over of the property or waiver of the claim by both plaintiff and defendants is not possible, order be made against the litigants to pay for the damages and other litigation expenses plus attorney’s fees in favor of the Intervenor. (g) Further it is prayed that Intervenor be granted such relief found to be consistent with law and equity. Signed this 4th day of March 2019 in Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines.

LEONARDO BASTARDOS Intervenor

Assisting Counsels: Chennie Lynn O. Nedia 225

Cebu City

226

V. Other Civil Pleadings Third Party Complaint

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court 7th Judicial Region Branch 1, Cebu City

PETER DELA CRUZ,

Civil Case No. 9999999-88

Plaintiff,

-versus-

JOHN DELA RAMA,

Defendant Third Party Plaintiff,

-versus-

ISABELLE DELA PENA,

Third-Party Defendant.

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

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Third-Party Plaintiff, JOHN, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 6, Section 11 of the Rules of

227

Court, hereby impleads the Third-Party Defendant, ISABELA and alleges as follows:

1. PETER, Plaintiff filed a complaint against JOHN, Defendant and ThirdParty Plaintiff.

2.

PETER alleges that the SALE of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345 with JOHN caused damaged to him.

3.

JOHN in GOOD FAITH, bought the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345 from ISABELLE.

4.

JOHN in GOOD FAITH considering that the SALE between JOHN and ISABELLE is free from any impediment sold the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345 to PETER.

5.

The parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345 was foreclosed by the Land Bank of the Philippines for the reason that it was mortgaged by LUISA, co-owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T12345.

6.

If PETER recovers against JOHN any judgment for the damages the JOHN is entitled to judgment against ISABELLE for all such sums since the SALE of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-12345 was the sole cause of PETER’s damages and injuries.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that JOHN, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, can demand judgment against ISABELLE, Third-Party Defendant, for all sums that may be adjudged against JOHN, as Defendant, in favor of PETER, as Plaintiff, together with all costs incidental to the defense of the principal suit.

Cebu City, Philippines, March 19, 2019

228

ATTY. RENIL B. OLIVA 7th Floor, UV Building Colon Street, Cebu City

229

V. Other Civil Pleadings Petition for Consolidation of Ownership (Pacto de Retro)

Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership in Pacto de Retro REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S. x-------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP

I, MARIE B. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 2223 Washington Street, Pio del Pilar, Makati City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state: 1. That on June 10, 2011, Mr. Pedro Penduko, of legal age, Filipino, single, residing at 2222 Teresa Street, Makati City, sold to me a certain parcel of land under pacto de retro, executed before Notarial Public Juan Tamad and bearing Not. Reg. No. 2, Page 2, Book II, Series of 2011 of his Notarial Register (copy of the said pacto de retro sale is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”); 2. That pursuant to the deed of sale with pacto de retro, the said vendor, Mr. Pedro Penduko, should have exercised his right to repurchase the said property within the period of two (2) years; 3. That the period expired on June 10, 2013 without the said vendor, by himself or by any other person in his behalf complying with the condition and stipulation required for the repurchase of the said property; 4. That the said period of repurchase has not been extended, either expressly or impliedly, by affiant vendee a retro; 5. That by virtue of the said deed of sale with pacto de retro, and by the failure of the vendor, Mr. Pedro Penduko, to duly repurchase the property within the period stipulated, there was consolidated in the affiant, as vendee a retro, the absolute ownership of the said property. Attached hereto, as ANNEX “B,” is an order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City issued on August 11, 2013, approving and confirming the above consolidation of ownership in the name of affiant.

230

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of September 2013 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines. MARIE B. DELA CRUZ Affiant SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of September 2013 in Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her Philippine Passport No. 123456 issued in Manila on January 12, 2012 and valid until January 12, 2017. Doc. No. 71; Page No. 193; Book No. III; Series of 2019.

231

V. Other Civil Pleadings Motion for Leave to Effect Service of Summons by Publication

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT City of Cebu Branch 1 OLIVE OLIVIA, Plaintiff, -versusLUCKY AWANGANON, Defendant.

CIVIL CASE No. 23456 FOR: Recovery of Possession with Damages

x-----------------------------------------x MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SERVE SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers: 1. That on January 25, 2019, copy of the summons was served by the process server of this Honorable Court to the defendant on his given address, but defendant is no longer residing on his given address; 2. That considering that the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown and this case affects the property of the defendant, plaintiff most respectfully move with leave of court to serve summons by publication. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by publication based on the above reasons. Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. City of Cebu, March 14, 2019. PANANGANAN AND GULANG LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Plaintiff Unit 314 The Tower Crown Regency, Cebu City BY: ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE PANANGANAN Roll No. 45678 IBP No. 23456/2-419/Cebu 232

NOTICE OF HEARING LUCKY AWANGANON Defendant GREETINGS: Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on April 9, 2019 at 2:00 PM.

ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE PANANGANAN Copy furnished: LUCKY AWANGANON 345 Brgy. Labangon Cebu City EXPLANATION Copy of the Motion to Serve Summons by Publication was served to defendant by registered mail due to time and distance constraints, and for lack of the undersigned’s staff who can serve the same in person.

ATTY. RAMON PAUL PONCE PANANGANAN

233

V. Other Civil Pleadings Motion for Leave for Extraterritorial Service

Republic of the Philippines Province of Cebu Branch 00000

Lelanie Rubia, Plaintiff

-versus-

XYZ CORPORATION Defendant

Motion for Leave for Extraterritorial Service

Plaintiff thrue councel, and unto this Honorable court, respectfully avers: 1. That the subject matter in the above-entitled case is a property located within the Philippines; 2. That the relief demanded consists in excluding the defendant from any interest therein; 3. That the defendant does not reside in the Philippines but now resides in 786 Rose St. Vancouver, Canada; 4. That attached hereto and made an integral part of this motion is the affidavit of the plaintiff himself marked Annex “A”, setting forth the grounds for the application for extraterritorial service in this case.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that service of summons in the above-entitled case be served on the defendant at the abovenamed address out of the Philippines by publication. Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. City of Lapulapu, Philippines, 15th day of March, 2019 234

___________________ Lelanie Rubia

ATTY. MABINI O. PELAGIO 2nd Floor Patalinghug st., Pajo, Lapulapu City Roll no. 98289 PTR NO. 78921, 6 Jan 2019 IBP no. 89892, 8 May 2o18 MCLE Compliance NO. 95287391, 16 June 21977 V. Other Civil Pleadings Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CEBU CITY )S.S

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE COMMENT (ANSWER), DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2019 OF THE DEFENDANTS THE DEFENDANTS, by counsel, respectfully state: 1. On THE 22nd of February 2019, the Defendants, pro se (by and for themselves and without assistance of a Counsel), filed their Responsive Pleading to the main case which was denominated as a “COMMENT (ANSWER)”, dated 21st of February 2019. 1.1. It was apparently originally intended as the Comment of the Defendants to the incidents pending at that time, i.e., Plaintiff’s Motion/s for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 1.2. The Defendants, pro se, subsequently intended the said Comment as their ANSWER to the main case, as shown by thehandwritten words “Answer” in parenthesis on the title of the said Comment, dated dated 21st of February 2019.

235

2. Although the said Comment (Answer) contained “admissions/denials/defenses” and a valid “prayer”, and although voluminous documents were attached thereto in support of the pro secounter-allegations of ultimate facts by the Defendants, nonetheless, the undersigned new Counsel for the Defendants feel that, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, there is a great need for him to AMEND, MODIFY, CLARIFY, IMPROVE, AND STRENGTHEN the said “Comment (Answer)” of the Defendants: (a) to better protect their rights and interests, (b) to more clearly present their legal theory of the case, (c) to strengthen the legal and factual position of the Defendants and the supporting evidence in support thereof, and (d) to allege their compulsory counterclaim. 3. This Motion is not intended to delay this case but is being presented solely to serve the best interest of justice and fair play by improving the pro se Responsive Pleading of the Defendants without the assistance of a Counsel. 4. Please note that the main case is yet to undergo Mediation Phase, Pretrial Phase, and Judicial Dispute Resolution Phase. 4.1.

It has not yet reached the Main Trial On The Merits Phase.

5. The rights of the Plaintiff and will not be injured by this fair and reasonable Motion. WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the legal and factual reasons cited hereinabove, it is respectfully prayed that, after notice and hearing, an Order be issued giving the undersigned new Counsel for the Defendants 30 days to file an AMENDED/MODIFIED ANSWER for the Defendants, counted from receipt of the Order granting this Motion. FURTHER, the Defendants respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. Xx x Cebu City, xxx, 2019.

ATTY. NINF QUENNIE Q. PLANDO

236

237

V. Other Civil Pleadings Motion for Bill of Particulars

Republic of the Philippines 7th Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT CEBU CITY BRANCH 15

PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES

-versus-

FOR: Other Light Threats Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code

JUAN DELA CRUZ X-------------------------------------------------X MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable Court respectfully averse: 1. That the plaintiff’s complaints in paragraph 3 Pedro Dela Rosa and paragraph 5 Maria Santos alleges: Dela Rosa: However, on the evening of the same day, at around10:30, I heard Juan Dela Cruz shouting, and I peeped through the window, I saw her standing just outside her house with her friends, facing our house and I loudly uttering slanderous and threatening words. Abad: That at around 10:30 o’clock in the evening of the same day, I was already is in my mom when I heard someone is shouting outside, I suddenly went out of my room Saw Sir Pedro peeping the window, I in turn, did the same and peeped on the window, I saw Juan and 3 other people standing outside her house, facing towards the direction of our house, while she was uttering slanderous and threatening words. 2. The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and particularity, specifically it does not mention to whom are the words directed;

238

3. That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is necessary in order to enable the defendant to prepare its responsive pleading because from the very onset of this controversy, the main dispute was to whom was actually and exactly are the words directed. 4. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars of the said act which was allegedly done by the defendant would definitely simplify the issue in the case, and uncomplicated the matters for the defendant.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully pays that an order be issued by this Honorable Court requiring plaintiffs to make more definite statement as to the particulars of the act mentioned in paragraph 4 and 3 in their complaint, particularly to whom are the words uttered directed.

Cebu City, Philippines, March 14, 2019

By ATTY. MARCY JO RABILLAS IBP NO. 533435 ATTORNEY’S ROLL NO. 65211

Copy furnished:

Atty. Anna LIM Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Pedro Dela Rosa Maria Abad

NOTICE OF HEARING

239

To Hon. Branch Clerk of Court RTC Cebu City, Branch 25

Atty. Anna Lim Counsel for the Plaintiff

Please take note that the foregoing motion will be submitted, and is requested to be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on March 15,1992, at 9:30 AM or soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard on notice.

Marcy Jo Rabillas Counsel of the Defendant

240

VI. Appeals Notice of Appeals

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Seventh Judicial Region Branch 5 CEBU CITY, PHILIPPINES

SPS. EMERSON ARCEO, and BOJOY ALAD-AD ARCEO, Plaintiffs,

CIVIL CASE NO. 01-143143-99 FOR: DAMAGES

-versusJACINTH DELA CERNA, and DANE PAULINE ADORA, Defendants. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT, COMES NOW Jacinth Dela Cerna and Dane Pauline Adora, the Defendants in the above-entitled case, through counsel, hereby file this notice and make known that they are appealing to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of this Honorable Court dated February 14, 2019 which was received by them on February 28, 2019, the said decision not being in accord with evidence adduced and jurisprudence applicable. Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, this 12th day of March, 2019

VINCENT LOUIE A. RAOTRAOT Counsel for the Defendants 7th Floor, Gullas Building Colon Street, Cebu City Roll No. 81956 PTR No. 1941888, 01-05-19 IBP No. 905467, 04-28-18 MCLE Compliance No. VII – 00014344, July 5, 2018 Copy Furnished: ATTY. CRISANTO HERMOSILLA Counsel for the Plaintiff 241

Room 69, Prince Court Building Mandaue City, Cebu VI. Appeals Record on Appeal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Branch 66 Oslob, Cebu

JOSEPH STALIN Petitioner, -versus-

Sp. Proc. No. 143 (Claims Against the

Estate) ESTATE OF ADOLF HITLER, EVA BRAUN, Administratix Respondent,

RECORD ON APPEAL

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the dates herein respectively mentioned, the following proceedings were had in the Regional Trial Court of Oslob, Cebu: 1. That on September 26, 2018, the plantiff-appellant filed a claim against estate of the defendant-appellee, represented by his administrator, in the following tenor: 1.1.That his claim is evidenced by a promissory note, a true copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A", the original to be exhibited in due time; 1.2.That the promissory note was conditioned that if the debtor passes the bar exam, the loan stated in the promissory note would be demandable; 1.3.That the debtor was able to pass the bar exam on April 11, 2016; 1.4.That since the condition was complied, the loan becomes demandable;

242

1.5.That the demandable loan amounts to 1 MILLION PESOS (1,000,000.00), as stated in the promissory note, and payment has not been made since the debtor's admission to the bar. 1.6.That there are no offsets to the same to the knowledge of the claimnant. 2. That on September 27, 2018, the defendant-appellee filed his Answer to said complaint, as follows: 2.1.That he admits the existence of a promissory note and he also admits that he was the one who executed it on October 19, 1992; 2.2.That the condition, which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint, is not written in the promissory note; 2.3.That upon the maturity date of the loan, October 19, 1993, as stated in the promissory note, the plaintiff did not make a demand for payment; 2.4.That since the date of the maturity of the loan, the plaintiff did not anymore bother to make a demand for payment. 3. That after due hearing, the court, on March 3, 2019, rendered the following decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the claim of Joseph Stalin against the Estate of Adolf Hitler amounting to 1 MILLION PESOS (1,000,000.00) is now PRESCRIBED, thus, not anymore demandable. SO ORDERED.

4. That on March 4, 2019, the plaintiff-appelant filed a motion for reconsideration of the following tenor:

This motion for reconsideration respectfully submits that the Honorable Court ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF JOSEPH STALIN AGAINST THE ESTATE OF ADOLF HITLER because the contract of loan, as evidenced by a promissory note did not reveal the true intention of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

5. That on March 8, 2019, the court issued an order denying said motion for reconsideration; 6. That on March 10, 2019, the plaintiff-appellant received notice of the said order denying his motion for reconsideration, and on March 14, 2019 filed his Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals as follows: 243

PLAINTIFF by the undersigned counsel, hereby files a notice of appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in the aboveentitled case, dated on March 3, 2019, a copy of which was received by counsel on March 4, 2019, and appeals the same to the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff-appellant prays for the approval of this Record on Appeal and that the same be transferred to the Court of Appeals, together with all the oral and documentary evidence given and presented at the trial of the above-entitled case.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto to set my hand at Barangay Poblacion, Santander, Cebu, Philippines, this 14th day of March, 2019.

SGD: JOSEPH STALIN

244

VI. Appeals Petition for Review on Certiorari

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

LOVELY LIM, Petitioner, vs. ARLYN SANCHEZ, Respondent. x--------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

PETITIONER in the above-entitled case, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers: 1. That the petitioner is LOVELY LIM ; that the respondent is ARLYN SANCHEZ; 2. That the following, in brief, are facts of this: SUMMARY STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The respondent engaged in a buy and sell business dealing with different kinds of jewelries; 2. That the abovementioned petitioner is one of the agent in the jewelry business of the respondent; 3. That on July 22, 2017 the petitioner was allowed to act as an agent of the respondent and owed jewelries worth 10,000.00; 4. The Respondent then issued receipt signed by Maureen corresponding to the jewelries of which the petitioner owed herein marked as exhibit A and the signature of Maureen, daughter of the Respondent herein marked as exhibit A-1;

245

5. That the respondent only made a demand of payment from the petitioner verbally after the latter failed to pay, and that pushed the respondent to file a case of ESTAFA against the petitioner; and 6. That the business requirements of the respondent which are the Mayor’s Permit, hereinafter marked as Exhibit B, The BIR Tax Declaration marked as Exhibit C and DTI Permit as Exhibit D. 3. Aggrieved, petitioner comes directly before the Court in this petition for review on certiorari with the following assignment of errors: I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, BRANCH 10, GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

II. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, BRANCH 10, GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA.

III. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, BRANCH 10, GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR NEW TRIAL FILED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 4. That there are special and important reasons consisting mainly of questions of law justifying a review by this Honorable Supreme Court of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (or Regional Trial Court, Etc., as the case may be). Among said reasons are the following:

REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF WRIT

5. Here raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set, Forth. It is a well-settled rule that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.

246

This Court has, on many occasions, distinguished between a question of law and a question of fact. We held that when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, then it is a question of law; but when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, then it is a question of fact. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn there from is correct, is a question of law. To elucidate further, this Court, in Hko Ah Pao v. Ting said:

One test to determine if there exists a question of fact or law in a given case is whether the Court can resolve the issue that was raised without having to review or evaluate the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it will be a question of fact. Thus, the petition must not involve the calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented. In addition, the facts of the case must be undisputed, and the only issue that should be left for the Court to decide is whether or not the conclusion drawn by the CA from a certain set of facts was appropriate 6. That attached to this petition is certified copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals ( or RTC, etc., as the case may be) herein sought to be reviewed, marked “Annex C,” together with twenty (20) printed copies of the record of appeal.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this petition for on writ of certiorari be granted. Signed this 15th day of March 2019 at Cebu City Philippines.

ATTY, MARY GRACE REQUINTO Roll No. 51379-2008 IBP No. 808787-3/24/18 PTR No. 4128464- 3/24/18; Cebu City MCLE Compliance III No. 0043609 Issued on April 22, 2018

247

VI. Appeals Appellant’s Brief

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Makati

FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus

Civil Case No. 12346 For: DAMAGES

DSR-SENATOR LINES and C.F. SHARP AND COMPANY, INC. Defendant-Appellant, x----------------------------------------------------------x

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Defendant-Appellants, DSR-SENATOR LINES andC.F. SHARP AND COMPANY, INC (CF Sharp), by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully submit that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On March 11, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellee, FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (Federal Phoenix) filed with the RTC a 248

complaint for damages against Defendant-Appellants DSR-Senator Lines and CF Sharp.

2.Subsequently on August 22, 1995, the RTC ruled in favor of PlaintiffAppellee, the dispositive part of which states: “WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. The Defendant DSR-Senator Lines and CF Sharp and all persons claiming rights under him are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the following:

1.

The sum of P941,429.61 on the basis of the subrogation receipt issued in favor of the plaintiff for actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs occasioned by the loss of the cargo; and

2. The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit. SO ORDERED.”

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 3. Berde Plants, Inc. (Berde Plants) delivered 632 units of artificial trees to Defendant-Appellants, C.F. Sharp and Company, Inc (CF Sharp) and DSRSenator Lines. It was agreed that Defendant-Appellant would deliver the artificial trees to the consignee, Al-Mohr International Group, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4.Plaintiff-Appellee, Federal Phoenix Assurance Company, Inc. (Federal Phoenix) insured the cargo against all risks in the amount of P941,429.61. 5. On June 7, 1993, M/S "Arabian Senator" left the Manila South Harbor for Saudi Arabia with the cargo on board. When the vessel arrived in Khor Fakkan Port, the cargo was reloaded on board DSR- Senator Lines’ feeder vessel, M/V "Kapitan Sakharov," bound for Port Dammam, Saudi Arabia. However, while in transit, the vessel and all its cargo caught fire.

249

6. On July 5, 1993, Defendant-Appellant DSR-Senator Lines informed Berde Plants that M/V "Kapitan Sakharov" with its cargo was gutted by fire and sank. On December 16, 1993, Defendant-Appellant CF Sharp issued a certification to that effect. 7. Consequently, Plaintiff-Appellee Federal Phoenix paid Berde Plants P941,429.61 corresponding to the amount of insurance for the cargo. In turn Berde Plants executed in its favor a "Subrogation Receipt" dated Jan. 17, 1994. 8. On Feb 8, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellee sent a letter to Defendant-Appellant demanding payment of P941,429.61 on the basis of the Subrogation Receipt. Defendant-Appellant denied any liability on the ground that such liability was extinguished when the vessel carrying the cargo was gutted by fire. 9. Thus, on March 11, 1994, Plaintiff-Appellee filed with the RTC a complaint for damages against Defendant-Appellants DSR-Senator Lines and CF Sharp.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

10. The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain defendant-appellant’s defense in light of the provisions found in law.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

11. The issue in the case at bar is whether defendant-appellant should be held liable for the loss of the cargo resulting from the fire that gutted and sank the ship during the voyage.

ARGUMENT

12. The Honorable Court erred in failing to appreciate and sustain Defendant-Appellant’s defense that under the New Civil Code provision on Common Carriers [1734], common carriers are not responsible for the loss,

250

destruction or deterioration of the goods when the same is caused by a natural disaster or calamity.

13. Article 1734of the Civil Code provides that: “Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

(1)Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity xxx”1

14. Thus, it can be seen from the provision of the law on common carriers that the common carrier cannot be held responsible for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods as a result of other natural disasters or calamity. Corollary to this is that the common carrier cannot be held liable for any fortuitous event causing the loss of the cargo.

15. Article 1174 of the Civil Code defines a fortuitous event: “Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)”2

16. Thus, the requirements in order that an occurrence may be classified as a fortuitous event is that it must be an event which could not be foreseen or which, though, foreseen, was inevitable.

17. Furthermore, Article 1680 of the Civil Code provides that: “xxx 1

An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Republic Act No. 386, art. 1734 (1950). 2

CIVIL CODE, art. 1174.

251

Extraordinary fortuitous events are understood to be: fire, war, pestilence, unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or others which are uncommon, and which the contracting parties could not have reasonably foreseen.”3

18. The law is therefore clear that a fire is one instance that can be considered a fortuitous event.

19. In the case at bar, there was absolutely no way that defendant-appellant could have anticipated or prepared for such a disastrous fire which gutted the ship and destroyed the cargo along with the ship. There was also no way the defendant-appellant could have foreseen the fire since it diligently inspected all the cargo and the ship before setting sail at sea. The fire was nowhere within the ambit of control of the defendant-appellee and thus it was error for the Honorable Court to adjudge the defendant-appellee liable for damages which it did not cause and could not have controlled or prevented.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court that the Decision dated 22 August 1995 of the lower court be REVERSED with costs against the appellee.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 27 August 1995.

Atty. Lebene Marie G. Santiago Counsel for Defendant-Appellant

Copy Furnished:

Hon. Judge Mickey Mouse Regional Trial Court Branch 38 3

CIVIL CODE, art. 1680.

252

Makati

Atty. Brian Sabalo Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee

Unit 203aN Joya Lofts & Towers Rockwell Drive, Makati City VI. Appeals Appellee’s Brief

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -versusCA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05779 ROMEO ALDUEZA y DUBLAS Accused-Appellant. x---------------------------------------------x BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant Romeo Aldueza y Dublas (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch 12, Lipa City, along with Guillermo Aldueza y Dimaandal, with the crime of Murder in an Information which reads: “That on or about the 30th day of March 2008 at about 6:30 o’clock in the evening , at Tenyente C. Pesa St. Purok 5B, Brgy. Talisay, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused while armed with a gun, conspiring, and confederating, and mutually aiding each other, with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and willfully, 253

unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the use of said gun and suddenly and without warning, one Joey Mayor y Banduhan thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wound abdomen (sic) which directly caused his death. Contrary to Law.” When arraigned, the appellant pleaded “NOT GUILTY”. On August 1, 2012, after trial on the merits, the trial court convicted appellant of the crime of Murder in a decision, to wit; “WHEREFORE, FINDING ACCUSED Romeo Aldueza y Dublas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as a co-conspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused Romeo Aldueza is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Joey Mayor the amount of P39, 124.60 as actual damages representing burial expenses and the amount of P75, 000.00 for the death of Joey Mayor. The period of his detention shall be credited in the service of his sentence. SO ORDERED.” Appellant now challenges the aforequoted decision of the trial court raising the following grounds: I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND ABUSE OF STRENGTH ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. (Appellant’s Brief, 20 March 2013, page 1). COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS On the night of March 30, 2008, at around 6: 30 pm, the celebration for the graduation of Benjamin Aldueza’s daughter was in full swing. Seated in a table located between the houses of Benjamin Aldueza and Cesar Aldueza and having a drinking spree are the appellant, Joey Mayor 254

(hereinafter referref to as the victim), Eddie Olave and four to five other persons (TSN, 6 August 2009, pp. 4-5).Eddie Olave testified that during the drinking session, an altercation broke out between the appellant and the victim when the latter broke a glass. The altercation degenerated into a fistfight between the appellant and the victim which Olave and the others seated in the table were able to pacify. After the commotion, the appellant and the victim returned to their respective seats Olave then noticed that the appellant is no longer seated with them at the table and that the latter went to his cousin Guillermo Aldueza’s house located nearby.The appellant stayed there for two (2) minutes. The appellant thereafter returned to the table with Guillermo Aldueza, the co-accused in this case Guillermo suddenly pulled out a revolver and shot the victim twice. The first bullet hit the victim in the stomach which caused him to fall down from his seat while the second bullet hit him on the left shoulder. The appellant, who was standing right beside Guillermo the whole time, did not do anything. Immediately after the shooting, Guillermo and the appellant disappeared from the scene. The victim managed to walk for three (3) meters towards a pathway but eventually fell down. He was taken to a hospital where eventually he expired. ARGUMENTS I ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MURDER WERE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION. II THE APPELLANT’S PARTICIPATION AS CO-CONSPIRATOR TO THE OFFENSE WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED. III THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CITED BY THE RTC SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED.

IS THE

IV THE QUALIFYING CICUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.

255

DISCUSSION All the elements of murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. x-----------------------------------x The case of People v Dela Cruz enumerates the elements of murder, thus; 1. That a person was killed. 2. That the accused killed him. 3. That the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248. 4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide. The qualifying circumstances for Penal Code (RPC) are as follows;

murder under

of

the

the Revised

Art. 248.Murder—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5. With evident premeditation. 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

256

All the elements of murder were successfully proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The killing of Joey Mayor by appellant’s co-accused Guillermo Aldueza as well as the appellant’s participation as conspirator was sufficiently established by the testimony of prosecution witness Eddie Olave, to wit; Q: On that drinking session at the house of the Alduezas which according to you was owned by a certain Benjamin, was there any unusual incident that happened? A: There was ma’am. Q: And what is this incident Mr. Witness? A: A glass was broken and Romeo and Joey had an altercation because of the broken glass, ma’am. Q: You are referring to whom? A: Joey, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx Q: You made mentioned that because of the breaking of the glass, Joey and Romeo had an altercation, how did you know? A: Because we were beside each other, ma’am. Q: What happened after the glass was broken? What did Romeo Aldueza do if he did any? A: They have a fistfight, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx Q: After the fistfight both Romeo and Joey joined the same table where they were drinking prior to the incident? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: Until when did the drinking session lasted? A: For a long time ma’am until Romy disappeared. Q: What do you mean Romy disappeared? A: He disappeared from the drinking session until after sometime he went back with another person, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx Q: Who was this person with whom Romy came back in the place where you were drinking? A: Guillermo, ma’am.

257

Q: And what is the family name of Guillermo? A: Aldueza, ma’am. Q: Is this the same person who was the co-accused of Romeo Aldueza in this case? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: So what happened when the two came back to where you were drinking? A: I was surprised when Gullermo pulled out a gun, ma’am. Q: From where did he pull out the gun? A: From his waist, ma’am. Q: And what happened after he pulled out the gun from his waist? A: He shot Joey, sir. Q: And do you still recall where the shot landed on the body of...did it hit Joey? A: Yes, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx Q: And do you still recall how many shots was made by Guillermo Aldueza? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: How many? A: Two, ma’am. Q: And the two gun shots both landed in the body of Joey Mayor? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: When Romeo Aldueza and Guillermo Aldueza arrived at the place where you were drinking, did you here Romeo and Guillermo say anything? A: None, ma’am. Q: So when the gun was fired on Joey Mayor where was Romeo then? A: They were together, ma’am. Q: What was he doing then? A: None, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx

258

Q: And when Joey run towards the pathway, do you still recall where Romeo and Gullermo were? A: They both disappeared, ma’am. xxx xxx xxx Q: By the way, this Romeo Aldueza disappeared from the place where you have your drinking session and when he returned he was with Guillermo Aldueza already, how long was Romeo Aldueza absent from that drinking session before he returned with Guillermo Aldueza? A: Just for a while, Your Honor. Q: In terms of seconds and minutes, how long was that? A: Maybe about two (2) minutes, Your Honor. Q: Do you know the house of Guillermo Aldueza? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: How far was the house of Gulklermo from the place where you have your drinking session? A: About two (2) arm stretches, Your Honor. xxx xxx xxx Q: After the first shot was fired, did you notice Romy beside Guillermo? A: Yes, ma’am. Q: And when your attention was caught by Romy, did you s ee him do anything to stop Guillermo from firing another shot? A: No, ma’am. The testimony of Olave, who was in a position to observe the events which led to the killing of the victim, sufficiently established the manner by which the offense was carried out and the respective participations of the appellant and his co-accused Guillermo. Such facts constitute the elements of the crime of murder. The appellant’s participation as co-conspirator to the offense was sufficiently established. x-----------------------------------x Anent the finding of conspiracy, the People sustains the decision of the RTC, thus;

259

“The Court believes that conspiracy exists as shown by the following circumstances: 1. Joey Mayor and Romeo Aldueza engaged in a fist fight when Joey Mayor accidentally broke a glass. 2. Although they were pacified, and both returned to the drinking session, Romeo left the place and entered the house of Guillermo. 3. After two (2) minutes, Guillermo emerged from his house with Romeo following him. 4. The two directly proceeded to the table were Joey was seated 5. Without uttering any word, Guillermo pulled out a gun and fired two (2) successive shots at the unsuspecting victim. 6. All the time, Romeo was beside Guillermo. Romeo could have prevented the latter from firing at the victim but he did nothing. 7. Guillermo has motive to shoot at the victim. 8. Guillermo and Romeo are first cousins as their fathers are brothers. From these circumstances there can be no other conclusion to arrive at except that Guillermo would not have shot Joey Mayor if not for Romeo having fetched him from his house to do the dastardly act. Conspiracy therefore exists between the two accused hence the act of one is the act of all. Although it was only Guillermo Aldueza who fired the fatal shots on Joey Mayor, Romeo Aldueza being a co-conspirator is also liable for the death of the victim.” The circumstances cited by the RTC clearly show the oneness of purpose which characterized the acts of appellant and his co-accused Guillermo in killing the victim which is the very foundation for the finding of conspiracy. The effects of conspiracy were discussed by the Supreme Court (SC) as follows: “For indeed, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment that not all the accused took part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime. Each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in the furtherance of the conspiracy.” (People v Hasan et al., 199 SCRA 421, [1999], citing the case of People v Obando).

260

With the aforementioned rule, the fact that it was not appellant who pulled the trigger of the gun which killed the victim is no longer relevant. This is because as co-conspirator of Guillermo, the actual shooter in this case, the appellant is criminally liable for the acts of Guillermo . The circumstantial evidence cited by the RTC is sufficient to establish appellant’s liability for the offense charged. x-----------------------------------x The appellant, however, is of the argument that the circumstances cited by the RTC were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued as follows: “The record shows that the initial investigation of the police at the scene of the crime reveals that Joey and Guillermo had a fistfight; that the latter fatally shot the former; and that Guillermo alone was implicated in the killing of Joey on March 30, 2008. In fact, it was only on April 9, 2008,that Eddie Olave gave a statement to the police that accused-appellant had a fistfight with the Joey prior to the latter’s shooting by Guillermo. He further stated that Romeo went inside the house of Guillermo and both of them came out after two (2) minutes. Thereupon, Guillermo shot Joey causing the latter’s death and that accusedappellant did not do anything and both of them disappeared. After Olave gave his statement, the police did not conduct any further investigation. Thus, the police were not even able to reconcile the conflicting accounts of the persons they interviewed. Hence, the testimony of Olave does not deserve full faith and credence. xxx xxx xxx In the present case, Olave testified that accused-appellant entered the house of Guillermo and came out after two (2) minutes. It was, however, established that there were many people inside the house at that time, since it was the graduation party of accused-appellant’s niece. It is, therefore, possible that the accused-appellant merely talked with the visitors or relived himself during the two (2) minute period. Thus, it is speculative for the trial court to infer that accused-appellant and Guillermo planned the killing of Joey in that short span of time. Besides, there was no witness who testified as having seen accused-appellant

261

talked with Guillermo while they were inside the muchless, conceive, plan and deliberate on how tokill Joey.

house,

Speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account.” The arguments of the appellant fail to persuade. The rules on evidence provide the basis for conviction by way of circumstantial evidence, thus; Rule 133, SEC. 4.Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.— Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In People v Pajares, the SC further explained the rule as follows; “For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In other words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.” It is therefore clear from the foregoing that it is the totality of the circumstances which should be taken into account in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in order to sustain a ruling of conviction. In this case, such circumstances were provided for by the prosecution witness Eddie Olave who personally witnessed the events leading to and the actual killing of Joey Mayor. The appellant’s arguments attack the sufficiency of Olave’s testimony. The appreciation of Olave’s testimonial evidence lies, however, with the sound discretion of the RTC. In the case of Magdiwang Realty Corporation et al. v The Manila Banking Corporation, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-entrenched jurisprudential rule, to wit; “The settled rule is that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial 262

court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.” The appellant was not able to overturn the key facts established by Olave through his testimony who withstood the rigors of trial and cross examination of the opposing counsel. As regards the fact that the initial investigation only pointed to Guillermo as the initial suspect, the People sustains the findings of the RTC, to wit; “According to PO2 Jonathan Recto, who as earlier pointed out was the only policeman who gave a substantial piece of testimonial evidence to bolster the denial of the accused, he initially believed the people he interviewed at the crime scene that Romeo Aldueza has nothing to do with the killing of Joey Mayor but his position was reversed when follow up investigation conducted by the intelligence operatives of the Lipa City Police Station unearthed information that the verbal altercation and his fist fight transpired between Romeo and Joey and not between Guillermo and Joey as he earlier gathered from witnesses. Not only this, PO2 Recto cannot have possibly verified and counterchecked on the veracity of the informations he earlier gathered because he did not note down the names of the victims he interviewed and these witnesses failed to give their written statements. Moreover, the reliance of the accused on the entry in the police blotter that he has no participation in the killing of Joey and his name was not even mentioned in the blotter to bolster his denial cannot hold water. Such entries were supplied by the police investigators Recto and Silva, who changed their theory of the case later on after follow up investigation by other members of the Lipa City PNP.” Anent the appellant’s argument that the RTC merely speculated that the he and Guillermo talked when he momentarily left the drinking session, such fact only pertains to one of the circumstances relied upon by the RTC in convicting appellant. Again, all the other circumstances were established through the testimony of a direct observer in the person of Olave and it is the totality of such circumstances upon which the RTC founded its decision to convict the appellant. The other aforequoted circumstances, such as the fistfight between Joey and the appellant and the fact that the appellant simply stood beside 263

Guillermo when Guillermo shot Joey, are not based on speculation or surmises. The appellant, in the same line of reasoning, argued that conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the RTC should not have inferred conspiracy from the fact that the appellant did not do anything when Guillermo shot Joey (Appellant’s Brief, 20 March 2013, page 10-11). The argument also fails to persuade. The SC has laid down the rule in determining the existence of conspiracy in criminal cases, thus; “Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. By its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy. Hence, for collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime as only rarely would such agreement be demonstrable since, in the nature of things, criminal undertakings are rarely documented by agreements in writing. But the courts are not without resort in the determination of its presence. The existence of conspiracy may be inferred and proved through the acts of the accused, whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime point to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. In short, conduct may establish conspiracy. An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.” (People v Serrrano, 620 SCRA 327 [2010]). Conspiracy, therefore, can be inferred from the established facts of the case. The RTC, in ruling that the appellant conspired with Guillermo in killing Joey, did not rely solely on the fact that the appellant did not do anything when Guillermo shot Joey. The RTC also noted the fact that the appellant and Guillermo are cousins, that appellant and Joey had a fistfight, and that the appellant and Guillermo went to the table together after the appellant left the drinking session for two minutes

264

The qualifying circumstance of treachery was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution x-----------------------------------x Finally, the appellant argued that the RTC made an error in making a finding that treachery attended the killing of Joey Mayor thereby qualifying the offense into Murder The SC explains the qualifying circumstance of treachery as follows; “There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii) the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.” Again, the People sustains the ruling of the RTC on this matter, to wit; “The victim, Joey Mayor was shot at while seated on a chair fronting a table. He was not aware of the impending attack as shown by the fact that he and Romeo were pacified in their fist fight Joey Mayor returned to his seat to resume the drinking spree. He was therefore defenseless at that position.” In this case, the mental state of the victim, who was then already pacified and has resumed drinking, and the fact that the appellant left the table then immediately returned with his cousin Guillermo, then already carrying a gun show that the means employed by them was consciously adopted to ensure the killing of the victim. These circumstances qualify the act to the offense of murder. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that appellant’s appeal be denied for utter lack of merit and the court a quo’s Decision dated 1 August 2012, finding appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, be AFFIRMED, as co-conspirator of Guillermo Aldueza, the same being in accordance with the law and evidence. 265

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Manila, May 15, 2013. Atty. Reeman L. Sarillana Counsel for Appellee

Copy Furnished:

Hon. Judge Mickey Mouse Regional Trial Court Branch 38 Makati

Atty. Brian Sabalo Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee

Unit 203aN Joya Lofts & Towers Rockwell Drive, Makati City

266

VI. Appeals Petition for Review

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Cebu City ABELARDO BANUAG, Petitioner, CA-GR SP NO. 1-2015 -versusCLIFF CO, Respondent. /------------------------------------------------/

PETITION FOR REVIEW (Rule 42) PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a petition for review pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of Court of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Branch 8, entitled ABELARDO BANUAG vs. CLIFF CO, which affirmed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tacloban, in Civil Case No. 2013-11, dismissing petitioner's complaint for ejectment, on the ground that the RTC, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, committed in its decision no errors of law and of facts.

THE PARTIES

267

Petitioner is of legal age and is the plaintiff in said Civil Case No. 2013-11, MTCC BR. 20, Tacloban City, AND the appellant in said Civil Case No. 2014-12, RTC BR. 8, Tacloban City.

Respondent is also of legal age and is the defendant in Civil Case No. 2013-11, MTCC BR. 20, Tacloban City, and the appellee in Civil Case No. 2014-12, RTC Br. 8, Tacloban City. He may be served with legal process through his cousel, Atty. TMZ, with office address at S and A Building, Juan Luna St., Tacloban City.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

On November 20, 2015, petitioner received copy of the decision of the RTC BR. 8 of Tacloban City in Civil Case No. 2014-12. Certified true copy of said decision is attached hereto as ANNEX "A".

On November 24, 2015, petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of said decision, copy of which motion for reconsideration is attached hereto as ANNEX "B".

On November 28, 2015, petitioner received a copy of the order of the trial court denying said motion for reconsideration. Certified true copy of said order is attached hereto as ANNEX "C".

Within the 15-day period from receipt of said order marked as ANNEX "C", petitioner is filing the instant petition for review with the Court of Appeals, as shown from the face of said petition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED 268

The factual background and proceedings are as follows: 1. Sometime on July 16, 2012, respondent leased a townhouse from petitioner for a period of seven months (7) commencing on June 1, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2012 with a monthly rental rate of ten thousand pesos (PHP 10,000.00) to be paid every 10th day of each month commencing June 2012. The contract of lease is herein attached as ANNEX "C-1"; 2. On November 10, 2012, herein respondent failed to pay his monthly obligations. A demand letter dated November 14, 2012 was made by petitioner to demand payment of the same which was personally received by herein respondent. The same is herein attached as ANNEX "D"; 3. Despite said demand letter, respondent failed to pay the rental rate. On November 20, 2012, a second demand letter was executed by herein petitioner which was received personally by respondent on the same date, said demand letter is herein attached as ANNEX "E"; 4. The second demand letter was not heeded by respondent, as the rental rate for November 2012 remained unpaid; 5. On December 13, 2012, a third demand letter was executed by herein petitioner demanding payment for the rental rates for November and December 2012 in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (PHP 20,000.00), which demand letter is herein attached as ANNEX "F"; 6. Despite repeated demands, both verbal and written, respondent failed and continues to fail to settle his obligations to herein petitioner, to the prejudice of the latter; 7. On January 15, 2013, Petitioner filed an ejectment case against the respondent before the MTCC Br. 20, Tacloban City and was docketed as Civil Case No. 2013-11, herein attached as ANNEX "G"; 8. On September 7, 2013, the MTCC Br. 20 released a judgment ruling in favor of respondent, which decision is herein attached as ANNEX "H"; 9. On September 20, 2013, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, herein attached as ANNEX "I";

269

10. On December 28, 2013, petitioner received the order of the MTCC Br. 20 of Tacloban City denying the motion for reconsideration, herein attached as ANNEX "J"; 11. On January 15, 2014, petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 40 of the 1998 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure to the RTC Br. 8, Tacloban City and was docketed as Civil Case No. 2014-12, which appeal is herein attached as ANNEX "K"; 12. On March 4, 2014, the RTC Br. 8, Tacloban City released an order affirming in toto the decision of the lower court, which order is herein attached as ANNEX "L"; 13. On March 15, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration for the order released March 4, 2014, which motion is herein attached as ANNEX "M"; 14. On April 8, 2014, the RTC BR. 8, Tacloban City denied the motion for reconsideration citing regularity in the performance of the duties of the lower court and finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court, which order is herein attached as ANNEX "N"; 15. On April 23, 2014, herein petitioner filed this instant petition for review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

ISSUES RAISED 1. Whether or not a valid lease contract was executed. 2. Whether or not respondent failed to tender payment for November and December 2012. 3. Whether or not ejectment as against respondent is warranted.

ERRORS COMMITTED BY TRIAL COURT I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MTCC OF TACLOBAN CITY AS IT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT PETITIONER WAS IN FACT IN BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OF LEASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY TWO MONTHS WORTH OF LEASE AS WELL AS FAILURE TO VACATE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID LEASE CONTRACT. 270

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IGNORED THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT IN FACT AND INDEED, SIGNED VALIDLY, WITHOUT FORCE OR INTIMIDATION, THE CONTRACT OF LEASE. III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT GIVE COGNIZANCE TO THE DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS PRESENTED BY PETITIONER CLEARLY SHOWING THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO.

GROUNDS OR REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

1. The appeal should be granted as it was filed within the reglementary period of 15 days. 2. The appeal should be granted as there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to the petitioner. 3. The appeal should be granted as substantial injustice was committed against the rights of the plaintiff, which rights were ignored by the trial court. 4. The appeal should be granted as manifest violation of petitioner's rights to property were not protected.

DISCUSSION 1. On April 8, 2014, herein petitioner received the order to the Regional Trial Court, Br. 8 of Tacloban City denying the latter's motion for reconsideration with regards the order of the aforesaid court dated March 4, 201, on April 23, 2014 or 15 days after the receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. Being that the instant petition was filed within the parameters of Rule 42 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the same should be granted due course. 2. Despite diligent efforts made by petitioner to secure all the proper documents to support his interests and for the ejectment of respondent, the trial court ruled in favor of the latter, causing great prejudice to the rights of herein petitioner. Being that no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy is available, this petition was hereby availed of. 3. The respondent failed to pay the rents due for two months on the designated dates as agreed upon and signed by the respondent in the contract 271

of lease, and for failure of the respondent to vacate the premises even after the expiry of the period to occupy the same, a great injustice and injury was suffered by the petitioner. Income which the petitioner could have invested in other endeavors was not realized as respondent unjustly refused and continues to refuse payment of the same. 4. The petitioner's rights to his property were violated when the trial court ignored the substantial and overwhelming evidence against the respondent - contrary to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the petitioner and for the grant of the following: 1. That the petition be given due course; 2. That after due proceedings, judgment be rendered setting aside the questioned decision and ordering annexes "H" and "L" hereof be set aside and another one be rendered, holding respondent liable as follows: a. Copy reliefs made in the appeal to the RTC; b. Adjudging respondent liable for damages and attorney's fees in the total amount of fifty thousand pesos (PHP 50,000.00), PLUS costs. 3. Ordering the respondent to pay the petitioner the following sums: a. The amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱ 20,000), Philippine Currency, representing respondent's Outstanding Rental Balance, plus interest at the rate of two percent (2%) per month as stipulated in the Contract of Lease; 4. Petitioner likewise prays for other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the premises are similarly prayed for. Tacloban City, Philippines. 23rd April 2014.

ATTY. RAPHAEL AARON WILWAYCO Counsel for Plaintiff 272

Roll No. 111 IBP No. 111 – Lifetime PTR No. 11 - 1/2/14 Leyte MCLE Compliance IV No. 1234 Issued on January 12, 2013

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING I, AB, of legal age, after having been duly sworn, deposes and states that: 1. I am the petitioner in the above stated case; 2. I have caused the preparation of the said complaint for collection of sum of money with damages; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of the documents and records in my possession; 4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the any tribunal, agency or body; 5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending before any tribunal, agency or body; 6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed before any tribunal, agency or body, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

Executed this 23rd day of April, 2014 at Tacloban City, Leyte, Philippines. ABELARDO BANUAG Affiant T.I.N. 111-222-333, Tacloban City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 23rd day of April 2014, affiant exhibiting to me his Tax Identification Card as shown above below her name as competent evidence of his identity. 273

ATTY. RAPHAEL AARON WILWAYCO Counsel for Plaintiff Roll No. 111 IBP No. 111 – Lifetime PTR No. 11 - 1/2/14 Leyte MCLE Compliance IV No. 1234 Issued on January 12, 2013

Doc. No. 81; Page No. 226; Book No. III; Series of 2019. Copy furnished:

Clerk of Court RTC BR. 8, Tacloban City Date of Receipt: ______________________ Signature: __________________________ Atty. TMZ Counsel for Respondent S and A Building, Juan Luna St. Tacloban City

Date of Receipt:___________________ Signature:_____________________

274

VII. Pleadings: Criminal Actions Criminal Complaint

Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice Office of the City Prosecutor Cebu

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff,

- versus -

CRIMINAL CASE N0. 23458 FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE

JULIO JOSE 234 Asuncio Street, Labangon, Cebu Accused. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

The undersigned accuses Julio Jose of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, committed as follows: That on or about July 9, 2012, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct, take and carry away the undersigned complainant while coming out of a toilet in her home at 113 Magsaysay, Labango, in said City, by means of force, violence and intimidation to wit: by pulling her and forcing her to walk, at the same time pointing at her a gun and threatening to kill her should she cry out for help, succeeded in bringing her to ride in his car, where they rode going to the house of the accused’s Uncle Sam where the said accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will. 275

Contrary to law.

KATERINA MONTENEGRO Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th day of March 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, by Katerina Montenegro, the complainant.

KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA Assistant Prosecutor

I hereby certify that an ex-parte investigation in this case has been conducted by me in accordance with law; that there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged has been committed; and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

Cebu, March 19, 2019.

KRISLEEN A. ABRENICA Assistant Prosecutor

WITNESSES:

1. Katerina Montenegro, 113 Magsaysay St., Labangon, Cebu. 2. Det. Roger Salas, and Det. Arturo Santos, both of DB Detachment 3, MPF

276

3. Dr. Lorenzo Clarion, Medico Legal Div., MPF

4. Nathaniel Montenegro, 113 Magsaysay St., Labangon, Cebu.

BAIL RECOMMENDED: THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) ONLY.

277

VII. Pleadings: Criminal Actions Investigation Data Form

Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice National Prosecution service OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR _____________ __________________ INVESTIGATION DATA FORM To be accomplished by the Office DATE RECEIVED:

NPS DOCKET NO:

(Stamped and initialed): March 15, 2017 IV-03-IN -14__-1973_______ Time Received

:_12:00 PM_____________Assigned to: SAMUEL ADLAWAN__

Receiving Staff :__KATE SAYSON____________________________ Assigned :__March 15, 2019____________

Dated

To be accomplished by complainant/counsel/Law enforcer (used back portion if space is not sufficient) COMPLAINANT/S: Name, Sex, Age & RESPONDENT/S: Name, Sex, Age & Address Address _______Joseph Cabaluna____________ ________Benhur Laput____________ _______Male_________________ ________Male_________________________ _______37____ _____ 26 ______ Pardo City___________ ________Minglanilla, Cebu___________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ LAW/S VIOLATED: ________Physical injury_____________

WITNESS/ES Name & Address ____________Peter John Villasencio__________ _______________________________________ ____________Pardo Cebu_____________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________________________________ DATE & TIME of COMMISSION _________March 12, 2019___________ ___________11:00 AM _________________________

PLACE OF COMMISSION ____Pardo Public Market_______________ ____________________________________

1. Has a similar complaint been filed before any office? YES___ NO___ 2. Is this complaint in the nature of counter-charged? YES___ NO___

278

3. Is this complaint related to another cases before this office? YES___ NO___ if yes, indicate details below.

I.S. NO.__________________________ Handling Prosecutor:__________________________

CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY under oath, that all the information on this sheet are true and correct to the best of knowledge and belief, that I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, quasi-judicial agency, and that if I should thereafter learn that a similar criminal action has be filed and/or is pending, I shall report that fact to this Honorable Office within (5) days from knowledge thereof.

________Joseph Cabaluna______ (Signature over Printed Name)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _15th____ day of _____________March__________, 2019 in_____Cebu City___________.

_Samuel G. Adlawan, Jr_ (Prosecutor Administering Oath) *1,2,3, and Certification need not be accomplished for inquest cases.

279

VII. Pleadings: Criminal Actions Information

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Branch 3 Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 08282 NPS NO.X-06-INV-010A-0037

-VersusFor: ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT JOHN DOE, Accused, /------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ INFORMATION The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II accuses John Doe of the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document, defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows: That on October 31, 2019 in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, accused John Doe [hereinafter “Accused”] misrepresenting herself to be Doña Añiqa MacarambonBacsarpa, applied for a loan with South Bank in the amount of PhP 5,000,000.00. A parcel of land located at Lahug, Cebu City, covered by Certificate of Title No. T178439, in the name of Don Mario Bacsarpa married to Doña Añiqa Macarambon-Bacsarpa was then offered by the accused as collateral. The accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously falsify the deed of real estate mortgage and the promissory note corresponding to the said loan by forging their signatures when in truth and in fact they did not so participate, to the damage and prejudice of the complaining bank and the 280

Spouses Bacsarpas in the aforesaid sum of PhP 5,000,000.00. Contrary to law. Cebu City, March 15, 2019 AZRIFA A. MAMUTUK Associate Prosecution Attoryney II Approved: JAN N. PEREZ City Prosecutor

BAILBOND REOCMMENDED: PHP 100,000.00 WITNESSES: 1. Vincy Jane A. Polinar – c/o South Bank, Cebu City 2. And others.

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that as shown by the records the undersigned, an authorized officer, that there is a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against her and was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

AZRIFA A. MAMUTUK Associate Prosecution Attorney II SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this July 19, 2010 in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines.

281

VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings Motion to Quash

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 1, Manila PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus-

Crim Case No.

12345 Brigx Benteotso Violation of City Ordinance Defendant, x------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH COMES NOW the Accused, through counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully move to quash the information filed by Fiscal of Manila on the ground that: THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE CASE.

ARGUMENTS City Ordinance No. 5 imposes a maximum penalty of six (6) months imprisonment and p1,000.00 fine which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of Manila. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction over the instant case. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information be quashed and the Accused be released immediately from detention.

Manila, 29 November 2013

FAITH AGWAYAS Counsel for the Accused BP No. 81121: 11/21/2013: Manila PTR No. 12345: 11/21/2013: Manila Roll of Attorney No. 11111 282

NOTICE OF HEARING The Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 1 Please set foregoing Motion to Quash for hearing on Friday, December 2 2013 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon as counsel may be heard.

CANDY YU Counsel for the Accused BP No. 2222: 11/21/2013: Manila PTR No. 12345: 11/21/2013: Manila Roll of Attorney No. 2222

Copy furnished: (3 days before hearing) City Prosecutor City Hall, Manila

283

VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings Motion for New Trial

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL State of Philippines 123 Municipality of Carcar PHILIPPINES

Case Number STATE OF In the Regional

Trial Court v.

of Cebu City

Ramon Dakit Defendant Defendant moves the court to set aside the verdict and to grant him a new trial for the following reasons: [ ] The verdict is contrary to law; and/or [ ] The verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence; and/or [ ] Defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.

Reasons the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial may be: The Court erred in sustaining objections to questions addressed to a witness. The Court erred in admitting testimony of the witness. The Court erred in charging the jury and in refusing to charge the jury as requested.

Date:March 16,2019

ATTY. JOY ALMARIE D.ALAD-AD ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT Mambaling, Cebu City

284

VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings Notice of Appeal

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Seventh Judicial Region Branch 45 Oslob, Cebu

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus-

Crim. Case No. 4344 For: Murder

JUAN DE LA CRUZ, Accused. x--------------------------------------/

NOTICE OF APPEAL

DEFENDANT by the undersigned counsel, hereby files a notice of appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in the above-entitled case, dated 26 February 2019, a copy of which was received by counsel on 15 March 2019, and appeals the same to the Court of Appeals.

Cebu City, 20 March 2019.

Counsel for the Accused Cebu City

285

VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings Petition for Bail

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Quezon City, Branch 39

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 00567 - versus -

For: Rape

NAKA PIIT, Accused. x ------------------------------------------ x

MOTION FOR BAIL

THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves to be allowed bail on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence of his guilt is not strong. In support, he respectfully submits the following: 1. The Information alleges that he raped the private complainant on 25 December 2019 at his residence in Quezon City. The prosecution’s own evidence, however, belies this allegation as: (a) the medical certificate (attached as ANNEX A to the Information) states that private complainant is in a virgin state with no physical and outward signs of trauma; (b) the medical certificate issued by the NBI doctor (attached as ANNEX B to the Information) after a physical examination of the accused, two (2) days after the alleged rape, shows that he is suffering from erectile dysfunction and has been so afflicted for close to five (5) years now and (c) the sworn statements of the private complainant conflict with and contradict each other such that her credibility must be placed in doubt. 2. For these reasons, there is no basis to conclude that the accused raped the private complainant as there is less than circumstantial evidence of this fact. He is, thus, entitled to bail as a matter of right. 286

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused be granted: (1) a bail hearing, during which the prosecution should be directed to present its evidence to show the strength of its evidence of the accused’s guilt, and (2) thereafter, grant the accused reasonable bail.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Quezon City; 15 March 2019. Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador Counsel for the Accused Quezon City REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) QUEZON CITY) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, NAKA PIIT, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, and resident of Quezon City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the accused-applicant in the above-entitled case; 2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing application for probation and have read the allegations contained therein; 3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my own knowledge and authentic records; 4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding 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; 5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency where the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed; 6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

287

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 15 day of March 2019, Quezon City. th

NAKA PIIT Accused-Applicant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day ofMarch, 2019, in the City of Quezon, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 12345 issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 8, 2019 at the City of Quezon.

Atty. Razzel M. Aplacador Notary Public Until 12-31-19 Roll No. 222222 IBP No. 15472; 6-15-15 PTR No. 12345; 6-23-15, Cebu City MCLE Compliance No. V – 11112; 8-14-18

REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Quezon City, Branch 39

MA’AM/SIR:

Greetings!

Please take notice that on March 22, 2019 at 8:30 in the morning or upon the approval of the Honorable Court the instant Petition shall be heard. 288

Thank you.

ATTY. RAZZEL APLACADOR Counsel for Defendant Laguna Street, Quezon City

Copy furnished through personal service:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Quezon City, Branch 39

289

VIII. Other Criminal Pleadings Application of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witness

APPLICATION FOR COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS

THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE OF A WITNESS IN A RAPE CASE

The Clerk of Regional Trial Court Mr. Kyle Kurver Sir, Please cause a subpoena to be issued to the following persons in order that they may appear to testify in behalf of the defendant in the trial of this case which shall takes place before this court on the 16th of March 2019 at 10:00AM

Stephen Curry Kyle Kuzma

A. Borbajo St., Talamban, Cebu City Lahug, Cebu City

Done this 16th day of March 2019

STEVE KERR Attorney for the Defendant

290