June 7, 2024

CHRISTOPHER LAMIGO
Sam Francisca Beach Resort,
Brgy. Nibaliw West Vidal,
San Fabian, Pangasinan

Dear Mr. Lamigo:

Our client, MARK DENVER CERALDE, had just received a letter dated September 23,
2022, sent by you with the caption RE: FINAL DEMAND FOR
REIMBURSEMENT/RETURN OF PAYMENTS MADE AND EXPENSES OF
RENOVATION.

We would like to inform you that our client vehemently denies the false allegations that
you stated in the letter that you sent. First, it was not our client who offered you to lease
the subject premises. Rather, it was you who approached him proposing to enter into a
lease agreement. By this fact alone, your allegation of estafa is baseless considering that
our client did not actively commit the overt act of enticing you into entering in a Contract
of Lease.

Indeed, our client confirmed that he assured you about the leased premises being free
from all liens and encumbrances upon the signing of the Lease Contract. By that time,
however, he was unaware of the Government Road Widening Project due to the fact that
he never received any memorandum or resolution from the local government pertaining
to the same. It was only through yourself that he was likewise informed of the road
widening. Clearly, aside from not being the one who proposed the lease, our client could
not also be said to have acted fraudulently as he was, believing in good faith, that no such
road widening exists at the time of the execution of your contract.

While we regret that you have already caused the renovation of the leased premises, our
client cannot be faulted and be made to reimburse the whole amount spent thereon
considering that it is clear that the Lease Contract does not contain any terms regarding
the reimbursement of any improvement that you would introduce upon the leased
premises as the lessee. In the same vein, he cannot be forced to return the rental payments
already paid since you are still the named occupants/lessees and were the ones clearly in
possession of the premises pursuant to the lease contract.

It should also be emphasized that had you secured a building permit from the local
government prior to making the renovations on the leased premises, you would have been
apprised early on that a road widening project will affect the property. You could have
opted to terminate the lease contract by then, which our client would have freely
accepted. You would not have incurred the expenses for the renovations had you taken
the time to secure the necessary building permit first. Obviously, fault is attributable upon
you, in that sense, due to your haste which ultimately amounts to recklessness.
Furthermore, upon the discovery of the imminent road widening, you already had the
option to terminate the lease contract as well by informing our client of the possible
change in the character of the premises. As the circumstances would have it, both of you
should mutually bear the loss as it was caused by occurrences beyond your control. Then,
you should find a common ground to settle your affairs based on Article 1678 of the Civil
Code which essentially states that, upon the termination of your contract, our client, as
the lessor, may only be made to pay one-half of the value of the improvements which you
introduced on the premises. Should our client refuse to pay, then you may remove the
improvements even if the leased premises would suffer the necessary damage.

We would like to inform you that, as of the time of making this reply letter, our client
does not intend to reimburse or pay the whole amount which you sought in your demand
letter and neither does he intend to return the rental payments which you made in
accordance with your contract. In addition, our client is seriously considering to take
legal actions for the serious anxiety and besmirched reputation caused upon him by your
malicious accusations and unfounded demands.

Thank you.

For our client,

ATTY. FRANKLIN D. CARDENAS

Counsel

Upon our instance:

MARK DENVER CERALDE

Client
No. 220 San Vicente Centro,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan