Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fourth Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 45
SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO

EFREN VILLAROZA, OFELIA, CIVIL CASE NO. R-2105

VILLAROZA-MABUHAY, both
represented by LETICIA
VILLAROZA-BARON, LETICIA
V.BARON,
Plaintiffs,

-versus- For:

RUFIO LASTRA, QUIETING OF TITLE,

Defendants. INJUNCTION with DAMAGES
with PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE
OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
x-------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OBJECTION
(To Plaintiffs Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence)

DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully Comments and/or Objects to the
Plaintiff’s Formal Offer of Evidence as follows:

Exhibit Description Comment/Objection

A OCT No. P-4926 Admits the existence,
authenticity and the purpose
for which it is offered.
A-1 OCT No. P-6796 Admits the existence,
authenticity and the purpose
for which it was offered.
B Special Power of Admits the existence,
Attorney issued by the authenticity and the purpose
 Plaintiff Efren Villaroza for which it was offered.
in favor of Plaintiff
Leticia V. Baron
B-1 and Special Power of Admits the existence,
B-2 Attorney issued by authenticity and the purpose
Plaintiff Ofelia Villaroza- for which it was offered.
Mabulay in favor of
Plaintiff Leticia Baron
C Extract of Lot Plan Admits the existence and
issued by the Bureau of authenticity of the document
Land Management, but object to the purpose for
Escolta Manila which it was offered.

The purpose is misleading. The

testimony of the witness is
bereft of any indication, that
she positively identified that the
name of Defendant Rufio Lastra
is not stated in Lot 269, which
is adjacent to lot 362 of the
Plaintiffs
D Certificate to file an Admits the existence and the
action issued by the authenticity of the document
Lupon of Barangay Sta. but objects to the purpose for
Lucia, Sablayan which it is offered.
Occidental Mindoro in The Certificate to File an Action
favor of Plaintiff Leticia does not prove that the Plaintiff
V. Baron seek the help of the Lupon, it
issued only based on the
statement of the Plaintiff.
E, E-1, E- Photographs Plaintiffs Denies the existence of said
2,E-3 land showing the area exhibit, and objects to the
purpose for which it was offered
disputed
for being misleading.

The photographer who took the

 pictures was not presented and
was unable to identify the
same. In Sison v. People 250
SCRA 58, the Supreme Court
said: The rule in this
jurisdiction is that
photographs, when presented
in evidence, must be identified
by the photographer as to its
production and testified as to
the circumstances under which
they were produced. x x x
Photographs, however, can be
identified also by any other
competent witness who can
testify to its exactness and
accuracy.

No photographer or any other

competent witness, even the
complainant herself, testified to
its exactness and accuracy.
F Exhibit attached to the Denies the existence of the
Supplemental Affidavit of exhibit.
the Plaintiff Leticia The Supplemental Judicial
Baron- Cancelled Affidavit was presented only at
the time of hearing, in violation
of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
G Exhibit attached to the Denies the existence of the
Supplemental Affidavit of exhibit.
the Plaintiff Leticia The Supplemental Judicial
Baron- Cancelled Affidavit was presented only at
the time of hearing, in violation
of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
H Judicial Affidavit of Admits the existence of the
Ernesto Martinez document but objects to the
veracity of some of the
statements alleged therein as
well as to the purpose for which
it was offered.

-Admits statements alleged in

paragraph (a)

-There is no proof that Ernesto

Martinez has resided in the
land of the Plaintiffs for a long
period of time extant in the said
exhibit other than the bare
allegation of Ernesto Martinez;

-There is no proof that since

Ernesto Martinez stayed in the
property of the Plaintiff he was
able to know the boundaries of
the property of the Plaintiff
other than the bare allegation
Ernesto Martinez;

-There is no proof Defendant

Rufino Lastra in an arbitrary
and threatening manner
prevented Plaintiff Leticia Baron
and Ernesto Martinez from
completing the fencing extant in
the said exhibit other the bare
allegation of the Plaintiff;

-There is no proof that

Defendant Rufio Lastra after
preventing Ernesto Martinez
from fencing brought Ernesto
 Martinez to the contested area
and showed the latter the
boundary mark allegedly place
by the surveyor which
encroached the land of the
Plaintiff extant in the exhibit
other than the mere allegation
in the Complaint of the Plaintiff.
H-1 Signature of Ernesto Admits the existence and due
Martinez execution as well as the
purpose for which it was
offered.
H-2 Name and signature of Admits the existence and due
Notary Public, Atty. Rey execution as well as the
Ladaga purpose for which it was offered
I Judicial Affidavit of Admits the existence and due
Plaintiff Leticia V. Baron execution but objects to the
veracity of some statements
alleged therein.

-Admits statement in paragraph

(a)

-Admits statement in paragraph

(b)

-There is no proof that the

Defendant Rufio Lastra in two
occasions unlawfully, arbitrarily
and intimidatingly prevented
Plaintiff Leticia Baron from
securing their land that caused
damaged to the latter extant in
the exhibit other than the bare
allegation of the Plaintiff;

-There is no proof that during

the hearing before the Lupon ng
Barangay, Defendant failed to
show title of ownership or any
proof thereof on the land
adjacent to the Plaintiff’s extant
to the exhibit except the bare
allegation of the Plaintiff;

-There is no proof that

Defendant does not have any
right to prevent Plaintiff from
enclosing their land considering
that he was not able to present
any document or title over the
land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s
extant in the exhibit other than
the mere allegation of the
Plaintiff;

-There is no proof that there is

necessity on the part of the
Plaintiffs to secure their land by
placing barb wire fence thereon
due to the damage being made
on their crops by the livestocks
of their neighbors extant in the
exhibit but the mere allegation
of the Plaintiff;

-There is no proof that the

 Plaintiff has the right to request
the remedy being prayed for
and the obligation on the part
of the Defendant to respect the
same extant in the exhibit but
the mere allegation of the
Plaintiff;

-There is no proof that if the

Defendant will not be restrained
from preventing Plaintiffs from
securing their land, irreparable
injuries would be caused to the
latter extant in the exhibit but
the mere allegation of the
Plaintiff.
I-1 Signature of Plaintiff Admits the existence, execution
Leticia V. Baron in her and the purpose for which it
Judicial Affidavit was being offered.
I-2 Name and signature of Admits the existence and the
Notary Public, Atty. Rey purpose for which it was being
Ladaga offered.
J Sketch-Plan of Plaintiff’s Admits the existence but denies
Lands the purpose for which it was
offered.
- The purpose is misleading.
The testimony of the witness is
bereft of any indication, that
she positively identified that the
metes and bounds of her
property is in accordance with
the technical description in her
title.
 -The witness is also
incompetent to determine
whether the metes and bounds
indicated in the sketch plan is
in accordance with the
technical description at the
back of her title.

-The person who drew the

Sketch Plan was not presented
in court, to attest to the
genuiness, due execution and
accuracy of the sketch plan,
K, K-1, K-2 Tax Declaration of the Admits the existence, due
Plaintiffs execution and the purpose for
which it was offered.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice it is respectfully prayed

that the foregoing comments/objections be considered by the Court in
resolving the Plaintiff’s “Formal Offer of Exhibits with Motion for Issuance
of Writ of Preliminary Injunction”

This 10th of July, 2018. Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro.

Respectfully submitted.

ATTY. MELVIE E. SILVERIO

Notary Public
December 2018
Counsel for Defendant
Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro
Roll of Attorneys No. 2017-68003
 IBP Lifetime Roll No. 016948
PTR No. B-8378984
MCLE No. Exempt

Copy furnished:

JOHN EVAN V. BARON

Counsel for Plaintiffs
4642 Liboro Street, Pag-Asa,
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro