Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
San Mateo, Rizal, Branch XXX

IN RE: APPLICATION FOR

ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF
TITLE,

ABC,
Applicant,

- versus - LRC Case No. N-XXX

CDE,
Intervenors-Oppositors.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

COMMENT
(To the Formal Offer of Evidence)

Applicant respectfully submits his comment to Intervenor-

Oppositor’s Formal Offer of Evidence, and avers the following:

EXHIBITS “1”, “1-a” up to “1-e” are objected for being false and
spurious and completely contrary to the true intentions of the parties
alleged therein as it purported to extend an authority to several
persons, namely; A, B, C and D, granted to the applicant by his co-
heirs to sell the property described therein, when in fact it failed to
reference the actual and intended lots that were to be subjected to lot
acquisition through the Community Mortgage Program as indicated
in the said document and in turn wrongly included the subject
property of the present case. The applicant bases this claim on the
following premise:

It is indicated in the Extension of Authority that the purpose of

the extension of the authority was to grant them authority to
“negotiate, transact, deal, sell (sic) and to facilitate the proper
documentation for JUDICIAL TTILING to be project for lot acquisition
through Community Mortgage Program (CMP) of the Social Housing
Finance Corporation (SHFC)”. It is worthy to note however that such is
the essentially same purpose under the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) dated November 18, 2013 entered into by the applicant and
the above-mentioned persons attached in the application as Annex
“6”. This MOA, however, covered parcels of land located in XXXX
and are covered by TCT No. XXX and XXXX unlike that of the
extension of authority. Moreover, Annex “7” and Annex “8”
reference the same purpose and the same lots while Intervenor-
Oppositors’ only proof is the Extension of Authority itself. It is clear
then that the true intentions of the applicant and the above-
mentioned persons is for the former to authorize the latter for the
facilitation of the acquisition of the Caloocan lots through the
Community Mortgage Program and not the subject lot in the present
case therefore the same Extension of Authority reflecting such is
nothing but a falsity and does not reflect what the parties have
indeed agreed upon as shown in Annexes “6” to “8”.
On the same premise, the Extension of Authority should not
also be taken as proof that the subject lot in this case is owned in
common by the applicant with the Intervenor-Oppositors given that
the reference made in the document as to the SPA and the existence
of co-ownership relates to the Caloocan lot as mentioned above.

EXHIBIT “2” is being objected to for utter lack of basis with the
only proof of its falsity being claimed by the self-serving testimony of
Danilo Beringuel.

EXHIBIT “3” is being objected to for being irrelevant to the

purpose it is being offered that is that the Deed of Absolute Sale is
fake given that the same does not have any relation to the
document’s validity.

EXHIBITS “4” “4-a” up to “4-c” are objected to for being

immaterial to the purpose for which they are being presented for,
that is to prove that A is in charge of processing the supporting
documents for the present application, that Danilo is in
communication with the Applicant’s counsel and that the Deed of
Absolute Sale is fake, when what these Exhibits only show is that A
received the two documents from Applicant’s counsel, namely a
Photocopy of the Official Receipt, and the Page of Request for
Publication respectively named as EXHIBITS “4-b” and “4-c” and
more noteworthy is the fact that these documents are under the name
of DDDDD and not A which belie his claim that he facilitated the
procurement of said documents.

EXHIBIT “5” is objected to immaterial for the purpose for

which it is being offered, namely to prove that A was in charge of
processing the documentary requirements of the present application
and to an extent that the Deed of Absolute Sale was fake, when the
fact that A might have been present during the payment of the real
estate tax of the subject property does not in any way have any
connection to his purported authority to process the present
2|Page
application, not to mention the suspicious nature of the presence of
his signature and name that was merely written on the said
document. Moreover, it is likewise wrong to claim that it was Danilo
that received the Notice when it is clearly addressed to the
_____________.

On the Judicial Affidavit as EXHIBIT “6” executed by A

commenting Applicant objects to the Purposes of the Offer for the
reason that the exhibit is irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in
this entitled case as well as the same is a mere conclusion of law and
facts.

For EXHIBIT “7” and EXHIBIT “17” including submarkings are

Judicial Affidavit of AAA and BBB commenting Applicant objects to
the Purposes of the Offer for the reason that the same is a mere
conclusions of fact and laws, that the said statement and allegation
are self-serving

EXHIBIT “8” to EXHIBIT “16” including submarking,

commenting Applicant objects to the Purposes of the Offer for the
reason that not only that the same is a mere conclusions of fact and
laws, that the said statement and allegation are self-serving but also
defective attestation by the custodian of the document since it did not
state that the copy of the exhibits is the correct copy of the originals
and that there is no seal indicated thereto.

To stress, Section 25, Rule 132 of the Rule of Evidence, provides:

“Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a

copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the
copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under
the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he
be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
court. (26a)”

In the case of Heirs of Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals 1, the

Supreme Court elucidated Section 25, Rule 132 of Rules of Evidence,
and to quote:

“ XXX

There is an ostensible attempt to pass off Exhibit H as

an admissible public document. For this, respondent relied
on the stamped notation on the photocopy of the deed that it
is a certified true xerox copy and said notation was signed
1
GR No. 150206, March 13, 2009
3|Page
 by a certain Honesto P. Velez, Sr., Assessment Officer, who
seems to be an officer in the local assessor’s office. Regarding
the authentication of public documents, the Rules of Court
provide that the record of public documents, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. The
attestation of the certifying officer must state, in substance,
that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific
part thereof, as the case may be.

To begin with, no proof whatsoever was presented by respondent that an

original of Exhibit H was registered or exists in the records of the local assessor’s
office. Furthermore, the stamped certification ofz is insufficient authentication
of Exhibit H since Velez’s certification did not state that Exhibit H was a true
copy from the original. XXX” (Emphasis supplied)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of Honorable Court that the above documentary evidence for
the Intervenor-Oppositor be NOT admitted based on the above
comments

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

San Juan City for San Mateo, Rizal, Philippines, 15 February 2020.

XXXXX
Counsel for the Accused
Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan MM
02 725 39 72

By:

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY MAIL

Service of copy of this pleading to the adverse party by

registered mail was resorted to as personal service is not practicable
due to time constraint and lack of personnel and the distance
between the undersigned's office and that of the adverse counsel.

4|Page
Atty. XXXXXX

5|Page