Kadatuan, Kitem Jr. D.

LF

Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Department of Justice
City of Lucena
Miriam L, Reyes, Nenalyn L. Pelan and
Rosario O. Ladron,
Complainant,
-versus-

I.S.: 2015-1936
For: Estafa

Marikit C. Talbas, Abraham V. Tolentino

Ana Margarita N. Dela Pea (a.k.a. Irene
Desiree T. Ladron)
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x
Counter-Affidavit
We, Abraham V. Tolentino and Irene Desiree T. Ladron-Tolentino, of legal
age, residing at Lot 5, Blk 10. Uragon St., Supreme Village, Brgy. Almanza, Las
Pias City, under oath, declare that:
1. We are among the accused in this case.
2. We are married to each other.
3. We specifically deny the charge against us for Estafa filed by the
complainants for being malicious, and lacking legal and factual basis as the truth of
the matter are as follows
a) Irene Desiree Ladron-Tolentino was born on July 10, 1978 in Lucena
City, Quezon.
b) Ever since she could remember up to the present she had been in open
and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child.
c) Sometime on December 1, 1980 the records of the local registry in
Lucena City were all razed by fire.
d) When she acquired a late registration birth certificate for the purpose of
taking the bar she did not notice anything that would indicate that she
was not the daughter of Pedro O. Ladron.
e) On January 20, 2010 her father died without leaving a last will or
testament.
f) Since she and her mother, Marikit C. Talbas, were the only compulsory
heirs and the decedent was presumed to have no debts because no
creditor filed a petition for letter of administration within 2 years after
his death they decided to enter into an Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of the Deceased by virtue of a public instrument filed with the

Kadatuan, Kitem Jr. D.

LF

office of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Lucena referred to in

Annex D of the complaint-affidavit.
g) The Extrajudicial Settlement was executed on February 13, 2012 and
the public instruments were filed on February 17, 2012 and on
February 20, 2012 new certificates of title were issued in the name of
Irene Desiree T. Ladron and subsequently in the name of both spouses.
h) The complaint was filed only on September 3, 2015 and at that time she
produced her: (a) baptismal certificate; (b) portions of her elementary,
secondary and tertiary yearbooks; (c) certificate of admission to the
Philippine Bar to support her claim as their daughter attached as Annex
K, L and M respectively.
4. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied since Irene Desiree T. Ladron whether as a legitimate or adopted
child survived his father Pedro O. Ladron1
5. The allegations in paragraph 7 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied because Irene Desiree T. Ladron is the child of Pedro O. Ladron as
evidenced by her (a) baptismal certificate; (b) portions of her elementary,
secondary and tertiary yearbooks; (c) certificate of admission to the
Philippine Bar attached as Annex K, L and M respectively and as admitted
by the testimony and affidavit of her mother that they jointly adopted
Irene Desiree T. Ladron attached as Annex N2 The fact that she was
allowed to take the Bar examinations and subsequently admitted to the
Philippine Bar is proof that the birth certificate she submitted as a
requirement for taking the examinations is genuine and thus such birth
certificate is prima facie evidence of her legitimate filiation3.
6. The allegations in paragraph 8 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied since even if she was indeed the daughter of Nikolai Valintin dela
Pea and Barbara Mendoza Nicolas she would still be connected with her
adoptive parents Pedro Ladron and Marikit Talbas as an adopted child
having all the rights of a legitimate child.4 Even assuming the fact that she
is not named as Irene Desiree Ladron the change of name will not alter her
status as the adopted child of the deceased.5 Additionally the birth
1

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P.LIM, G.R. Nos. 168992-93 The adoptee is
considered a legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child such as: xxx (3) to be
entitled to the legitime and other successional rights.
2
Rules of Court, Rule 130 Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. The reputation or
tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members,
may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity.
3
Conception vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. G.R. No. 123450 a record of birth is prima facie evidence of the
facts contained therein.
4
Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97906 The act of adoption fixes a status, viz., that
of parent and child. Additionally under the Family Code Art. 189. Adoption shall have the following effects:
(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and both shall
acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including the
right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters
5
Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97906 Concordantly, we have heretofore held that
a change of name does not define or effect a change in one's existing family relations or in the rights and duties
flowing therefrom. It does not alter one's legal capacity, civil status or citizenship; what is altered is only the
name.

Kadatuan, Kitem Jr. D.

LF

certificate attached as annex E appears to be a copy and is not attested to

according to the rules thus inadmissible as evidence.6
7. The allegations in paragraph 9 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied for the accused Irene Desiree T. Ladron being a descendant in the
direct descending line shall exclude in the intestate succession the
complainants because they are collateral relatives.7 Hence she could legally
enter into an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased with
her mother without including complainants according to the provisions of
the Rules of Court.8 Even assuming that Irene Desiree T. Ladron is
adopted, the law grants an adopted child all the rights granted to a
legitimate child9 hence will also preclude the complainants from
inheriting.10
8. We specifically deny the allegations in paragraph 10 of the complaintaffidavit because Irene Desiree T. Ladron knew that she was the child of
Pedro O. Ladron and so entitled to be his heir.
9. We specifically deny the allegations in paragraph 11 of the complaintaffidavit since the execution of an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
of a Deceased Person is an ex parte proceeding11 which gives the heirs,
Irene Desiree T. Ladron and Marikit Talbas, entitled to a share in the estate
a right to divide the estate among themselves immediately12 and does not
require the consent of the collateral relatives or brothers or sisters of the
deceased person for its validity and legality. Assuming that there was
indeed a need for consent
10. The allegations in paragraph 12 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied since there was no wrong or crime committed since the accused did
not enter into the Extrajudicial settlement through:
i.
Unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
ii.
By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or
iii.
Through fraudulent means.13
6

Rules of Court, Rule 130 Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy
7
Article 1003(If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased) and Article 961, 978, 985, 988, and 995 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines
8
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. If the
decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or
legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may without securing letters of administration,
divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the
register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.
9
R.A. 8552 Section 17. Legitimacy. The adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the
adopter(s) for all intents and purposes and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by law to
legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled
to love, guidance, and support in keeping with the means of the family.
10
Carlos vs Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922 The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children
of the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives.
11
Cua vs Vargas, G.R. No. 156536 The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding.
12
Avelino vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115181 The heirs succeed immediately to all of the rights and
properties of the deceased at the moment of the latter's death. Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, allows
heirs to divide the estate among themselves without need of delay and risks of being dissipated. When a person
dies without leaving pending obligations, his heirs, are not required to submit the property for judicial
administration, nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court.
13
Madrigal vs Department of Justice, G.R. No. 168903

Kadatuan, Kitem Jr. D.

LF

Neither was there any evidence of bad faith to entitle the complainants to
damages. No criminal liability is incurred for no felony was committed14
and no cause of action exists which will give the complainants grounds for
a civil action because no right existed in favor of them15.
11. The allegations in paragraph 13 of the complaint-affidavit are specifically
denied because Abraham Tolentino was unaware of the extra-judicial
settlement because he was abroad at the time it was executed.
12. The allegations in paragraph 14 of the complaint-affidavit since there was
no crime committed because an essential element in all kinds of Estafa is
that damage or prejudice is suffered by the offended party, the
complainants in this case did not suffer any damage or prejudice because
they do not have any right to the property which was the subject of the
extrajudicial settlement.16
13. We executed this counter-affidavit to attest to the truth of the mentioned
facts and to impugn the crime of estafa which are being charged against us.
City of Lucena, September 7, 2015.
(SGD.) Abraham V. Tolentino
Drivers License: 131313
Issued on: January 30, 2015
Expires on: January 30, 2016
Affiant

(SGD.) Irene Desiree T. Ladron-Tolentino

Drivers License: 123456
Issued on: July 10, 2015
Expires on: July 10, 2016
Affiant

Signed and Sworn to before me this September 7, 2015. I hereby certify that I
examined the affiant and that they understood and voluntarily executed this counteraffidavit.
(SGD.) Kitem D. Kadatuan Jr.
Assistant Prosecutor

14

People of the Philippines vs Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762 the elements of felonies in general are: (1) there
must be an act or omission; (2) the act or omission must be punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and (3)
the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault.
15
Relucio vs Lopez, G.R. No. 138497 The elements of a cause of action are: (1) a right in favor of the
plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant
in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
16
Madrigal vs Department of Justice, G.R. No. 168903

Kadatuan, Kitem Jr. D.

LF

I would like to ask if:

1. My footnotes are proper? or should I take the whole
sentence from the decision and just cite the specific case as
footnotes?
2. Should I specify the admitted paragraphs in the
complaint-affidavit? or is it better not mentioning them since
they are deemed admitted when not specifically denied ?
3. Is paragraph 3 of my work proper? I wanted to give the
prosecutor a background view of the facts about the case and
my client.
4. do I need to set forth the fact of that they are married? I
stated it in paragraph 2 since I wanted to eliminate or lessen
any suspicion that they were in collusion .
5. Please give me a general evaluation of my work.