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,

-versus-
SPEC 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
4 Floor W. Godino Bldg.
th

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