Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch 29
San Fernando City, La Union

JACQUELINE FLORES-HABLERO
Represented by RODOLFO PASTOR,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL. CASE NO. 9250

FOR: JUDICIAl PARTITION,
ANNULMENT OF SALE
PLUS DAMAGES

BETTY FLORES-GONZALES, EVELYN

FLORES-INOPEA and SPS LESTER
FLORES and HERMINIA FLORES,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS -

BETTY F. GONZALES AND EVELYN F. INOPEA’S
FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS

DEFENDANT SPOUSES LESTER AND HERMINIA FLORES, through counsel,

unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submit their comments/ objections to co-
defendants’ formal offer of exhibits, to wit that:

EXHIBITS COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS

1
Tax Declaration No. 93- It is admitted as to its existence but not as to the
056-26012 correctness of the allegation relative to the area
subject of the document (9,210 square meters) for
being contrary to the facts and evidence presented
on the matter.

The measurement as indicated in the subject tax

declaration does not reflect the true and correct
measurement of the property (6,634 square meters)
on the ground as measured by Engr. Arnulfo Cacho
from the Office of the Provincal Assessor during the
mandatory verification survey conducted for the
Provincial Government of La Union which
subsequently bought the subject property as
described in the said tax declaration.

The reduction from 9,210 square meters to 6,634

square meters in the land area as stated in the tax
declaration and as against the actual measurement on

Comments/Objections to Co-defendants’ Formal Offer of Exhibits re: Civil Case No. 9250
Page 1 of 5
 the ground according to Engr. Cacho was not in the
actual land mass area of the property but a reduction in
the area meaurement on the ground of the same land
mass area of the property since the verification survey
established and determined the actual land area
measurement of the property with reference to the same
land mass area of the property inside the reference
markings as pointed/located by the tenant adjacet owner
as well as what was described in Tax Declaration No.
93-056-26012.

2
Acknowledgment It is admitted only as to the existence of the
Receipt dated 7/14/14 subject acknowledgment receipt but not as to the
of the amount of veracity and truthfulness of the allegation that the
SEVENTY FIVE amount of Seventy five thousand (Php75,000.00)
THOUSND PESOS pesos was received by Erlinda Almaden since she
(Php 75,000.00) issued was never presented to testify on the matter and the
by Erlinda Almaden defendants were not afforded their rights to cross
examine the alleged recipient if indeed she received
the money or not, thus incompetent and
inadmissible as evidence.

Also, the original copy of the alleged

Acknowledgment Receipt was never presented in
court for examination and comparison by the herein
and other counsel.

Only in the Judicial Affidavit of Evelyn Flores-Inopea

was the subject Acknowledgment Receipt was
mentioned and during cross was hardly or none at all
was testified upon by the witness, Evelyn Flores owing
to the fact that she could hardly hear, could hardly talk
and could hardly understand questions propounded to
her, not even by her own counsel despite the allegation
by her counsel that she actually answered all the
questions propounded to her during the execution of her
Judicial Affidavit.

3
Acknowledgment Similarly as in item no. 2, it is admitted only as to
Receipt dated 7/19/14 the existence of the subject acknowledgment receipt
of the amount of but not as to the veracity and truthfulness of the
EIGHTY NINE allegation that the amount of Eighty-nine thousand
THOUSAND ONE one hundred sixty-five pesos and fifteen centavos
HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE (Php89,165.15) was received by Erlinda Almaden
PESOS AND FIFTEEN since she was never presented to testify on the
CENTAVOS (Php matter and the defendants were not afforded their
89,165.15) issued by rights to cross examine the alleged recipient if
Erlinda Almaden indeed she received the money or not, thus
incompetent and inadmissible as evidence.

Also, the original copy of the alleged

Acknowledgment Receipt was never presented in
court for examination and comparison by the herein
and other counsel.

Comments/Objections to Co-defendants’ Formal Offer of Exhibits re: Civil Case No. 9250
Page 2 of 5
 Similarly, only in the Judicial Affidavit of Evelyn
Flores-Inopea was the subject Acknowledgment Receipt
was mentioned and during cross was hardly or none at
all was testified upon by the witness, Evelyn Flores
owing to the fact that she could hardly hear, could
hardly talk and could hardly understand questions
propounded to her, not even by her own counsel despite
the allegation by her counsel that she actually answered
all the questions propounded to her during the execution
of her Judicial Affidavit.

4
Deed of Absolute Sale It is admitted only as to the existence of the said
of a parcel of land, deed of conveyance and the fact that the Province of
declared under La Union purchased subject lot covered therein with
Tax Declaration No. 13- an area of 6,634 square meters declared in the name
056-92431 dated of the late Jaime Flores in the amount of Six million
February 18, 2015. six hundred thirty-four thousand pesos (Php
6,634,000.00), but NOT TO THE ALLEGATION that
Lester Flores made it appear that he has authority to
sell the same for and in representation of Jaime
Flores and/or his heirs/successors in interest for
being baseless and contrary to the facts and
evidence presented thus far.

Lester Flores’ authority is contained in the SPECIAL

POWER OF ATTORNEY executed by both sisters, Betty
Flores-Gonzales dated October 7, 2013 and Evelyn
FLores-Gonzales dated November 12, 2013 , daughters
of the late Jaime Flores; where both authorized Lester
Flores to represent them in the Extrajudicial Settlement
and Sale of the estate of the late Jaime Flores, and to
make, sign and execute the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Deed of Sale relative to the estate of the
late Jaime Flores subject of this case.

5
Disbursement Voucher It is admitted only as to its existence and as to
dated March 26, 2014 the facts contained therein, but not as to any
in the amount of purpose it is being or may be offered by herein co-
THREE MILLION defendants for being self-serving.
THREE HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 3,317,000.00)

6
Disbursement Voucher Similarly, it is admitted only as to its existence
dated January 30, 2015 and as to the facts contained therein, but not as to
in the amount of any purpose it is being and/or may be offered by
THREE MILLION herein co-defendants for being self-serving.
SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 3,317,000.00)
7
Special Power of It is admitted only as to its existence and as to
Attorney dated the facts contained therein, but NOT TO THE

Comments/Objections to Co-defendants’ Formal Offer of Exhibits re: Civil Case No. 9250
Page 3 of 5
November 12, 2013
executed/signed by
Evelyn Flores-Inopea in
favor of Lester Flores
7-A
Special Power of
Attorney dated October
7, 2013 executed by
Betty Flores-Gonzales
in favor of Lester Flores
Comments/Objections to Co-defendants’ Formal Offer of Exhibits re: Civil Case No. 9250
ALLEGATION “that no where in the said Special
Power of Attorney indicates that Evelyn Flores-
Inopea is authorizing Lester Flores to cause the
revision of the the subject property, neither did she
indicates that she and her sister, Betty Flores-
Gonzales are the only legal heir of Jaime Flores”, for
being contrary to evidence presented thus far.
A cursory reading of the Special Power of Attorney
executed by Evelyn Flores-Inopea in favor of Lester
Flores particularly in the enumeration of “acts”, item nos.
4, 5, and 6 are all “indications” that she is authorizing
Lester Flores to cause the revision of the subject
property. The same “indications” are very clear in the
second paragraph of Evelyn Flores-Inopea’s SPA in
favor of Lester Flores giving the latter power and
authority to do and perform any and every act and thing
whatsoever requisite necessary or proper to be done in
and about the premises as fully to all itents and
purposes as Evelyn F. Inopea might or could do if
personally present and acting in person; and in the third
paragraph even RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED all that
her Attorney-in-Fact shall lawfully do or cause to be
done under and by virtue of subject SPA.
Evelyn Flores-Inopea’s claim that she and her sister
did not indicate in their SPAs to Lester Flores that they
are the only legal heir of Jaime FLores is MISLEADING
and in fact not a subject matter of her SPA; on the
contrary, she did not offer any proof to that effect when
she was presented as witness because she could hardly
hear, could hardly talk, and could hardly answer or not
at all answer questions propounded to her by this
counsel and by the other counsel; and she did nothing to
prove such an allegation even when asked directly on
the matter.
It is admitted only as to its existence and as to
the facts contained therein, but NOT TO THE
ALLEGATION “that no where in the said Special
Power of Attorney indicates that Betty Flores-
Gonzales is authorizing Lester Flores to cause the
revision of the the subject property, neither did she
indicates that she and her sister, Evelyn Flores-
Inopea are the only legal heir of Jaime Flores”, for
being contrary to the evidence presented thus far.
A cursory reading of the Special Power of Attorney
executed by Betty Flores-Gonzales in favor of Lester
Flores particularly in the enumeration of “acts”, item nos.
1 and 2 are all “indications” that she is authorizing
Lester Flores to cause the revision of the subject
property. The same “indications” are very clear in the
second paragraph of Betty Flores-Gonzales’ SPA in
favor of Lester Flores giving the latter full power and
authority to do and perform all and every acts, requisites
Page 4 of 5
 as fully to all intents and purposes as Betty F. Gonzales
might or could lawfully do if personally present with
power of substitution and giving and confirming all that
her attorneys or their substitute shall lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue of the said SPA.

Betty Flores-Gonzales’ claim that she and her sister

did not indicate in their SPAs to Lester Flores that they
are the only legal heir of Jaime FLores is MISLEADING
and in fact not a subject matter of her SPA; on the
contrary, she did not offer any proof to that effect when
she was presented as witness because she could hardly
hear, could hardly talk, and could hardly answer or not
all answer questions propounded to her by this counsel
and by the other counsel; and she did nothing to prove
such an allegation even when asked directly on the
matter.

Respectfully submitted.

San Fernando City, La Union, August 19, 2019.

MOSUELA, GONZALES AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Defendants - Spouses Lester & 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. 098528, January 4, 2019 (LU Chapter)
PTR No. LU 3411669A, January 4, 2019
MCLE Comp. No. VI-0007263, valid until April 14, 2022

COPY FURNISHED: (by registered mail with return card

due to lac of personnel to effect personal service)

ATTY. LORNA B. SIAGO-GACOD

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

ATTY. GLORIA . CATBAGAN

Yabes Yabes-Alvarez & Associates Law Offices
2/F Yabes North Paseo Bldg., Rizal Avenue
San Fernando City, 2500 La Union

Comments/Objections to Co-defendants’ Formal Offer of Exhibits re: Civil Case No. 9250
Page 5 of 5