REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
LAOAG CITY, ILOCOS NORTE

FRANCESS ANNE MARIE GARRIDO

Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case no. 716

For: Unlawful
Detainer (Ejectment)
with damages

FRANZESS ANNE AUDCRIS RICARDO,

EILEEN JOY PASCUA, Spouses LORIE JOHN PAUL PASCUA 
And JENRIETTA CAMILLE RIVERA PASCUA 
And all other entities acting in collaboration with or
In their behalf
 
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------x

Stenography Notes of Pre-trial

March 10, 2021

CoC: All rise. The court is in session. Silence is enjoyed. Hon. Richard Balucio,
presiding.
(prayer)

Judge: Call the case

CoC: We call on Civil Case NO. 716 For Unlawful Detainer Frances Anne
Marie Garrido, Plaintiff versus Francezz Ann Audcris Ricardo,
Eileen Joy Pascua, Spouses Lorie John Paul Pascua, Jenrietta Camille Rivera-
Pascua, and all other persons and entities in collaboration with or
in their behalf.

Judge: Appearances

Atty. Annang: Atty. Marilyn Annang, Counsel for the plaintiff.

Atty. Castro: Atty. John Paul Castro for the plaintiff your Honor.

Atty. Alejandro: Atty. Gerry Alejandro sir for the plaintiff.

Atty. Calilao: Atty. Glenda Calilao sir for the plaintiff.

Atty. Mugas: Atty. John Michael Mugas appearing for the plaintiff.

Atty. Urnos: Atty. Urnos appearing for the plaintiff your Honor.

Atty. Torres: Atty. Torres appearing for the plaintiff your Honor.

Judge: How about for the defendant?

Atty. Garma: Atty. Cherry Garma, respectfully appearing for the defendant your Honor.

Atty. Oao: Atty. Ameera Oao respectfully appearing as collaborating counsel for the
defense, your Honor

Atty. Delos Reyes: Atty. Delos Reyes appearing for the defendant sir.

Atty. Pascua: Atty. Pascua appearing as collaborating counsel for the defendant.

Judge: We will now begin with the Pre-Trial of Preliminary Conference.

What is the offer of both parties?

Atty. Alejandro: We will give them a consideration, Sir so that they will leave the said
premises, Sir. My client Sir is willing to enter into settlement, Sir

Judge: So you will pay them something, so that they will leave the property?

Atty. Alejandro: Yes, Sir.

Judge: What can you say to that defendant?

Atty. Garma: For the defendant your Honor with all due respect, No, we are not willing
for an amicable settlement

Judge: Why are you not willing?

Atty. Garma: Because the reason for that they are alleging for the defendant to leave the
premises your Honor is unreasonable.

Judge: So you don't want to leave the premises in short?

Atty. Garma: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: What are you saying Atty. Alejandro?

Atty Alejandro: It is already a good offer for them, Sir

Judge: But according to them, leaving the premises is unreasonable. So, in short,
as long as this court, in accordance with the new rule has brought
to the parties whether they want to settle or not, that is enough for the
court. The court now rules that settlement cannot be done in this case.

Atty. Alejandro, briefly describe your case.

Atty. Alejandro: The Plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the property, Sir. The plaintiff
bought the property from the defendant way back September 15 or
16, 2020. While the plaintiff bought it, they already submit which is
done with notarized Deed of Sale Sir. Then with the Deed of Sale, they
submitted upon the BIR for the transfer of ownership for the
payment of the capital gains tax and the title now is on the process for the
issuance of the LRA sir.

Judge: Is that all Atty. Alejandro?

Atty. Alejandro: Yes Sir because upon the Plaintiff bought the said property all the
necessary documents was submitted to the LRA for their
registration for transfer, for the issuance of Transfer Certificate of
Title sir. The lRA also (inaudible) that all the submitted document
was legitimate documents, sir.

Judge: Did you demand?

Atty. Alejandro: Yes ,sir.

Judge: Did you go to the barangay?

Atty. Alejandro: Yes, sir. We will present in the evidences sir that we issued a demand
letter then there's a barangay certificate before filing to this court
sir

Judge: Let's hear the version of the defendants from |Atty. Pascua.

Atty. Pascua: Your Honor, on March 5, 2021, the plaintiff filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer, ejectment with damages against the defendant, the latter filed an
answer with special affirmative defenses and compulsory
counterclaim.

The defendants Sps. Lorie John Paul Pascua, Jenrietta Camille Rivera-
Pascua sold the original title of the lot no. 2021, located at Brgy.
24 Nuestra Senyora Laoag City, Ilocos Norte.

On December 10, 2020, the defendant received a letter from the plaintiff
demanding them to vacate the said lot alleging that the Deed of
Sale was instituted in favor of their name. However, defendants
claim that there was no valid sale that transpired between the
plaintiff and the defendant. As well as the documents appear to be
spurious, when the complainant alleges that there had been
undisturbed possession of the property, the defendant claims otherwise
due to the inconsistencies of the deeds and alleged Deed of Sale and tax
declaration certificate.

Further, the defendants submit that the claim unlawful detainer is with no
valid ground, thus, the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction
over the case. Defendants' compulsory counterclaim constitute the
following:

1. Dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for lack of cause of
action;
2. Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant, each to pay the sum of Php 50,000
as an award, exemplary damages;
3. Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant, the sum of Php 50,000 as an
award of
4. Order the plaintiff to pay the cost of suit;

Those documents presented containing Deed of Sale and the Tax

Declaration is inconsistent, your Honor. So, we are asking the
Honorable court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction your
Honor.

Judge: Why did you say that the court has no jurisdiction in this case?

Atty. Pascua: The defendant claims that there was no valid sale that transpired, as all
documents appear to be spurious when the complainant alleges that
there has been an undisturbed possession of the property your Honor.

Judge: So how was that related to the lack of jurisdiction by this court, that you
are talking about? At the first place, jurisdiction is conferred by
law under BP 129, cases for unlawful detainer are within the
jurisdiction of the first level courts.
Atty. Pascua: Your Honor, the plaintiff failed to state the necessary requisites of
unlawful detainer .

Judge: What are those that they failed to allege?

Atty.Pascua: Your Honor, that:

1) Initially the possession of the property by the defendant was contract

with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2) Eventually, such possession becomes illegal upon notice of plaintiff to
the defendant of the termination of the latter's right to possesssion;

Judge: That was not alleged in the complaint?

Atty. Pascua: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Is that correct, Atty. Alejandro? Anyone from the plaintiff?

Atty. Annang: No your Honor. We did not allege in the complaint that the possession of
the defendants of the subject property is merely tolerated. In fact
your Honor, there was a demand letter sent to the spouses and other
defendants stating that they should vacate the property upon demand.
In case of failure to do so, the plaintiff shall file the necessary
complaint in court your Honor.

Judge: Why do you say then that the court has no jurisdiction over the case?

Atty. Pascua: The other requisite was that, within 1 year from the last demand for
defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint

Judge: Is the demand not within 1 year? Is the complaint filed within 1 year from
the demand? When was the demand made?

Atty. Castro: It was made September of 2020 your Honor.

Judge: So it is within the reglamentary period for it to be qualified as an unlawful

detainer case. Why did you say then that this court has no
jurisdiction, Atty. Pascua? Okay, you cannot answer.

Now we go to the admitted facts. What are the admitted facts by the
plaintiff?

Atty. Castro: For the pre-trial brief, the plaintiff call for this Honorable court
respectfully alleges the following proposed facts for admission
your Honor:

1) That Plaintiff is now the owner of the property mentioned in the

complaint your Honor.

Atty. Garma: We deny your Honor on the ground that we lack personal knowledge of
that your Honor.

Judge: You ask your client, "Did you lack personal knowledge?"

Atty. Garma: May we ask our client, Sps. John Pauls Pascua and Jenrietta Pascua, who
is the lawful owner of the subject property?

Defendant Pascua: Your Honor, we have the original title of the lot no. 2019-0010032.

Judge: So, are you the owner Mr. Pascua?

Defendant Pascua: Yes your Honor.

Judge: Continue Atty. Castro.

Atty. Castro: 2) That the plaintiff was deprived of her ownership of the property
claimed to be owned by the defendants.

Atty. Delos Reyes: No your Honor.

Judge: You did not deprived the plaintiff of her ownership of the subject
property?

Atty. Delos Reyes: Yes your Honor. Our client did not deprived the plaintiff of ownership of
the land because there is no ownership to speak of by the plaintiff
herself your Honor. Because the lot is owned by the spouses as
evidenced by the original certificate of title.

Judge: So there was a title by the defendant, is that what you are saying Mr.
Alfonso? Not admitted?

Atty. Delos Reyes: Yes your Honor.

Judge: Next stipulation.

Atty. Castro: 3) That the same property was previously held in joint and common
possession by the defendants as well as the plaintiff. And upon
valid and legal conveyance by the spouses, the plaintiff now owns the
property and with the knowledge and consent of the other 2 defendants
your Honor.

Atty. Delos Reyes: No your Honor.

Atty. Castro: 4) That the continued possession of the defendants violate her right to
ownership your Honor.

Atty. Delos Reyes: Not admitted your Honor.

Atty. Castro: 5) That after the acquisition of the plaintiff of the subject property, the
possession of the defendants became illegal, and their continued
possession amounts to unlawful detainer which among the
cases of ejectment is under our laws your Honor.

Atty. Delos Reyes: Not admitted your Honor.

Atty. Castro: 6) That prior to the filing of the complaint, all earnest efforts for
compromise and amicable settlement was exerted your Honor.

Atty. Delos Reyes: We admit.

Atty. Castro: 7) That likewise prior to the demand to vacate, a demand was made to
vacate, 1 year period as required by law for the institution of the
present case as well as conciliation proceedings in the barangay
was availed of: also within the same period as specified under the
civil rules of procedure.

Atty. Delos Reyes: We admit your Honor.

Atty. Castro: 8) And lastly your Honor, that the defendants continue to unlawfully
possess the property to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff.

Atty. Oao: Not admitted your Honor.

Judge: How about the stipulations from the defendants for the admission of the
plaintiff?

Atty. Garma: For the defendant, we offer the following stipulations:

1) That the Regional Trial Court has original jurisdiction of the present
case.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 2) That there was no basis for the claim of unlawful detainer by the
plaintiff.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor. As stated awhile back, there is a Deed of Sale
to that effect your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 3)That the defendants are the original owner of the lo 2021, located at
Baranagay 24, Nuestra Senyora Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

Atty. Castro: Admitted your Honor. They are indeed WERE the original owner

Atty. Garma: 4) That the Deed of Sale and Documentary Tax Declaration were falsified
and illegally machinated documents. It has no legal basis to
establish any right over the subject property.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted. The Deed of Sale was in force and effect of law as it is
notarized as well as the documents issued by government agencies
that it is presumed with regularity.

Atty. Garma: 5) That the defendant did not caused disturbance of the possession of the
subject property, hence there was no valid sale.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted. There was disturbance in fact because of the unlawful
depravation of the right to use property in the virtue of not
vacating the property even after prior demand your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 6) That the sale was not made known to the defendant.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted. The same was in fact executed by the defendant as well as
known to witnesses as well as it is a notarized deed your Honor
containing their signature.

Atty. Garma: 7) That the defendant only learned that lot no. 2021 was sold to plaintiff
when she received the demand letter to vacate the property on
December 10, 2020.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted. Prior to the demand to vacate your Honor, the defendant
acknowledged because its herself who had an agreement with the
plaintiff: that there will be a contract to sell the land your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 8) That the actual possession of the subject property belongs to the
defendant.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor.

Judge: Who's in actual possession?

Atty. Pascua: The defendant your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 9) That the defendant refuse to vacate the property due to the unreasonable
claim of the plaintiff, that she had already moved for the registration of the
 property of the said Deed of Sale, and was only perfected on September
15, 2020.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor. In fact, the defendant admitted that there is a
perfected Deed of Sale your Honor thereby divesting their very
interest towards the property , your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 10) That the subject lot no. 2021 was previously in joint possession of the
complainant and the defendant your Honor.

Atty. Castro: Admitted your Honor. Previously owned by the defendants and the
plaintiff.

Atty. Garma: 11) That the plaintiff failed to state when the possession of the defendant
was initially lawful and how or when this possession started your
Honor.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor. From the nature of the complaint's
jurisdictional allegations contained the correct manner of
allegations as provided for under the Rules of Civil Procedure and
therefore, it correctly stated when or how this position started.

Atty. Garma: 12) That the defendants being the actual has the right to claim over the
subject property.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted. Plaintiff own the property by virtue of a legal conveyance, a
valid deed of sale executed before a notary public your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 13) That the complaint categorically admitted that the plaintiff has a
peaceful undisturbed possession of the property in which the
defendant must respect your Honor.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor. In fact, that is a misrepresentation of the
statement made by the complainant your Honor of paragraph 10 of
the causes of action. It says, that "the conduct of defendants must be
corrected and the proper redress to plaintiff be given by declaring that said
defendants are unlawfully detaining the subject property to
the prejudice of herein plaintiff and for which his peaceful and
undisturbed possession..", your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 14) That the tax declarations presented by the plaintiff are also fictitious.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted. It was issued by the proper authority which is the Provincial
Assessor which by law, he is mandated to give.

Atty. Garma: 15) That we manifest (inaudible) has no jurisdiction to real property
taxes levied by the situs.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted, your Honor. In fact, PD 464 the "Real Property Tax law"
particularly Sec. 89 gives the general powers of the provinces to
levy taxes and to make assessments for the said purpose your Honor.

Atty. Garma: 16) That the plaintiff should be held liable in contempt for considering the
fact regarding the subject lot and improvement your Honor.

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor. There is nothing to conceal since she (the
plaintiff) is the legal owner.

Atty. Garma: 17) And lastly your Honor, the plaintiff failed to comply with the proper
manner of allegation. Thus, the attachments cannot be admitted for
 purposes of evaluating whether or not the case has cause of action
your Honor.

Judge: How can you say that, Atty. Garma?

Atty. Garma: Because your Honor, they failed that in their complaint, that the
attachments should be part of their complaint.

Judge: So there are no attachments in their complaint, is that what you're saying?

Atty. Castro: There are attachments your Honor

Judge: Why did you say that Atty. Garma?

Atty. Garma: There are only attachments your Honor, but they failed to specify it in
their complaint that it should take part of the complaint your
Honor as proper manner of allegations in the complaint as stated in
Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.

Judge: How should it be alleged in the complaint then? Do you have to say that
"This exhibit 1 is part of the complaint."? Is it like that? Should it
be alleged like that Atty. Garma to be properly alleged? What should
be the proper mode of attaching the exhibits Atty. Garma?

Atty. Garma: Your Honor, it should be attestified that the annexes should...

Judge: What Atty. Garma?

Atty. Garma: That should form part of the complaint (inaudible) being attached. The
plaintiff should stated that the annexes take part of the complaint
your Honor.

Judge: Make the phrase, let me hear. How should it be phrased in the complaint
in order for the complaint to have validly attached the annexes ?
Because you said it was not attached because it was stated that it
is a part of the complaint, how should it be stated in the complaint? Make
the statement.

Atty. Garma: In order for the attachments shall take part of the complaint your Honor,
It should be stated this way: "That the tax declaration
certificate are here to attach as annexes A and B respectively and made
as an integral parts thereof." your Honor.

Judge: So that, if there is no statement like that, they are not properly attached? Is
that what you mean?

Atty. Garma: Yes your Honor. Under Rule 8 of the Rules of Court your Honor that
should be supplementary. The summary procedure, it state
there every pleading shall contain a methodological and logical
form, a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts in
which the party pleading relies his claim or defense, as the case may
be omitting that statement of mere evidentiary fact. So, if the
complainant failed to state it like that the defendant alleges that the
attachments cannot be admitted for the purpose of evaluating whether or
not the complaint has a cause of action your Honor.

Judge: What do you say to that Atty. Castro?

Atty. Castro: Your Honor, first of all, with the advent of the new rules, with that
statement being included that would be repetitive. Under the
new rules, as discussed by the chief justice when he visited here
in Ilocos that the purpose of the new rules would be to make the
complaint now as well as the judicial affidavit as well as the
attachments therewith, exhibits and the evidences be
evidentiary your Honor. Since that is the case, it is automatically
included in your complaint and answer the exhibits. There is no need to include
that your Honor.

Certainly your Honor, in the case that they themselves cited, Orarita vs
Dumlao when it was highlighted the argument that they said
that this court should be divested of jurisdiction and at the same
time, they are jurisdictional prerequisites to the filing of an unlawful
detainer case. One jurisdictional prerequisite your Honor is that,
they said that the manner should be properly alleged. The cause of action
should be properly alleged. And as we know your Honor, in this case
decided by the Supreme Court, It says there that the jurisdiction is based
on the allegations in the complaint. That allegation is the basis of
what they are claiming to be insufficient here in the last stipulation of
facts There being no mention of the exhibits in the documents that we
gave, in fact it was repetitive your Honor.

Judge: Do you agree with that Atty. Garma?

Atty. Garma: No your Honor. As a matter of fact...

Judge: So you mean that the Chief Justice is incorrect?

Atty. Garma: I don't have the authority to state the correctness of the Chief Justice your
Honor. However, the defendant claims that the complainants failed
to comply with the proper manner of allegation and as a matter of
fact, when you failed to allege that in your complaint for purposes of
evaluating whether or not the complaint has a cause of action, it will be
ground for dismissal your Honor.

Judge: Do you admit that Atty. Castro?

Atty. Castro: No your Honor. In fact, I've said this awhile back.

Judge: Not admitted then?

Atty. Castro: Not admitted your Honor.

Judge: Is that the stipulations? Now we go to the exhibits.

Atty. Torres: Sir, we have:

"Exhibit A" and "Exhibit A-1", titled as the Tax Declaration of Real
Property No. 20-19-001-00432, and Tax Declaration No. 20-19-
001- 00433 made under the name of Frances Anne Marie Garrido.
These exhibits are deemed offered to proved for the purpose of real
property tax paid by the plaintiff;

"Exhibit B", Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Sps. Lorie John Paul
Pascua and Jenrietta Camille Rivera-Pascua in favor of Frances
Anne Marie Garrido for the sale and transfer of the subject
property;

"Exhibit B-1", Acknowledgement Receipt, executed by the parties Lorie

John Paul Pascua and Jenrietta Camille Rivera-Pascua and
Frances Ann Marie Garrido as an evidence to that the same received the
amount;

"Exhibit C", Certificate Authorizing Registration, for the purpose of

taxes for the payment of transfer of the subject property;

"Exhibit C-1", Documentary Stamps and Capital Gains, for the

purpose of transferring the subject property;

"Exhibit D", Demand Letter, to show that the unlawful detainer case
held by the plaintiff have the cause to stand and such exhibit is
necessary for such case to proceed;

"Exhibit D-1", Notice to Vacate, to show that the unlawful detainer case
held by the plaintiff have the cause to stand and such exhibit
is necessary for such case to proceed and it has been fulfilled by
the plaintiff;

"Exhibit D-2 to D-5", Receipt of couriers and tracking, to show that the
demand notice to vacate are properly forwarded to the
defendant;

"Exhibit E", Barangay Certificate to File Action, to show that the

essential requisite for the case of unlawful detainer has been
referred to the Barangay Council;

The plaintiff reserves the right to present documentary evidence from the
LRA because the plaintiff has not yet acquired that document for
evidence that there is indeed a transfer of properties
between the parties your Honor.

Also, of The Transfer Certificate of Title is not yet acquired: to evidence

that the plaintiff is indeed the legitimate owner your Honor.

Judge: Evidence from the defendants.

Atty. Delos Reyes: Your Honor, for the defendant, we present to you the exhibits for the
defense:

"Exhibit 1", Copy of the Certificate of Title No. 20190062 in the name
Lorie John Paul Pascua and Jenrietta Camille Rivera-Pascua, to
prove that the Sps. Pascua are the rightful owners of the property.

"Exhibit 2", Copy of Tax Declaration No. 14-022-00441, in proving that

the plaintiff produced the inexistent documents since the province
has no jurisdiction over real property taxation of cities.

"Exhibit 3", Copy of Letter or Demand dated December 10, 2020, to

prove that the plaintiff sent the demand letter to vacate the property
by the defendants and it was the only time they knew about the sale of the
property.

"Exhibit 4" Copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot No. 2021 executed
and perfected dated September 15, 2020, for the purpose to prove that
the Sps. Lorie John Paul Pascua and Jenrietta Camille Rivera-
Pascua has no knowledge of the said sale.

Defendants respectfully reserve the right to present additional oral and

documentary evidence as necessary in the course of the trial, such
as:
 Recent Tax Receipt from the City Treasury office and recent assessment
from the City Assessor's office since the assessor's office
has just finished from the general revision the tax assessment
your Honor. That's all your Honor.

Judge: Witnesses from the plaintiff and the purpose of testimony.

Atty. Annang: We present Ms. Garrido for the purpose of proving that she is the owner
of the said property. And we present additional witness, Ms.
Glenda Calilao to prove that indeed, she witness the contract of
sale executed by the plaintiff and defendant.

Judge: My Clerk of Court will issue the pre-trial order, and the parties will then
submit their position papers and the affidavits of their witnesses.
The position papers, the affidavits, and pre-trial order will be presented
by my Clerk of Court on the next hearing which will be on March 17,
2021.