Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Judicial Affidavit/Complaint

    Uploaded by

    Ignacio Burog Razona
    1) The defendant files an answer with counterclaim in response to a complaint filed by the plaintiff regarding the sale of a property that was previously leased by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant admits some facts alleged in the complaint such as the identities of the parties and details of the original lease agreement. However, the defendant denies that the lease agreement and related right of first refusal agreement are still valid, as both expired in December 2008. 3) The defendant also denies the plaintiff's allegations that she had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for 5 million pesos, claiming that offering to sell a 15 million peso property for 5 million is illogical. 4) In a counterclaim, the defendant alleges

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Judicial Affidavit/Complaint

    Uploaded by

    Ignacio Burog Razona
    3K views7 pages
    1) The defendant files an answer with counterclaim in response to a complaint filed by the plaintiff regarding the sale of a property that was previously leased by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant admits some facts alleged in the complaint such as the identities of the parties and details of the original lease agreement. However, the defendant denies that the lease agreement and related right of first refusal agreement are still valid, as both expired in December 2008. 3) The defendant also denies the plaintiff's allegations that she had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for 5 million pesos, claiming that offering to sell a 15 million peso property for 5 million is illogical. 4) In a counterclaim, the defendant alleges

    Original Description:

    Civil Case complaint and Judicial affidavit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The defendant files an answer with counterclaim in response to a complaint filed by the plaintiff regarding the sale of a property that was previously leased by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant admits some facts alleged in the complaint such as the identities of the parties and details of the original lease agreement. However, the defendant denies that the lease agreement and related right of first refusal agreement are still valid, as both expired in December 2008. 3) The defendant also denies the plaintiff's allegations that she had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for 5 million pesos, claiming that offering to sell a 15 million peso property for 5 million is illogical. 4) In a counterclaim, the defendant alleges

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views7 pages

    Judicial Affidavit/Complaint

    Uploaded by

    Ignacio Burog Razona
    1) The defendant files an answer with counterclaim in response to a complaint filed by the plaintiff regarding the sale of a property that was previously leased by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant admits some facts alleged in the complaint such as the identities of the parties and details of the original lease agreement. However, the defendant denies that the lease agreement and related right of first refusal agreement are still valid, as both expired in December 2008. 3) The defendant also denies the plaintiff's allegations that she had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for 5 million pesos, claiming that offering to sell a 15 million peso property for 5 million is illogical. 4) In a counterclaim, the defendant alleges

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


    FOURT JUDICIAL REGION
    BRANCH 53
    LUCENA CITY
    CHARMELAINE A. LAHAT,
    Plaintiff,

    Civil Case No.__________

    -versus-

    For: Specific Performance


    With Damages

    CAROLAINE ANN A. AGUILA,


    Defendant,
    x------------------------------------------------x
    ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM
    DEFENDANT
    respectfully aver:

    by the undersigned Counsel, and to this Honorable


    I.

    Court,

    The Parties

    1. The allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint, are ADMITTED


    insofar as the personal circumstances of the parties are concerned.
    II.

    The Facts

    2. The allegations in paragraph 3 and 4 of the Complaint, are ADMITTED,


    however, the Contract of Lease mentioned in paragraph 3 already expired on
    December 15, 2008.
    3. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, are SPECIFICALLY
    DENIED insofar as the Undertaking Agreement on the right to first refusal is
    concerned, for it is no longer binding, and there was no stipulations that the
    defendant agreed to sell the subject property for five million pesos (Php
    5,000,000,00.).
    4. The allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, are ADMITTED insofar as
    the advertisement posted at Register of Deeds, Lucena City stating that the
    subject property is for sale for twenty five million pesos (Php 25,000,000,00.)
    is concerned.
    5. The allegations in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Complaint, are specifically
    DENIED, the truth being those stated in the affirmative Defenses, that the fact
    being the plaintiff knew everything about the transaction and the expired
    contract of lease and undertaking.

    III.

    The Causes of Action

    6. The allegations in paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the Complaint, are


    SPECIFICALLY DENIED, the truth being those stated in the Affirmative
    Defenses and in the preceding paragraphs;
    The foregoing are re-pleaded, as defendant state her--AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
    7. The Complaint has no cause of action.
    8. The December 14, 1993 Contract of Lease for a term of fifteen (15) years
    entered into by the Plaintiff and Defendant with respect to the Edificio de San
    Gabriel Bldg., owned by the defendant situated at Quezon Avenue corner
    Merchant Street, Lucena City was already expired effective December 15,
    2008. Hence, the said contract is no longer binding between the parties.
    9. The Undertaking Agreement where the Plaintiff was given the right to first
    refusal with respect to the above-mentioned building is no longer subsisting
    for it expired together with the original contract of lease on December 15,
    2008. Likewise, the allegations that the defendant agrees to sell the subject
    property for five million pesos (Php5,000,000.00) is not true. It is illogical for
    the defendant to sell a P15,000,000.00 worth of property as per Tax
    Declaration
    issued by the Lucena City Assessors Office
    for just
    P5,000,000.00 to the former lessee M.A. Lahat.
    10. Defendants advertisement posted at Register of Deeds, Lucena City stating
    that the subject property is for sale for twenty five million pesos
    (P25,000,000.00) as found out by the plaintiff on July 27, 2015 was published
    seven (7) years after the expiration of the Contract of Lease and the
    Undertaking Agreement.
    11. Defendants advertisement for the subject property is not an offer, but mere
    invitation to make an offer. The plaintiff has no right to demand from the
    defendant for 2 reasons: 1. That the Undertaking agreement on right to first
    refusal is no longer subsisting. 2. That the P5,000,000.00 purchase price
    offed is insufficient based on the value of property as stated on its Tax
    Declaration.
    12. Defendant now suffer financial inadequacy. While she was about to exert her
    right to sell the subject property, she was prevented because of the filing of
    this case.
    13. If there were people damaged therefor, it is defendant not plaintiff.
    The foregoing are re-pleaded as defendant state her---

    COMPULSORY DAMAGES
    14. After this case was filed, defendant suffered sleepless night, mental anguish,
    serious anxiety and social humiliation. Plaintiff had been circulating rumors
    that defendant defrauded him, causing embarrassment to defendant in the
    community.
    15. Plaintiff should therefor answer for these damages, in the form of moral
    damages in the amount of Php1,000,000.00, and to prevent others from
    performing the same act of plaintiff,
    defendant should be paid
    Php1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages.
    16. Plaintiff should also reimburse the attorneys fees of defendant in the amount
    of Php500,000.00.
    WHEREFORE,
    it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
    judgment be rendered after trial on the merits DISMISSING the complaint for
    utter lack of merit and awarding defendant moral and exemplary damages as
    well as attorneys fees.
    Other relief, as may be just are prayed for.
    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
    Lopez, Quezon for Lucena City, February____2016.

    ATTY. IGNACIO B. RAZONA


    Counsel for Defendant
    IBP No. 604321 01/08/16 Lucena City
    PTR No. 43210 01/04/16 Lopez, Quezon
    ROA No. 43700
    MCLE Compliance No. 11-01-23445
    L2B12 Azucena St., Peninsula Homes Subd.,
    Brgy. Bebito, Lopez, Quezon
    Copy Furnished:
    By Personal Service
    Atty. Richard P. Tolcidas
    Counsel for the Plaintiff
    32 M.I. Tagarao St., cor. Granja St., Lucena City, Philippines
    Explaination:
    The foregoing Answer is being served on the counsel of the plaintiff by
    registered mail due to time and personal constraints.
    ATTY. IGNACIO B. RAZONA

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
    FOURT JUDICIAL REGION
    BRANCH 53
    LUCENA CITY
    CHARMELAINE A. LAHAT,
    Plaintiff,

    Civil Case No.__________

    -versus-

    For: Specific Performance


    With Damages

    CAROLAINE ANN A. AGUILA,


    Defendant,
    x------------------------------------------------x
    JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
    This Judicial Affidavit is being offering to show and prove the following:
    a. That affiant is the defendant in this case;
    b. That the Contract of Lease and the Agreement on Right to First Refusal
    entered into by the parties on December 14, 1993 were already expired as of
    December 15, 2008, hence not subsisting and binding;
    c. To prove damages sustained by Charmelaine A. Lahat due to malicious filing
    of the above-titled suit; and
    d. To prove all the other material allegations in the Answer as the instant judicial
    affidavit may be relevant thereto.
    Preliminary Statement
    I am Carolaine Ann A. Aguila, 26 years old, single, government employee, and a
    resident of 73 Rich Street, San Juan Estares, Lucena City.
    The person interrogating me is Atty, Ignacio B. Razona with address at L2B12
    Azucena St., Peninsula Homes Subd., Lopez, Quezon. The interrogation is being held
    at the same address.
    I am answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and may
    face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.
    QUESTION AND ANSWER
    Q1. Ms. Witness, are you Carolaine Ann A. Aguila, the defendant in this case?
    A1. Yes, your Honor.
    Q2. Do you Know Charmelaine A. Lahat, the complainat in this Case?
    A2. Yes, your Honor.
    Q3. How did you Knew her?
    A3. She was the former lessee of my property Edificio de San Gabriel Bldg.
    situated at Quezon Avenue corner Merchant Street, Lucena City.

    Q4. Do you have Contract of Lease with her with respect to the said property?
    A4. Yes, your Honor.
    Q5. Can you present the said contract in to this Honorable Court?
    A5. Yes, here it is your Honor.
    Q6. The Contract of Lease was pre-marked as Exhibit No. 1, and I marked
    December 14, 1993 as Exhibit 1a the date in the contract when it was
    signed. Am I correct?
    A6. Yes, your Honor.
    Q7. Is there a term or period stipulated in this contract, and how long if there is
    any?
    A7. Yes , your Honor. I and the complainant entered into a fifteen (15) year
    contract of lease with respect to the above-mentioned property.
    Q8. When the said contract ended?
    A8. The contract ended on December 15, 2008, when the 15 years term was
    completed.
    Q9. Did you and the complainant renew or entered into a new contract of lease?
    A9. No, your Honor.
    Q10. Is there any agreement aside from this contract of lease you entered with \
    the complainant? And what was that, if there is any?
    A10. Yes, your Honor. On the same date when we had a contract of lease, we
    entered into an Undertaking Agreement where the complainant was given
    the right to first refusal with respect to the above-mentioned property in the
    event I decide to sell the building.
    Q11. Can you present the said undertaking?
    A11. Yes, here it is your Honor.
    Q12. The Undertaking Agreement on the Right to First Refusal was pre- marked
    as Exhibit 2, and offered as evidence. Is the date - December 14, 1993,
    which I marked as Exhibit 2a in the document was the date when you
    and C.A. Lahat entered and signed the agreement?
    A12. Yes, your Honor.
    Q13. Is the said agreement subsisting?
    A13. No, your Honor. The Undertaking Agreement ended together with the
    Contract of Lease when it was fulfilled and completed the 15 year term
    stipulated in the Contract on December 15, 2008.
    Q14. Did you offer the subject property for sale during the existence of contract
    of lease with C.M. Lahat?
    A14. No your Honor.
    Q15. How about, after the contract expires, did you offer it for sale?
    A15. Sometime of July 2015, I posted an advertisement at the Register of Deed,
    Lucena City, stating that the subject property is for sale for twenty five
    million pesos (Php25,000,000.00).

    Q16. Did Ms. Lahat demand you to enforce the Undertaking Agreement on First
    Refusal, and offer to buy the subject property at Php5,000,000.00? .What
    Did you do, if there is any?
    A16. Yes your Honor, but I refused to accept her offer to buy the property. The
    Undertaking Agreement where the Plaintiff was given the right to first
    refusal with respect to the above-mentioned building is no longer subsisting
    for it expired together with the original contract of lease on December 15,
    2008. Likewise, the allegations that the defendant agrees to sell the
    The building for five million pesos (Php5,000,000.00) is not true. It is
    illogical for the defendant to sell a P15,000,000.00 worth of property as
    per Tax Declaration issued by the Lucena City Assessors Office for an
    insufficient consideration of P5,000,000.00 to the former lessee M.A.
    Lahat.
    Q17. What happen next after you advertised the subject property?
    A17. I received a Notice from the court of Lucena, informing me that Charmelaine
    A. Lahat filed a complaint against me.
    Q18. Are you referring to this case filed against you?
    A18. Yes, your Honor.
    Q19. Is there anything you want to tell in this court regarding this case filed
    against you?
    A19. Yes. The Contract of Lease and the Agreement on right to first refusal
    entered into and signed on December 14, 1993 between me and C.A.
    Lahat had ended on December 15, 2008, after the completion of 15 year
    term stipulated therein. Hence, both contract and the agreement is not
    subsisting and binding when I published-advertised the subject property for
    sale on July 2015 at the Registry of Deed, Lucena City. That the
    complainant has no cause of action.
    Q20. What is your request/prayer to this Honorable court?
    A20. After this case was filed, defendant suffered sleepless night, mental
    anguish, serious anxiety and social humiliation. Plaintiff had been circulating
    rumors that defendant defrauded him, causing embarrassment to defendant
    in the community.
    Plaintiff should therefor answer for these damages, in the form of moral
    damages in the amount of Php1,000,000.00, and to prevent others from
    performing the same act of plaintiff, defendant should be paid
    Php1,000,000.00 as exemplary damages.
    Plaintiff should also reimburse the attorneys fees of defendant in the
    amount of Php500,000.00.
    it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered
    after trial on the merits DISMISSING the complaint for utter lack of merit and
    awarding defendant moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys
    fees.
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name this_____day of February,
    2016 at Lopez, Quezon.

    CAROLAINE ANN A. AGUILA


    Affiant

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this____ of February, 2016 at Lopez,


    Quezon affiant exhibiting me her employee ID No. 4A-0002-23 as evidence of
    identity.
    ATTESTATION
    I, Ignacio B, Razona, with office address at L2B12 Azucena St.,
    Penhomes Subd., Lopez, Quezon attest under oath as follows:
    I personally conducted the interrogation of Carolaine Ann A. Aguila of 73
    Rich Street, San Juan Estares, Lucena City in civil Case No. _______________
    filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 53, Lucena City. I faithfully recorded
    the questions I asked Carolaine Ann A. Aguila and the answers she gave me;
    and neither I nor any other person then present coached CA. A. Aguila regarding
    her answers.
    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ of February 2016 at
    Lopez, Quezon by affiant who is personally known to me.

    ATTY. IGNACIO B. RAZONA


    Counsel for Defendant
    IBP No. 604321 01/08/16 Lucena City
    PTR No. 43210 01/04/16 Lopez, Quezon
    ROA No. 43700
    MCLE Compliance No. 11-01-23445
    L2B12 Azucena St., Peninsula Homes Subd.,
    Brgy. Bebito, Lopez, Quezon

    Copy Furnished:
    By Personal Service

    Atty. Richard P. Tolcidas


    Counsel for the Plaintiff
    32 M.I. Tagarao St., cor. Granja St., Lucena City, Philippines

    You might also like