Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 70 , Taguig City
Ground Floor, Hall of Justice, Upper Bicutan, Taguig City

BENIGNA CALDERON ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, SCA CASE NO. 132
(Civil Case No. 18-43-43)
- versus - For: Unlawful Detainer
with Damages
EMMANUEL “NOEL” AGUILAR
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
x-----------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
(For Defendants-Appellants)

DEFENDANT-APELLEE EMMANUEL AGUILAR, by the undersigned

counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this
Memorandum, in compliance with the 19 February 2019 Order of this
Honorable Court, copy of which was received by him on 25 February; and,
accordingly states that:

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs-Appellants were the plaintiffs in an Unlawful Detainer case

lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 115, Taguig City, through
their counsel, Atty. Dennis Amparo. They may be served with notices,
orders and other processes of this Honorable Court through Atty. Amparo.

Defendant-Appellee was the defendant in the said case, being the

present occupant of the lot, subject matter of the Unlawful Detainer case
that was dismissed by the Honorable Juan Jose P. Enriquez III for lack of
cause of action.

NATURE OF THE CASE

The Honorable Judge, Enriquez III, citing the case of Rebecca Fullido
vs Gino Grilli (G.R. No. 215014, Feb. 29, 2016) and Article 499 of the Civil
Code dismissed the plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint. The said Honorable
Court also stated the even a case for Forcible Entry was inexistent. Hence,
this appeal to the Honorable Regional Trial Court from the Metropolitan
Trial Court.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

1. On 02 June 2015, Rebellion Calderon, joined by his wife Dyan

de la Cruz, leased a120 square meter lot located at 6140 A. Levi Mariano
Avenue, Barangay Ususan, Taguig City, for a period of ten (10) years to
defendant-appellee Aguilar;

2. On 21 July 2015. Aries Calderon, joined by his wife Ivy Alei

Monton, likewise leased the adjoining 280 square meter lot at the same
location also for a period of ten (10) years to defendant-appellee Aguilar;

3. Both contracts assured Aguilar of protection and security of

possession for the duration of the contract period, because according to
them as expressly stated in the contracts, they are the OWNERS thereof;
the two (2) contracts were attached to the original complaint and lumped
as Annex “C”;

4. Defendant-appellee put up a motor shop and spent/invested a

big amount of capital expenditures thereon under the business name
“Aguilar Motor Works”;

5. Indeed, defendant-appellee Aguilar enjoyed the peaceful use,

occupancy and possession of the leased areas above-described but only
until 24 May 2017; for on that day, plaintiff Marinette Abarico, joined by
her husband Montano Abarico glaringly abused their power by intimidating
defendant-appellee of threats to his life and limb if he did not leave the
leased premises;

6. Defendant-Appellee told the Spouses Abarico that he was

legally possessing the areas by virtue of the two (2) existing lease contracts
he had with Rebelion and Aries;

7. But Marinette Abarico and her husband, Montano Abarico,

merely ignored defendant-appellee’s declarations;

8. So, plaintiff-appellant Marinette Abarico, joined by her

husband, a BJMP employee, continued with their harassments and
intimidations upon the person of defendant-appellee Aguilar;

9. Worse happened on 17 June 2017, because Marinette, knowing

of and exploiting defendant-appellee’s absence, went to the leased
premises and threatened defendant-appellee’s wife if they did not leave
the leased premises;
 10. These forms of harassment and intimidation and threats are
more detailed in the Affidavit-Complaint herein defendant-appellee filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman against the Spouses Marinette (a
government employee connected with the Land Transportation Office) and
Montano (likewise a government employee connected with the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology, or BJMP) Abarico; a photocopy of the
Complaint-Affidavit defendant-appellee filed with the Honorable Office of
the Ombudsman was attached and made an integral part of the Complaint
as Annex “C”;

11. Until now, defendant-appellee’s possession of the leased

premises has been constantly disturbed by plaintiffs-appellants,
particularly by Marinette Abarico;

12. Despite not being a party to the two (2) Lease Contracts,
Marinette Abarico, without being joined by the actual lessors (Aries and
Rebellion Calderon), filed a complaint for Ejectment with the Office of the
Barangay Chairman of Barangay Ususan;

13. In all the scheduled confrontations with Marinette Abarico at

the Office of the Barangay Chairman, defendant-appellee Aguilar reasoned
that he did not have an existing lease contract with her (Marinette
Abarico); and that he only had two (2) existing contracts with Rebellion
and Aries, copies of which he showed to the Barangay Chair and the Lupon;

14. So he prayed and asked that the complaint be dismissed,

because Marinette Abarico does/did not have a cause of action against him;

15. But, surprisingly, Marinette Abarico was still given a

Certification to File Action by the Barangay;

16. This Certification to File Action all the more emboldened

Marinette Abarico to initiate a complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Taguig City that was assigned to Branch 115 thereof;

17. It was good that the Honorable Presiding Judge, Juan Jose P.
Enriquez, III, after carefully studying the complaint and the Answer, found
no valid ground for the prosecution of plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint; so,
he dismissed the same for lack of cause of action;

18. Hence, the instant appeal to this Honorable Court.

 ISSUE

Did the court a quo err in dismissing the above-entitled appealed case
for lack of cause of action?

DISCUSSION

Defendant-appellee most respectfully submits that the court a quo

did not err in dismissing the above-entitled appealed case for lack of
cause of action.

1. No cause of action

The instant case started with a comedy of errors, so-to-speak. First,

among those who filed the petition, only Rebellion Calderon. has an
existing Lease Contract with defendant-appellee. Aries Calderon, the
other Lessor, did not join or sign the complaint. Second, the one who filed
the complaint with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Barangay
Ususan, Taguig City, did/does not have any Lease Contract with defendant-
appellee. Third, instead of dismissing the complaint for lack of interest
(Marinette Abarico, not being a party in the Lease Contracts), the
Honorable Barangay Chairman still issued a Certification To File Action in
her favour. Fourth, as the Certification to File Action clearly shows, the
actual lessors (Rebelion and Aries Calderon) in the two (2) subsisting Lease
Contracts did not join Marinette Abarico in her complaint at the Office of
the Barangay Chairman of Ususan, Taguig City. Even for this fourth reason
alone, the case was already dismissible for violating the Katarungang
Pambarangay legal provisions.

When the court a quo assessed the Complaint and Answer, the said court
all the more found out that indeed cause of action was totally wanting.
The Honorable Juan Jose P. Enriquez, III, found no cause of action for
“Unlawful Detainer” because the two (2) contracts are still subsisting and
have not expired yet. Neither did the Honorable Judge find a cause of
action for “Forcible Entry”, because defendant-appellee is lawfully
possessing the area subject matter of the case and didn’t enter the same
by Force, Intimidation, Stealth, Threat or Strategy. That is, defendant-
appellee entered and occupied the area lawfully, through two (2) Lease
Contracts in an arms-length transaction. Most importantly, the Honorable
Judge pronounced that there was no provision in the two (2) Lease
Contracts saying that defendant-appellee had to leave the premises once
partition was made. And citing Article 499 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, the Honorable Judge said that a partition cannot affect the
effectiveness of the two (2) existing lease contracts.
 For further enlightenment and record purposes, defendant-appellee
hereby reprints the following facts he alleged in his Answer, to wit:

“SPECIAL AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

14. Defendant hereby repleads, adopts and

incorporates by way of reference all the foregoing
averments in so far as they are relevant and material
hereto;

15. The complaint has to be dismissed outright

because plaintiffs do not have any cause of action;

16. As far as plaintiffs Benigno Calderon, Lolita de

Mesa Voltaire SJ Calderon, Rodolfo Calderon, Crispin
Calderon, Flordeliza Calderon, Christian Calderon,
Admiral Calderon, Lawrence Calderon, Florissa
Calderon, Marinette C. Abarico, Voltaire SJ Calderon,
Benjamin Bayan are concerned they are not parties to
the Lease Contracts; so, they are not the real parties
in interest herein and have no cause of action against
defendant Aguilar;

17. The two (2) written Lease Contracts, subject

matter of the complaint, are between: (a) plaintiff
Rebelion Calderon and defendant Aguilar (area: 280
sq. m.); and (b) the second, between Aries Calderon
and defendant Aguilar (area: 120 sq.m.); the two
represented themselves as the exclusively assigned
owners of the areas they respectively leased to
defendant for a period of ten (10) years in 2015;

18. It has to be stated clearly now that defendant

Aguilar entered into two (2) separate Lease Contracts:
one, with Rebelion Calderon and another with Aries
Calderon;

19. Annex “C” of the Complaint had been lumped

up by the plaintiffs into one, but it refers to two (2)
separate Lease Contracts;
20. As clearly stated in Annex “C” (and series) of
the Complaint and as acknowledged by the plaintiffs
in paragraph 6 thereof, there are no other parties in
the said Lease Contract;

21. Rebelion Calderon and Aries Calderon may be

the real party in interest in the case at bench, but they
have omitted a and failed to comply with a basic
requirement before cases of this kind may be filed in
court---there was no conciliation proceedings
conducted at the Barangay level in accordance with
Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Establishing a System of
Amicably Settling Disputes at the Barangay Level);

22. If, under the terms of their contract, Rebelion

Calderon has a cause of action against defendant
Aguilar, the former file an action in court against the
latter;

23. Likewise, if Aries Calderon has a cause of

action against defendant Aguilar, it should follow that
he files a separate complaint against the latter;

24. Both Lease Contracts (Annex “C” of the

Complaint) undoubtedly show that the term of each
Lease Contract is for a period of ten (10) years, or until
the year 2025;

25. It is now axiomatic to say that, since both

Lease Contracts have been voluntarily entered into
and without force or intimidation on either of the
parties, the same must be respected as it is the “law”
between each of them;

26. Very importantly to state that, contrary to the

allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint, the said
Annex “C” never mentions of an agreement or so-
called “understanding” that “defendant shall vacate
or be relocated to the portion to be allotted to them”;
this allegation is a lie, a mere fabrication and part of
a sinister scheme to unlawfully terminate the existing
Lease Contracts and deprive defendant Aguilar of his
rights arising from these two (2) Lease Contracts;
27. When the Lease Contracts were executed,
both ARIES CALDERON AND REBELION CALDERON
assured defendant that the portions they were leasing
to defendant were the lots particularly assigned and
allotted to them by their co-heirs; in fact, to convince
defendant that he actually owned the area he was
leasing to defendant, REBELION told and showed
DEFENDANT AGULAR that he had a house erected
thereon;

28. These assurances egged defendant to proceed

with the execution of the Lease Contract and,
subsequently, to make capital expenditures thereon;
for which he spent a big amount of investment for the
“Aguilar Auto Works” he established;

29. For these reasons, defendant, who is doing

business in the areas covered by the two lease
agreements, was able to secure a Mayor’s/Building
Permit, Business License, Meralco Electric Connection,
Water Connection and Barangay Clearance on his own;

30. The alleged Project of Partition mentioned by

plaintiff Marinette Abarico, if ever it actually exists,
has no bearing on, and does not nullify, the two (2)
Lease Contracts; at the most, it has been executed
pocked with highly questionable entries and
circumstances;

31. Since 2013 and until 2017, nobody questioned

defendant’s possession;

32. Peaceful possession of the leased premises

was only disturbed by plaintiff Marinette Abarico when
in May 24, 2017, the latter and her husband, Montano
Abarico (an employee connected with the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology) barged into
defendant’s Auto Shop and scandalously shouted at,
and threatened defendant with harm to leave the
premises because according to them he did not own it;

33. Because of this, defendant filed criminal and

administrative cases against the Spouses Montano and
Marinette Abarico with the Office of the Ombudsman;
a photocopy of the Complaint-Affidavit, with the
evidences and Affidavits of defendant’s witnesses, is
hereto collectively attached and made an integral part
hereof as Annex “1”;
34. Defendant’s peaceful possession of the
premises started when he received information that
one of the plaintiffs, Marinette Abarico, was intending
to put up a commercial building on the area leased by
defendant;

35. Defendant just put off this rumor at first; but

when Marinette Abarico and counsel went to see him,
about two weeks before May 24, 2017, defendant
somehow believed in the rumor;

36. Marinette Abarico and her counsel offered him

P600,000.00 so he will just leave the leased premises;
defendant refused Ms Abarico’s offer, citing his
investment expense;

37. So, the lawyer told him to just accept the

amount and no questions will be asked; simultaneously
telling defendant that he should just leave the
premises as court action against him will certainly
result in defendant’s loss; since, according to the
lawyer, he has ‘not lost a case’ yet;

38. Since he did not heed Marinette Abarico and

her lawyer’s offer, the May 24 2017 incident
happened;

39. Threats and various forms of harassment and

intimidation were inflicted on the person of
defendant, but he never bogged down;

40. As defendant had earlier stated and alleged,

Marinette Abarico was not party to the Lease
Contracts; so, she did and does not have any
involvement therein; (please see Annex “C” and series
to the Complaint); “Dura lex, sed lex.”, they say;

41. Under the circumstances attaining and if ever

they had a legitimate cause of action, it should have
been either Rebelion Calderon or Aries Calderon who
should have filed the case for ejectment with the
Office of the Barangay Chairman, not Marinette
Abarico;
 42. Unfortunately, neither Rebelion Calderon nor
Aries Calderon filed a complaint for Ejectment against
defendant Aguilar with the Office of the Barangay
Chairman; hence, this case should likewise be
dismissed outright for non-compliance with a
fundamental requirement under Presidential Decree
No. 1508;

43. What comes to fore is the applicable provision

in the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
which we hereby reprint for easy reference:

“IV
COMMON PROVISIONS

SEC. 18. Referral to Lupon. --- Cases requiring

referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where
there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice,
and may be revived only after such requirement shall
have been complied with. x x x.” (Underscoring Ours)”
44. It is stated for the record that had the case for
ejectment against defendant been at first filed by
either Rebelion or Aries Calderon with the Office of
the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Ususan, Taguig
City, before coming to court, the Honorable Chairman
would not have issued a “Certification to File Action”
because either Rebelion or Aries has no cause of action
against defendant---defendant possesses evidence
that he is up-to-date in his rental payments and
Rebelion is now barred from seeking relief or judicial
recourse from our courts of law for wilfully failing to
attend or appear before the Lupon/Pangkat of
Barangay Ususan, Taguig City;”.

2. Partition, imagined.

What needs pointing out now is the fact that if one just really
examines and assesses the situation, he or she will immediately notice that
the alleged “Deed of Partition” is only imagined or fabricated. Why?

Simple. If the said “Deed of Partition” is perused, it is immediately

apparent that the same is not signed by ‘REBELION’ and ‘ARIES’ CALDERON.
Please look at Annex “D” of the original Complaint.
 Further, if the said “Deed of Partition” was really true, the same
would have been registered with the Register of Deeds, published in a
newspaper of general circulation and surveyed.

Candidly, the reason why the scheme of “partition” was fabricated

by plaintiff Marinette Abarico and her husband, BJMP employee Montano
Abarico, was to untimely ease out defendant-appellee from the leased
premises.

But this manner of pre-terminating two (2) Lease Contracts is

definitely considered “foul play” under our country’s laws, which our
courts have to stop. Plaintiffs-appellants, most particularly plaintiff
Marinette Abarico, should not have resorted to this glaringly unlawful
manner of trying to ease out defendant-appellee from the premises.

With her educational background and being a government employee

at the Land Transportation Office (LTO), she should have instead resorted
to a legal and more humane way, like an effective manner of persuasion,
to convince defendant-appellee to surrender peaceful possession of the
leased premises. Not through this high-handed, court-martial-like and
unlawful manner of treating defendant-appellee.

3. Title, still in the name of Benigna et al.

Furthermore, the fact that up till now the Title collectively and
commonly remains in the name of Benigna Calderon, Lolita de MesaL and
Voltaire Calderon only reveals that the alleged partition has never actually
happened; otherwise, individual titles corresponding to the Deed of
Partition would have already been issued.

If this Deed of Partition was actually executed, the title (TCT No.
2015000049) should have been now named for each of the assigned heir.
No new title had been issued as a consequence of said Extrajudicial
Partition.

4. Aries Calderon, not a plaintiff

What needs stating is the fact that Aries Calderon, the other lessor
of the leased premises, subject matter of the instant case, never joined
plaintiffs-appellants in filing the complaint.

And, although Rebelion Calderon joined plaintiffs-appellants in filing

the complaint, it is very clear that, as the Certification to File Action
shows, he did not join Marinette Calderon in filing an Ejectment case
against defendant-appellee with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of
Barangay Ususan, Taguig City.
 5. Not real party in interest.

The court a quo likewise found that the contracts, subject matter of
the Unlawful Detainer case were only between Aries and Rebelion on the
one hand and defendant appellee on the other. There was/is no existing
Lease Contract with the other plaintiffs-appellants, especially with
plaintiff-appellant Marinette Abarico. Therefore, they (particularly
Marinette Abarico) are not the real parties in interest.

6. Partition did not affect

subject Lease Contracts.

Granting, arguendo, that the partition really happened, still the same
never affected the two (2) existing Lease Contracts, subject matter in the
case at bench. This is the backbone of the court a quo’s Order of Dismissal.

The Honorable Judge Enriquez III applied Article 499 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, which we hereby reprint for ready reference.

“Art. 499. The partition of a thing owned in common

shall not prejudice third persons, who shall retain the
rights of mortgage, servitude, or any other real rights
belonging to them before the division was made.
Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the
co-ownership shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition.” (Civil Code of the
Philippines) (Underlining Ours)

Applying the above-cited legal provision to the case at bar, it is

therefore clear that plaintiffs-appellants, particularly plaintiff Marinette
Abarico, have abused their right, at the expense of defendant-appellee’s
existing right.

7. Defendant-appellee, divested
of portion of leased premises.

For whatever worth this information may bring, it has to be stated at

this point that plaintiff Marinette Abarico had already partly divested
defendant-appellee about two hundred (200) square meters of the leased
premises.

This is how she, through skilful strategy and sinister machination, did
it. At first, she told defendant-appellee to surrender a part of the leased
premises where he put up a “Car Wash Area” in exchange for a space in
the rear portion of the lot; with an express commitment that she will build
the structure and strong building materials as the one defendant-appellee
erected for his “Car Wash Area”.
 Unsuspecting of any sinister machination and for the sake of “buying
peace”, defendant-appellee at first agreed to plaintiff-appellant Abarico’s
suggestion. So, he surrendered possession of the Car Wash Area in favour
of Marinette Abarico; and the latter took possession and immediately
fenced the area and put up a gate with lock.

When he noticed that Abarico’s “commitment” was not about to

happen, defendant-appellee went back to the Barangay Chairman and
executed a “Repudiation” of Abarico’s proposal. However, he could not
anymore repossess his former “Wash Car Area” as the same had already
been fenced and locked by Abarico. Of the 400 square meters originally
leased by defendant-appellee from Rebelion and Aries Calderon, he
(defendant-appellee) now occupies only about one-hundred-twenty (120)
square meters). Courtesy, or discourtesy, of Marinette Abarico.

8. Appeal, flimsy and frivolous.

Finally, it behoves defendant-appellee to respectfully inform this

Honorable Court that he had undergone all kinds of harassment, pressure
and stress from plaintiff Marinette Abarico and her husband, Montano
Abarico. The couple did not respect the two existing (2) contracts. They
have “put the law into their hands”, as a manner of speaking. This case
should have been dismissed even at the Barangay level yet, because
Marinette Abarico is not a real party in interest and does not have any
cause of action against defendant-appellant. And defendant-appellee now
prays of this Honorable Court to dismiss the appeal for being flimsy and
frivolous. of law can correct the injustices the have committed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, BY THE FOREGOING PREMISES, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court to dismiss the appeal for utter lack of merit.
Other relief and remedies just and equitable in the premises are likewise
prayed for.

12 March 2019. Makati City for Taguig City.

QUIROZ DUMAS & CAPISTRANO LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Defendant Aguilar
5F Pacific Star Building (High Rise)
Makati Ave Corner Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue
Makati City, Metro-Manila
By:
 LINO E.A. DUMAS, Esq.
PTR No. 2612120/22 January 19/Palo, Leyte
IBP No. AROO1541/11 January 18/Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 31275
MCLE COC No. V-0021075/04 May 2016/Pasig City

Copy furnished:

Atty. Dennis Amparo

Rms 2114 and 2115, Cityland Hererrea
Tower 98, VA Rufino
Corner Valero Streets and Ayala North
Makati City

EXPLANATION
(Under Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure)

A copy of the foregoing Answer is being served upon the petitioner’s

counsel by registered mail as personal service is not practical due to lack
of messengerial service.

LINO E.A. DUMAS, Esq.

VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines)
Quezon City ) s.s.

I, EMMANUEL AGUILAR, of legal age, single and a resident of No.

20,E. Hermosa Street, Grem Village, San Roque Pateros, Metro-Manila,
after being sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state,
that:

1. I am the defendant-appellee in the above-entitled case; and I

have caused the preparation of the above-entitled Memorandum;

2. I have read and understood the contents hereof and the facts
herein alleged are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and on
the basis of available authentic records.
EMMANUEL AGUILAR
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of March 2019
in _________________, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No.
______________ issued on ______________ at ________________.
 Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 115, Taguig City

BENIGNA CALDERON ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Civil Case No. 18-43-43
For: Unlawful Detainer
- versus - with Damages

EMMANUEL “NOEL” AGUILAR

ET AL.,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------x

MOTION TO SET COUNTERCLAIM FOR HEARING

DEFENDANT EMMANUEL AGUILAR, by the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. The complaint in the above-entitled case was dismissed by this

Honorable Court for its failure to state a cause of action;

2. Court records show that a copy of the said resolution was

received by the plaintiffs, through their counsel, on 24 January 2019 and
plaintiffs have appealed the same to the Regional Trial Court;

3. In his Answer, defendant Aguilar put up a Compulsory

Counterclaim for Damages and Attorney’s fees;

4. Specifically, he asked for the damages he suffered by reason of

the unlawful acts of plaintiffs, particularly Marinette Abarico;

5. There is therefore the necessity of scheduling a date for the

presentation of defendant’s evidence in support of his Counterclaim and
other lawful claims;

WHEREFORE, BY THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court to set a date for hearing of the Counterclaim and
other lawful claims of defendant Aguilar in the above-entitled case. Other
relief and remedies just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed
for.

06 March 2019. Makati City for Taguig City.

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
 METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 115, Taguig City

BENIGNA CALDERON ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Civil Case No. 18-43-43
For: Unlawful Detainer
- versus - with Damages

EMMANUEL “NOEL” AGUILAR

ET AL.,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------x

ANSWER
(With Special and/or Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim)

DEFENDANT EMMANUEL AGUILAR, by the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

45. Defendant Aguilar admits paragraph 2 of the complaint;

46. Defendant denies paragraph 1, because the said address is not

the residential address of all the named plaintiffs; plaintiffs are therefore
guilty of misrepresentation, the truth being: plaintiffs do not reside in the
same place;

47. Defendant Aguilar likewise denies paragraphs 3 and 4 of the

complaint; the truth of the matter being: the alleged complainant named
in Annex “A” of the complaint (Marinette Abarico) has no cause of action
against defendant/s, not being a party to the Lease Contract; Marinette
Abarico’s securing a Certification to File Action is spurious, groundless and
unlawful;

48. Defendant Aguilar is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph
5;
49. Defendant Aguilar partially admits paragraph 6 insofaras the
same refers to the existence of two (2) written Lease Contracts---one,
between plaintiff Rebelion Calderon and defendant Aguilar (area: 280 sq.
m.); and the second, between Aries Calderon and defendant Aguilar (area:
120 sq.m.); the two represented themselves as the exclusively assigned
owners of the areas they respectively leased to defendant for a period of
ten (10) years in 2015; he further denies the rest of the allegations, subject
to the Special and Affirmative Defenses hereinafter set forth;
 50. Defendant Aguilar lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the
complaint; hence, denies the same.

51. Defendant denies that plaintiff Marinette Abarico lawfully

demanded that he vacate the area referred to in paragraph 9; he
(defendant) likewise denies the rest of the paragraph, subject to the
Special and Affirmative Defenses;
52. Respecting paragraph 10, defendant Aguilar admits that a
complaint against him was filed with the Office of the Barangay Chairman
of Barangay Ususan, Taguig City, only; that is, he only admits as far as a
complaint was lodged therein; subject to the Special and/or Affirmative
Defenses hereinafter set forth;

53. Defendant Aguilar specifically denies the allegation in

paragraph 11 of the complaint that he “acknowledged” that the areas he
is leasing from Rebelion and Aries Calderon are no longer owned by them;
the truth of the matter is: defendant personally told her to respect and not
to disturb the existing Lease Contracts because she has no personality to
intervene therein; defendant further denies the rest of the allegations in
paragraph 11, subject to the Special and/or Affirmative Defenses
hereinafter set forth;

54. Defendant Aguilar specifically denies the allegations

contained in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15, the truth of the matter are
those discussed and averred in the Special and Affirmative Defenses
hereinafter set forth;

55. Defendant Aguilar is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in
paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the complaint; hence, he likewise denies the
same; and by way of

SPECIAL AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

56. Defendant hereby repleads, adopts and incorporates by way of

reference all the foregoing averments in so far as they are relevant and
material hereto;

57. The complaint has to be dismissed outright because plaintiffs

do not have any cause of action;
 58. As far as plaintiffs Benigno Calderon, Lolita de Mesa Voltaire SJ
Calderon, Rodolfo Calderon, Crispin Calderon, Flordeliza Calderon,
Christian Calderon, Admiral Calderon, Lawrence Calderon, Florissa
Calderon, Marinette C. Abarico, Voltaire SJ Calderon, Benjamin Bayan are
concerned they are not parties to the Lease Contracts; so, they are not the
real parties in interest herein and have no cause of action against
defendant Aguilar;

59. The two (2) written Lease Contracts, subject matter of the
complaint, are between: (a) plaintiff Rebelion Calderon and defendant
Aguilar (area: 280 sq. m.); and (b) the second, between Aries Calderon and
defendant Aguilar (area: 120 sq.m.); the two represented themselves as
the exclusively assigned owners of the areas they respectively leased to
defendant for a period of ten (10) years in 2015;

60. It has to be stated clearly now that defendant Aguilar entered

into two (2) separate Lease Contracts: one, with Rebelion Calderon and
another with Aries Calderon;

61. Annex “C” of the Complaint had been lumped up by the

plaintiffs into one, but it refers to two (2) separate Lease Contracts;

62. As clearly stated in Annex “C” (and series) of the Complaint and
as acknowledged by the plaintiffs in paragraph 6 thereof, there are no
other parties in the said Lease Contract;

63. Rebelion Calderon and Aries Calderon may be the real party in
interest in the case at bench, but they have omitted a and failed to comply
with a basic requirement before cases of this kind may be filed in court---
there was no conciliation proceedings conducted at the Barangay level in
accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Establishing a System of
Amicably Settling Disputes at the Barangay Level);

64. If, under the terms of their contract, Rebelion Calderon has a
cause of action against defendant Aguilar, the former file an action in court
against the latter;

65. Likewise, if Aries Calderon has a cause of action against

defendant Aguilar, it should follow that he files a separate complaint
against the latter;

66. Both Lease Contracts (lumped up as Annex “C” of the

Complaint) undoubtedly show that the term of each Lease Contract is for
a period of ten (10) years, or until the year 2025;

67. It is now axiomatic to say that, since both Lease Contracts have
been voluntarily entered into and without force or intimidation on either
of the parties, the same must be respected as it is the “law” between each
of them;

68. Very importantly to state that, contrary to the allegation in

paragraph 6 of the complaint, the said Annex “C” never mentions of an
agreement or so-called “understanding” that “defendant shall vacate or be
relocated to the portion to be allotted to them”; this allegation is a lie, a
mere fabrication and part of a sinister scheme to unlawfully terminate the
existing Lease Contracts and deprive defendant Aguilar of his rights arising
from these two (2) Lease Contracts;

69. When the Lease Contracts were executed, both ARIES

CALDERON AND REBELION CALDERON assured defendant that the portions
they were leasing to defendant were the lots particularly assigned and
allotted to them by their co-heirs; in fact, to convince defendant that he
actually owned the area he was leasing to defendant, REBELION told and
showed DEFENDANT AGULAR that he had a house erected thereon;

70. These assurances egged defendant to proceed with the

execution of the Lease Contract and, subsequently, to make capital
expenditures thereon; for which he spent a big amount of investment for
the “Aguilar Auto Works” he established;

71. For these reasons, defendant, who is doing business in the areas
covered by the two lease agreements, was able to secure a
Mayor’s/Building Permit, Business License, Meralco Electric Connection,
Water Connection and Barangay Clearance on his own;

72. The alleged Project of Partition mentioned by plaintiff

Marinette Abarico, if ever it actually exists, has no bearing on, and does
not nullify, the two (2) Lease Contracts; at the most, it has been executed
pocked with highly questionable entries and circumstances;

73. Since 2013 and until 2017, nobody questioned defendant’s

possession;

74. Peaceful possession of the leased premises was only disturbed

by plaintiff Marinette Abarico when in May 24, 2017, the latter and her
husband, Montano Abarico (an employee connected with the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology) barged into defendant’s Auto Shop and
scandalously shouted at, and threatened defendant with harm to leave the
premises because according to them he did not own it;
 75. Because of this, defendant filed criminal and administrative
cases against the Spouses Montano and Marinette Abarico with the Office
of the Ombudsman; a photocopy of the Complaint-Affidavit, with the
evidences and Affidavits of defendant’s witnesses, is hereto collectively
attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “1”;

76. Defendant’s peaceful possession of the premises started when

he received information that one of the plaintiffs, Marinette Abarico, was
intending to put up a commercial building on the area leased by defendant;

77. Defendant just put off this rumor at first; but when Marinette
Abarico and counsel went to see him, about two weeks before May 24,
2017, defendant somehow believed in the rumor;

78. Marinette Abarico and her counsel offered him P600,000.00 so

he will just leave the leased premises; defendant refused Ms Abarico’s
offer, citing his investment expense;

79. So, the lawyer told him to just accept the amount and no
questions will be asked; simultaneously telling defendant that he should
just leave the premises as court action against him will certainly result in
defendant’s loss; since, according to the lawyer, he has ‘not lost a case’
yet;
80. Since he did not heed Marinette Abarico and her lawyer’s offer,
the May 24 2017 incident happened;

81. Threats and various forms of harassment and intimidation were

inflicted on the person of defendant, but he never bogged down;

82. As defendant had earlier stated and alleged, Marinette Abarico

was not party to the Lease Contracts; so, she did and does not have any
involvement therein; (please see Annex “C” and series to the Complaint);
“Dura lex, sed lex.”, they say;

83. Under the circumstances attaining and if ever they had a

legitimate cause of action, it should have been either Rebelion Calderon
or Aries Calderon who should have filed the case for ejectment with the
Office of the Barangay Chairman, not Marinette Abarico;

84. Unfortunately, neither Rebelion Calderon nor Aries Calderon

filed a complaint for Ejectment against defendant Aguilar with the Office
of the Barangay Chairman; hence, this case should likewise be dismissed
outright for non-compliance with a fundamental requirement under
Presidential Decree No. 1508;
 85. What comes to fore is the applicable provision in the 1991
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which we hereby reprint for easy
reference:

“IV
COMMON PROVISIONS

SEC. 18. Referral to Lupon. --- Cases requiring

referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where
there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice,
and may be revived only after such requirement shall
have been complied with. x x x.” (Underscoring Ours)”
86. It is stated for the record that had the case for ejectment
against defendant been at first filed by either Rebelion or Aries Calderon
with the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Ususan, Taguig City,
before coming to court, the Honorable Chairman would not have issued a
“Certification to File Action” because either Rebelion or Aries has no cause
of action against defendant---defendant possesses evidence that he is up-
to-date in his rental payments and Rebelion is now barred from seeking
relief or judicial recourse from our courts of law for wilfully failing to
attend or appear before the Lupon/Pangkat of Barangay Ususan, Taguig
City;

87. It is most respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court has

no alternative but to dismiss the case; and by way of

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM: That,

88. Defendant hereby repleads, adopts and incorporates all the

foregoing allegations by way of reference insofar as the same are relevant
and material hereto;

89. By reason of this unfounded complaint, defendant suffered and

will continue to suffer actual damages, the amount of which will be proven
during the trial;

90. Moreover, due to, and as a consequence of, this unwarranted

and baseless complaint, defendant was constrained to engage the services
of undersigned counsel to protect his and his business interest, thereby
undertaking to pay the amount of P500,000.00, for and as attorney’s fee;
 91. As a consequence or the unreasonable, hasty and groundless
filing of this complaint, defendant suffered unwarranted ridicule and
shame, besmirched reputation, shock, anxiety, sleepless nights and failing
health, and will continue to suffer the effects thereof, until his name and
the goodwill and reputation of his business establishment are vindicated in
a court of law with the corresponding moral and other related damages in
the amount of P5,000,000.00 awarded in defendant’s favour, and as duly
determined and found just by the Honorable Court;

92. Because of this grossly fabricated complaint, defendant will be

constrained to fork out a considerable sum for and as litigation expenses;
and to set an example for the public good, and to deter and discourage
others from committing similar acts of initiating grossly unfounded actions,
plaintiffs should and must be condemned to pay defendant and the Aguilar
Auto Works the amount of P1,000,000.00, for and as exemplary damages.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, BY THE FOREGOING PREMISES, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court to render judgment as follows:

1. Upon filing of the Answer, order the immediate dismissal of the

above-entitled case for failing to comply with the basic
requirement under Presidential Decree No. 1508, in accordance
with Section 18, IV of The 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure and for lack of merit or cause of action;

2. After hearing and trial, order (a) plaintiffs to pay defendant/s

litigation expenses, actual/compensatory, moral and exemplary
damages in amounts duly determined by the Honorable Court; (b)
order plaintiffs to pay defendant the amount of P500,000.00, for
and as attorney’s fee and the cost of the suit;

3. Other relief and remedies just and equitable in the premises are
likewise prayed for.

03 December 2018. Makati City for Taguig City.

QUIROZ DUMAS & CAPISTRANO LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Defendant Aguilar
5F Pacific Star Building (High Rise)
Makati Ave Corner Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue
Makati City, Metro-Manila
By:
 LINO E.A. DUMAS, Esq.
PTR No. 1402466/15 January 18/Palo, Leyte
IBP No. AROO1541/11 January 18/Quezon City
Roll of Attorneys No. 31275
MCLE COC No. V-0021075/04 May 2016/Pasig City

Copy furnished:

Atty. Dennis Amparo

Rms 2114 and 2115, Cityland Hererrea
Tower 98, VA Rufino
Corner Valero Streets and Ayala North
Makati City
EXPLANATION
(Under Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure)

A copy of the foregoing Answer is being served upon the petitioner’s

counsel by registered mail as personal service is not practical due to
geographical distance and due to lack of messengerial service.

LINO E.A. DUMAS, Esq.

 VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines)
Quezon City ) s.s.

I, EMMANUEL AGUILAR, of legal age, single and a resident of No.

20,E. Hermosa Street, Grem Village, San Roque Pateros, Metro-Manila,
after being sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state,
that:

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case; and I have caused

the preparation of the above-entitled Answer;

2. I have read and understood the contents hereof and the facts
herein alleged are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and on
the basis of available authentic records.
EMMANUEL AGUILAR
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of December

2018 in _________________, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License
No. ______________ issued on ______________ at ________________.