Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15.
That Paragraph 22 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being irrelevant to the issues raised by the
PLAINTIFFS;
16.
That Paragraph 23 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, the truth being that
PLAINTIFFS have expressly admitted that one of those
they represent in the instant Complaint, particularly
Wilfredo Magcase, leases and occupies the Bel-Air
Property and acknowledges the herein DEFENDANT as
owner and lessor of the Bel-Air Property, contrary to the
Complaint, as shown by a handwritten note dated
23 February 2012, to wit:
I am sending to first 6 checks Jan, Feb, March,
April, May, June 2012 for Bel-Air rental. Will send
the rest next time. xxx
A copy of the handwritten note dated 23 February
2012 is hereto attached and marked as Annex 7,
and made an integral part hereof;
16.1 That
the
acknowledgment
of
DEFENDANTs
ownership to the Bel-Air Property is further reinforced
by rental payments to the said Property, continuously
paid to the DEFENDANT, as evidenced by postdated checks dated 3 November 2012 and 1
December 2012 issued and delivered to the herein
DEFENDANT.
Copies of the post-dated checks dated 3
November 2012 and 1 December 2012 are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes 8 and
9, and made integral parts hereof;
16.2 That the foregoing are patent pieces of evidence that
the PLAINTIFFS could not have been surprised by the
alleged turn of events and even if indeed they were
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
28.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, with consent from the DECEDENT Marino M.
Magcase;
28.1 That the DECEDENT duly executed a Deed of
Donation inter vivos dated 14 February 2008
whereby he donated his property (hereinafter
referred to as the Bel-Air Property), which was then
covered by TCT No. 113638 [S-22712] of the Registry
of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, in favor of herein
DEFENDANT.
Copies of the Deed of Donation dated 14
February 2008 and TCT No. 113638 [S-22712]
are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 2
and E, respectively, and made integral parts
hereof;
28.2 That the Deed of Donation dated 14 February
2008 was witnessed by three (3) friends of the
DECEDENT (two of whom have already passed on;
with one surviving, particularly Col. Lorenzo
Cornista), and Judge Bienvenido V. Reyes, who
prepared and notarized the said Deed of Donation.
Copies of the Affidavits of Judge Bienvenido V.
Reyes and Col. Lorenzo Cornista both dated 8
October 2012 are hereto attached and marked as
Annexes 3 and 4, respectively, and made
integral parts hereof;
28.3 That as a consequence of the Deed of Donation
dated 14 February 2008, the title to the said Bel-Air
Property, formerly covered by TCT No. 113638 [S22712] (Annex E), TCT No. 225884 dated 16
February 2009 of the Registry of Deeds of the City
of Makati was
DEFENDANT.
issued
in
favor
of
the
herein
29.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, notarized in line with Rule IV, Section 3, of
the Notarial Practice of Law (AM No. 02-8-13 SC);
29.1 That Judge Bienvenido V. Reyes was neither donor
nor donee, or a witness, and thus cannot be
considered party to the Deed of Donation. It is
apparent in the said document (Annex 2) that the
donor was Marino M. Magcase and the donee was
Ambrose Bu M. Azucena, and none of the witnesses
signatures on the left side of the documents was that
of Judge Reyess;
29.2 That, contrary to the allegation, Judge Reyes did not
receive any fee in notarizing the Deed of Donation,
and no piece of evidence was brought forth to prove
such;
30.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, in accordance with the form and solemnities
of law;
30.1 That Quilala vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 132681 (2001)
provides that, the requirement that the contracting
parties and their witnesses should sign on the lefthand margin of the instrument is not absolute. The
intendment of the law merely is to ensure that each
and every page of the instrument is authenticated by
the parties.xxx Also, the specification of the location
of the signature is merely directory. In this case, the
purpose of authenticating the page is served, and
the requirement of a valid donation and the signing
of all the parties to the said deed is deemed
substantially complied with.
HUSSEIN S. BALT
Roll of Attorneys No. 89012
Page No. __
Book No. __
Series of 2012