Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch 66
San Fernando City, La Union

JACQUELINE FLORES-HABLERO,
Represented by RODOLFO O. PASTOR,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL CASE NO. 9250

-versus- For: Judicial Partition and
Annulment of Sale plus
Damages

BETTY FLORES-GONZALES,
EVELYN FLORES-INOPEA, and
SPS. LESTER and HERMINIA FLORES,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITH CROSS-CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANT SPOUSES LESTER FLORES AND HERMINIA

FLORES, through counsel, respectfully aver that:

1. They admit the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of

the second amended complaint;

2. With the exception of the lot described in paragraph 6(a) of the

second amended complaint, which had already been settled through
the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the late Jaime Flores,
they have no knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the rest of the allegations in paragraph 7 of the
second amended complaint;

3. They admit the allegations in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the

second amended complaint;

4. They have no knowledge and information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10 of the
second amended complaint as their co-defendants who had
executed ANNEXES “F” AND “G” of the second amended complaint

Page 1 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages
had assured their Attorney-In-Fact, herein Lester Flores, of proper
coordination with the parties concerned including the plaintiff;

5. Anent the allegations in paragraph 11 of the second amended

complaint, defendant Herminia Flores denies any participation in
the reduction of the area of the subject lot, while on his part, Lester
Flores took the legal steps with authority from their co-defendants
pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney executed by his co-
defendnts, Evelyn F. Inopea and Betty Flores-Gonzales, anent the
determination of the actual area of the subject lot in accordance
with the requirement of the prospective buyer (PGLU) as it would be
paying the lot per square meter;

Copies of the Special Power of Attorney executed by Evelyn F. Inopea

and Betty F. Gonzales are herewith attached as ANNEXES “1” & “1-A” and
“2”, respectively and hereby made integral parts hereof;

6. In so far as they are concerned with respect to the allegations

in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the second amended complaint,
defendants had acted within the bounds of their respective roles
and authority relative to the sale transaction of the subject lot in
accord with the Special Power of Attorney executed by his co-
defendants as their Attorney-In-Fact in the person of Lester Flores;

They also deny specifically that defendants never delivered any

share to the plaintiff because the truth of the matter is, the proceeds
of the sale as agreed by the defendants and their Attorney-In-Fact,
Lester Flores were equally divided among the heirs, namely: BETTY
FLORES-GONZALES, EVELYN FLORES-INOPEA, and JACQUELINE
FLORES-HABLERO, in representation of her father, the late Melvin
Flores. The share of the plaintiff in the proceeds of the sale was
given to her mother and attorney-in-fact, ERLINDA B. ALMADEN in
two separate payments on July 14, 2019 and on July 19, 2014.

Copies of the Acknowledgment Receipts are attached herewith as

ANNEXES “3” & “3-A” and “4” & “4-A”, respectively and hereby made
integral parts hereof;

7. They have no knowledge and information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the
second amended complaint as it is claimed by herein defendants
that they had only acted within the bounds of their respective roles
and authority pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney executed by
his co-defendants as their Attorney-In-Fact as regard to Lester
Flores;

8. They deny specifically the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the

second amended complaint, the truth of the matter is that, their co-
Page 2 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages
defendants had assured their Attorney-In-Fact, Lester Flores, of
proper coordination of all the parties including the plaintiff;
Moreover, plaintiff knew from the start the sales transaction with
the Provincial Government of La Union (PGLU) as evidenced by the
fact that her mother, ERLINDA B. ALMADEN, willingly received the
proceeds of the sale of the subjec property equivalent to the her one-
third share of the agreed price with their Attorney-In-Fact, Lester
Flores;

9. In so far as they are concerned with respect to the allegations

in paragraph 16 of the second amended complaint, defendant
Spouses Lester and Herminia Flores did nothing illegal and had
acted within the bounds of their respective roles and authority
provided for in the Special Power of Attorney executed by their co-
defendants relative to the sales transaction involving the subject lot
(as described in paragraph 6a) and therefore denies specifically the
allegations in paragraph 16.;

Moreover, the claim by the plaintiff that she was unlawfully

deprived of her lawful share in the estate of Jaime FLores is
specifically denied considering that the proceeds of the sale as
agreed upon by the surviving heirs of Jaime Flores were equally
divided between and among them, namely: BETTY FLORES-
GONZALES, EVELYN FLORES-INOPEA, AND JACQUELINE
FLORES-HABLERO, in representation of her father, Melvin Flores;

Furthermore, the share of the plaintiff in the proceeds of the sale

was given to her mother and attorney-in-fact, ERLINDA B.
ALMADEN in two separate payments made by Evelyn Flores-Inopea
to the former on July 14, 2014 and on July 19, 2014.
(Acknowledgement Receipts of payments made were already marked as
ANNEXES “3” & “3-A” and “4” & “4-A”, respectively in paragraph no. 6);

10. In so far as the allegations pertaining to the “bad faith” being

attributed to the Provincial Government of La Union (PGLU), herein
defendant Spouses Lester and Herminia FLores have no knowledge
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 17 of the second amended complaint;

Moreover, with regard to the last statement in paragraph 17,

herein defendant Spouses Lester and Herminica Flores specifically
deny the same, the truth being the fact that the estate of Jaime
Flores was already extrajudicially settled pursuant to a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of the Late Jaime FLores executed
on November 22, 2013; and was published in the Norluzonian
Courier on Dec. 10, 17, and 24, 2013 evidenced by an Affidavit of
Publication over the same period.

Page 3 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages
 Copies of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of the Late Jaime G.
Flores and its corresponding publication in the Norluzonian Courier, as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Publication are herein attached as ANNEXES
“5” & “5-A”, and “6”, respectively and hereby made an integral parts
hereof;

11. They do not have knowledge and information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18 of the
second amended complaint insofar as their co-defendants are
concerend; however with respect to them, the proceeds of the sale of
the lot described in paragraph 6(a) of the second amended
complaint had already been turned over to their co-defendant,
Evelyn Flores-Inopea, who in turn divided the same equally between
her, Betty F. Gonzales, and Jacqueline F. Hablero, in representation
of her father, Melvin Flores;

12. Defendant Lester Flores admits the allegations in paragraph

19 of the second amended complaint, however, it is beyond his
authority to restore in the tax declaration of the subject lot its
former area as its actual area as determined by the concerned
authorities is 6,634 square meters;

13. They admit the allegations in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the

second amended complaint;

14. They deny the allegations in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the

second amended complaint for they have not done any unlawful
acts in connection with the transaction over the lot described in
paragraph 6(a) of the second amended complain, thus they should
not be held liable for moral damages considering that their claims
for such is without legal and factual bases; moreover, plaintiff’s
alleged expenses shall be solely for her account considering this
instant case is unwarranted and a baseless suit against herein
defendants, Spouses Lester and Herminia Flores;

15. They have no knowledge and information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24 of the
second amended complaint considering that the subject Judicial
Affidavit alleged to have been attached in the second amended
complaint was not attached in the copy sent to the undersigned
counsel, thus there is no way for the defendants to know if the
alleged judicial affidavit as attached (ANNEX “K”) is the same
Judicial Affidavit attached to the record as alleged;

16. They have no knowledge and information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the
second amended complaint, considering that Atty. Albert Padilla
may not be allowed to testify in favor of the plaintiff due to the fact
Page 4 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages
that he was part of the original defendant’s (Spouses Lester and
Herminia FLores) counsel (e.g. MOSUELA, PUZON, PADILLA &
ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES) in view of privacy of attorney-client’s
priveleged information guaranteed under our jurisdiction.

Attached herewith is a reproduction of herein defendants’ ANSWER

WITH CROSS-CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM by defendants counsel,
MOSUELA, PUZON, PADILLA, & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES herein
marked as marked as ANNEXES “7” and series and hereby made integral
parts hereof.

BY WAY OF CROSS-CLAIM

17. Defendants, Spouses Lester and Herminia Flores replead the

material allegations in the foregoing paragraphs hereof and further
aver that should they be held jointly liable with their co-defendants,
the latter should be held answerable for them to the extent of their
liability as they had lawfully acted within the limits of their
respective roles and authority in connection with the transaction on
the subject lot described in paragraph 6(a) above.

BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM

18. They also replead the material allegations in the foregoing

paragraphs hereof and furthermore aver that due to this
unwarranted and baseless suit against them, they suffered
besmirched repurtation, mental anguish, serious anxiety, sleepless
nights, and loss of appetite for which they are entitled to moral
damages at no less than Php 100,000.00 each; and being compelled
to litigate without justifiable ground, they incurred and will incur
litigation expenses equitably assessed at no less than Php
50,000.00; and that in order to protect their rights and interests,
they engaged the services of counsel with whom they agreed to pay
attorney’s fees at Php 50,000.00, and appearance fee per hearing at
Php 2,500.00.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and in the interest of

justice, it is respectfully prayed insofar as herein defendants,
SPOUSES LESTER FLORES AND HERMINIA FLORES are
concerned, that judgment be rendered in their favor and -

a. Againts the Plaintiff as follows;

a.1. Ordering the dismissal of this case for lack of cause of

Page 5 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages
 action against them;

a.2. Ordering the plaintiff to pay herein defendants,

Spouses Lester and Herminia Flores moral damages at Php
100,000.00 each; litigation expenses equitably assessed at no
less than Php 50,000.00; attorney’s fees and appearance fee
per hearing at Php 50,000.00 and Php 2,500.00, respectively;
and

a.3. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs of suit; and

b. As against their co-defendants in the event that they be held

jointly liable with them, that said co-defendants should be held
answerable for them to the extent of their liability as they had acted
within the bounds of their respective roles and authority relative to
the transaction over the subject lot (paragraph 6a).

They also pray for other reliefs just and equitable in the
premises.

____________________, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

MOSUELA, GONZALES & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendants (Spouses Lester and Herminia Flores)
NORTESURLU Bldg., Purok 3, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union

By:

JAIME C. GONZALES, JR.

IBP Roll No. 68552, May 29, 2017
IBP O.R. No. 104003, January 08, 2020 (LU CHAPTER)
PTR No. LU 4018162, January 02, 2020
MCLE Comp. No. VI-0007263, valid until April 14, 2022

COPY FURNISHED: (By registered mail with return card due to distance and lack of
personnel to effect personal service to counsels)

ATTY. LORNA B. SIAGO-GACOD

Gacod, Musico and Associates Law Offices
2/F Florentino Bldg., Gen. Luna Street
San Fernando City, 2500 La Union

ATTY. GLORIA D. CATBAGAN

Page 6 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages
Yabes, Yabes-Alvarez & Associates Law Offices
2/F Yabes North Paseo Bldg., Rizal Avenue
San Fenando City, 2500 La Union

Page 7 of 7
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint for the Defendants, Spouses Lester & Herminia Flores;
Re: Civil Case No. 9250 for Judicial Partition, Annulment of Sale and Damages