Opposition To The Motion To Dismiss Heirs Of Centeno & Lampa.docx

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Branch 14, Manila CARMELITA C. LAMPA-MALLARI BENJAMIN C. LAMPA ERLINDA C. LAMPA-ROSALES TERESITA C. LAMPA-PAMISA REMEDIOS C. LAMPA AURORA C. LAMPA-EDALA (HEIRS OF PACIFICA CENTENO & DOMINGO LAMPA), Petitioners, -versusSPEC PRO. NO. R-MNL-18-10306-SC For: Judicial Settlement of Estate of GERTRUDES R. CENTENO with Prayer for Partition LIWAYWAY C. LAMPA-CARAGDAG And GONDELINO C. CENTENO (As substitute Heir of JESUS CENTENO), Respondents. x------------------------------------------x PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, CARMELITA C. LAMPA-MALLARI ET AL.,assisted bythePublic Attorney’s Office through the undersigned Public Attorney, most respectfully states that: 1. On November 19, 2018, defendant through counsel filed a motion to dismiss based on the following grounds: a. The Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; b. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; c. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;

d. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. 2. Upon a thorough review of defendant’s averments, plaintiff respectfully submits that said Motion to Dismiss is bereft of merit. II. Discussion A. Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims 3. The defendant anchor her first ground that the assessed value is not alleged in the complaint. 4. In Esperanza Tumpag, substituted by her son, Pablito Tumpag Belnas Jr. vs Samuel Tumpag, G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014: Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party’s substantial right. In Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, we allowed the RTC to consider, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. In Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, et al.,we held that the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts.

The above ruling and facts is similar in the present case. The assessed value of the property is attached in the petition as Annex “A” and was included in the footnotes of the said petition. Thus, it was made an integral part of the pleading.

B. The Pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action 5. The defendant anchor her second ground that the petition did not show asking for issuance of letters of administration or for appointment of a judicial administrator over the decedent’s estate. 6. There is nothing under the rules of court or jurisprudence that would require that the initiatory pleading to commence a judicial settlement of estate is to file or ask for the issuance of letters of administration or for the appointment of a judicial administrator. Even if there is no such pleading filed, there is a special power of attorney attached in the petition authorizing one of the plaintiffs Teresita Lampa- Pamisa to transact any dealings, to represent and sign execute for in behalf of the plaintiffs in this case. 7. The third ground of the defendants is that the allegations does not contain of pending debts or obligations pertaining to the estate of the deceased. 8. Under section 1 of Rule 74: It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.

In this case, no creditor filed a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years from the time of the death of the decedent (Gertrudes Centeno’s) on May 7, 2013. Thus, there is no need to allege that there are pending debts or obligations of the estate of the deceased.

9. The fourth ground of the defendants is that the misunderstandings between the parties and that respondents are not good enough and compelling reason for the institution of judicial settlement of estate. 10.In the present case, there is a good reason for the judicial settlement of estate considering that the respondents in this case insists that there is a will given to Liwayway C. Lampa – Caragdag however upon verification in the National Archives of the Philippines, no last testament was filed before the said office and that there are instances that the respondents threaten to kill the plaintiffs. Attached hereto are the copy of the blotter and certification of the National Archives as Annex “A” and Annex “B”. 11.The fifth ground of the defendants is that there is another action pending between the same parties for exactly the same cause which constitutes forum shopping. 12.The ground relied by the defendants is misleading this honorable court considering that on July 24, 2018, the Regional Trial Court Branch 20 issued an order between the parties stating as follows: “As prayed for by the petitioner’s counsel , the instant case is deemed withdrawn, without prejudice.” Attached hereto is a copy of order of the Regional Trial Court Branch 20 of Manila as Annex “C”. 13.The sixth ground relied by the defendants is that the petition was prematurely filed since there was no certification to file action from the barangay where the parties actually resides and no earnest efforts between the parties who are siblings, towards a compromise which in violation of Article 151 of the Family Code.

14.The defendants ground should not be admitted. The parties went to the barangay for the possible settlement however, no settlement has been reached and both parties decided to bring the case in court. After the meeting at the barangay, the counsel for the respondents sent a letter to the plaintiffs concerning about the property left by Gertrudes Centeno. However, the respondents still insist in not settling the dispute.Attached hereto is the minutes between the parties before the barangay on October 18, 2016 as Annex “D” and the letter of Atty. Luch Rico Gempis, Jr. as Annex “E”. 15.As to the other ground relied by the defendants that respondent felt did not feel at ease when she was summoned by the Public Attorney’s Office where the latter act as a mediator. 16.Such allegation of the defendants is not true. The Public Attorney’s Office tried everything to settle the disputes between the parties but the defendant still insist to go to court. 17.The plaintiffs tried all the ways of amicably settling the case through the intervention of the barangay and Public Attorney’s Office but still the defendants does not want to settle the dispute. The plaintiffs in this case showed their “earnest efforts” to settle the dispute. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied and the case be set for trial.

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

February 4, 2019, Manila. Department of Justice PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Manila District Office th 4 Floor W. Godino Bldg. 350 Villegas Street Ermita, Manila

By:

KENNETH RAY A. ODAK Public Attorney II (Pursuant to R.A. No. 9406) IBP Lifetime Roll No. 017083 Roll Number 67742 MCLE Complicane No. VI - 0012831 NOTICE (and copy furnished to) RODRIGO BULATAO JR. CLERK OF COURT III THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 14 LUCH R. GEMPIS JR. Counsel for the Respondent Lampa-Caragdag No. 8 Stockholm St., Vista Real Classica Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City 1119 Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion shall be submitted for consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on February 14, 2019 at 8:30 in the morning. ATTY. KENNETH RAY A. ODAK