Republic of the Philippines

Third Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF BALER-SAN LUIS
Baler, Aurora

CRISABEL DUEÑAS-BAUTISTA,
RUTH DUEÑAS, FELICISIMO
NOVILLOS and
BERNARDO DUEÑAS
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO. 449
-versus-
For: Declaration of Nullity of:
(1) Extrajudicial Settlement
dated August 23, 2016; (2)
Deed of Sale between Ramon
Dueñas and Revita, et al.,
dated October 11, 2016 ;(3)
Deed of Absolute Sale between
Sps. Jesus and Lydia Galicia
and Sps. Efren and Florenda
Andres (4) TCT No. 051-2017-
001210; (5) TCT No. 051-
2016000017; (6) TCT No.
2013001030; (7) TCT No. T-
40444 and Recovery of
Possession with Damages
RAMON DUEÑAS, et al.
Defendants.
x--------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION ON
MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY ATTY. RAY JOHN E. BANGI

PLAINTIFFS, assisted by the Public Attorney's Office, through the

undersigned, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully allege:

1. THAT, on November 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs, through the

undersigned counsels were given a period of Ten (10) days
 from the same day to file their Comment/Opposition on the
Motion to Dismiss filed by Atty. Ray John E. Bangi. However,
November 18, 2023 falls on Saturday, in which case the last day of
filing of this Comment/Opposition will be on the next regular day
which is on Monday (November 20, 2023), thus, the filing of this
Comment/Opposition is within the time allowed by law.

2. THAT, upon a thorough examination of the Motion to Dismiss

filed by the Defendants, Katrina Revita-Nicolas, Sir Ricson
Revita, Abigail Revita-Monje, Patrick Revita and Ricardo
Revita, through their counsel, dated September 22, 2023 and
received by the Plaintiffs, through the undersigned counsel on
November 8, 2023, it is evident that said motion should be
dismissed. The said Motion is founded on the ground of Lack
of Jurisdiction as defined by Batas Pambansa Bilang 120.

3. THAT, according to the defendants through their counsel, Atty.

Bangi, the subject of the instant case is Lot 1020, and not just the
Lot 1020-A allegedly purchased by the family of Ricardo Revita
following the questioned adjudication of the Lot 1020 to all
supposed heirs of the decedents.

4. To discuss the issue raised by the defendants through counsel,

the Plaintiffs would like to point that, an extrajudicial
settlement in general, is the settling of an estate outside of court
through a contract, which indicates how a deceased owner’s
properties will be divided among the heirs as they see fit.

5. As such, an Extra Judicial Settlement of an Estate being a

contract, the parties to the said contract treated the same as
Divisible contract in relation to Art. 1420 of the Civil Code
which provides that, “in case of a divisible contract, if the
illegal terms can be separated from the legal ones, the latter
may be enforced.” Clearly, the Plaintiffs never failed to establish
their intention of asking the annulment of only Lot 1020-A and
Lot 1020-E in the Extra Judicial Settlement and not the whole
contract.
 6. Again, the intention of the Plaintiffs is only to annul the Lot
1020-A which has been fraudulently adjudicated solely to
Ramon Dueñas and Lot 1020-E fraudulently adjudicated to
Simon Dueñas and Lauro Dueñas. Although in the title of this
case, indicatess that the Plaintiffs are asking for the annulment
of the whole Extra Judicial Settlement, the body of the
complaint will prevail only Lots 1020-A and 1020-E are the
main subjects of this case. As mentioned in the case of
SPOUSES WILLIAM GENATO and REBECCA
GENATO, Petitioners, vs. RITA VIOLA, Respondent., G.R.
No.169706, February 5, 2010, “When there is a conflict between
the title of the case and the allegations in the complaint, the
latter prevail in determining the parties to the action.
Jurisprudence directs us to look beyond the form and into the
substance so as to render substantial justice to the parties and
determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of the
controversy with least regard to technicalities.”

7. Hence, considering the two lots above-mentioned are only the

subjects of the controversy, this Honorable Court has
jurisdiction over the case since the total assessed value of both
lots do not exceed the threshold of the assessed value set by
law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the

plaintiffs, by counsel, most respectfully pray unto this Honorable
Office that the instant MOTION TO DISMISS be DENIED.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

November 21, 2023, at Baler, Aurora.

Assisted by:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Department of Justice
PAO Baler District Office
2nd Floor Municipal Legislative, Municipal Hall of Baler,
Municipality of Baler, Province of Aurora
Email add: paobaler@gmail.com
Contact No. 09071662424

By:

QUEEN JANE TADEJA ALDAVE

Public Attorney I
Roll No. 76089, May 4, 2022
IBP No. O.R. No. 255179; December 28, 2022
Admitted to the Bar on May 4, 2022
queenjanetadeja.aldave2121@gmail.com / 09566971432

And:

ATTY. RAUL D. GALAGALA

OIC-District Public Attorney
Public Attorney III
Roll No. 60441
IBP O.R. NO. 282380, 01/10/2023
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0027685
 Valid until April 14, 2025

NOTICE

THE CLERK OF COURT

MCTC of Baler-San Luis
Baler, Aurora

Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing Comment to the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt thereof for its consideration without
further arguments.

QJTA

Copy furnished:

ATTY. RAY JOHN E. BANGI

Counsel for the Defendants
2404 Tower 3, Centera Building, EDSA corner Reliance Street,
Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City

EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Section 7, Rule 13 of the revised Rules of Court, a copy of this

Comment was served to the Counsel of the Defendants, Atty. Ray John E. Bangi, by
registered mail due to distance from the Public Attorney’s Office.

QJTA