REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTBRANCH LXXX

MUNTINLUPA CITY

HOLIDAY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTINC., rep. By its Vice President forCorporate Affairs, SERVILLANO R. ZABAL,

Plaintiff/s.

-versus- Civil Case No. 5809

For: EJECTMENT WITH DAMAGES

MARINA BANGOY, Defendant.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MOTION TO ADMIT HERETO ATTACHED POSITION PAPER

DEFENDANTS, thru the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit its Position Paper and states that:

Last October 20, 2005 the parties were required to submit its Position

Paper, however due to heavy case load, saddled by almost daily Court

appearance, defendant was not able to file the required Position Paper as

mandated by the Honorable Court, thus this Motion.

POSITION PAPER

In their Position Paper dated December 12, 2005 in page 2 thereof par. 3 and 4 and we quote:

“ However, the defendant despite receipt of the plaintiff’s demand letter dated November 8, 2004, deliberately failed andrefused to vacate the subject premises to the damage and preju-dice of the plaintiff. Copy of the Demand Letter is hereto attachedas Annex “C”

On February 21, 2005, the title to the subject propertyWas issued in the name of the plaintiff under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14745 thereby rendering insignificant the contentionof the defendant that the plaintiff has no right of possession over

the property subject matter of this case. Copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14745 is hereto attached as Annex “D” ;”

1. The Defendant denies paragraph 1 of the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof.

2. The Defendant’s admits paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

3. The Defendants specifically denies paragraph 3 of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The truth of the matter was that the premises subject matter of this ejectment suit is still registered in the name of the former owner FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (now BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (BPI) who was not joined as party plaintiff. It must be stressed that registration is the operative act that vest ownership over real property.

4. The Defendants specifically denies paragraph 4 and 5 of the plaintiff’s complaint. The truth of the matter was that the plaintiff does not have any right of possession over the property subject matter of this case as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 425 is still registered to its former owner. Bare allegations of ownership without any proof will not ripen to ownership. Our system of registration of real property mandates that ownership over real property must be recorded before the proper Register of Deeds where the land is located.

5. The defendant deny paragraph 6 of the plaintiffs complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof.

Page 2

6. The Defendant herby denies paragraph 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and of the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof. Besides, plaintiff has no valid claim or legitimate claim against the defendant. It is the plaintiffs fault in bringing this baseless suit and his alleged damages is due to his own fault.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTBRANCH 80

MUNTINLUPA CITY

PRO NATURE LENDING, Plaintiff.

-versus- Civil Case No. 5999

FELINDA MOJE,Defendant.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANSWER WITH COUNTER CLAIM

DEFENDANT, by counsel unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers, that:

1. Defendant denies paragraph 1 of the plaintiff’s

complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations thereof.

2. Defendant admits paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs’ complaint

only as to her personal identity .

3. Defendant partially admits the allegation in paragraph 3

only that she proceeded with the plaintiffs office but denies the rest

for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations thereof.

4. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4 and 5 of

the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations thereof.

Page 2

5. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 6 of the

plaintiff’s complaint, but denies the rest thereof for lack of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof.

6. Defendant denies paragraph 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of

the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof;

7. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 13 of the

Complaint.

8. Defendant denies paragraph 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of

the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof

subject to defendant allegations as discussed in her Special and/or

Affirmative Defenses.

BY WAY OF SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant incorporates the foregoing paragraphs insofar

as they are pertinent and relevant hereto and further states:

9. The agreements/stipulations mentioned in the Promissory

Note are “contract of adhesions” and clearly iniquitous. Defendant

were merely required to sign the agreements without informing them

of the actual computation of the charges to be imposes. That

subsequently, defendants noticed that plaintiff has been inserting

hidden charges to the amount of the obligation which was not

disclosed to them. Plaintiff did not provide defendants specific and

concrete manner of computing the charges it imposed upon them in

clear violation of Republic Act 3765 or the Truth in Lending Act on the

Page 3

Disclosure Statement of Loan/Credit Transaction, conformably, the

stipulations are void ab initio for being contrary to law.

AND BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

10. That by reason of the unjustified filing of this case by the

plaintiff, defendant unnecessarily incurred litigation expenses and had

suffered moral damages in the form of mental anguish, serious

anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social

humiliation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be

rendered in favor of the defendant to wit:

1. Dismissing the plaintiff’s Complaint for utter lack of merit.

2. Awarding to defendant moral damages in the amount of Php 50, 000.00 to avoid such unjustified and wanton acts of the plaintiff.

3. Awarding to defendant exemplary damages in the amount of Php 50, 000.00 to avoid such unjustified and wanton acts of the plaintiff.

4. Costs of suit / litigation expenses.

Other relief/s under the premises are likewise prayed.

City of Muntinlupa, September 12, 2005.

Department of JusticePUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Muntinlupa District OfficeSuite 205 & 206 Fresnedi Bldg.,National Rd., Putatan. Muntinlupa City

Page 4

LUIS C. BUCAYON II Public Attorney II Roll No. 43793

IBP No. 648637 PPLM Chapter

VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, under oath hereby state and depose:

1. That I am one the defendant in the above-entitled case.

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer.

3. That Ihave read and understood the contents thereof and all are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and information.

FELINDA F. MOJE Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of September 2005 in Muntinlupa, affiant exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate No. ____________issued at Muntinlupa City on September __, 2005

Notary Public

Doc. No. ___;Page No. ___;Book No. ___;Series of 2005.

Copy furnished:

Atty. PATRICIO L. BONCAYAO JRCounsel for Plaintiffs2Fl. Ancestry Bldg., Rotonda, Alabang Muntinlupa City

Page 5

COMPLIANCE(With Sections 2, 4, 5, and 7, Rule 13of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

and

EXPLANATION(Pursuant to Section 11, same Rule 13)

Undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully states that copies of this ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM was served by registered mail to the counsel for the plaintiff at his address in the plaintiff’s Complaint.

By depositing copies thereof on SEPTEMBER __, 2005 in the post office of Muntinlupa City, as evidenced by Registry Receipts No. ______________ hereto attached and indicated after the name of the addressee and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

The mode of service by registered mail, instead of personal service was resorted to because of lack of personnel to effect personal service thereof.

LUIS C. BUCAYON II

Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTBranch LXXX

MUNTINLUPA CITY

VICTORINO LUDWIG CRUZ,Plaintyiff,

Civil Case No. 5761-versus- For: Ejectment

AVELINO CONSULTA,Defendant.

x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER W/ COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers, that:

1. The defendant admits paragraph 1 of the plaintiff’s complaint in so far as defendant’s personal circumstances and denies plaintiff’s personal circumstances for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof.

2. The defendant denies paragraph 2 of the plaintiff’s complaint for the said lot wherein the house of the defendant was erected is under the transmission lines of the National Power Corporation and in so far as the defendant is concern is owned by the government a public land.

3. The defendant denies paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof. The truth of the matter is that pleaded in the special and affirmative defenses.

4. The defendant denies paragraph 5 of the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations thereof. The plaintiff never talked to the defendant sometime in the month of July of this year.

5. The defendant denies paragraph 6 and 7 of the plaintiff’s complaint for the defendant did not received any demand letter from the plaintiff and there is no contract of lease between plaintiff and defendant. The truth of the matter is that pleaded in the special and affirmative defenses.

6. The defendant denies paragraph 8 and 9 of the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations thereof. Besides, it was the plaintiff’s fault of filing this baseless and unjustified action.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant incorporates by way of reference all the foregoing averments and by way of special and affirmative defenses, further alleges, that:

8. The defendant’s house was erected on the subject lot under the transmission lines of the National Power Corporation since sometime in 1986 for no one owns and claims the said property since it is along the path of the tower and transmission lines of the said entity. Then by the year 1987 a certain Aling Fe Noble claims to have right over the property and demanded for payment for the use of the subject lot wherein defendant by force of circumstances acceded to pay a minimal rental to the former. Thereafter during the year of 1987 ensuing years, Aling Fe Noble regularly collect the payment for the use of the said lot until sometime in the year of 1999 the said Aling Fe Noble no longer appeared to collect payments. Then the defendant heard news that Aling Fe Noble had already died and no one appeared to claim any right over the subject lot.

9. It is not true that defendant lease the subject lot to the plaintiff and he never paid to the plaintiff any fixed monthly rental since at the incessant of the defendant’s occupation of the subject lot, he never knew nor see the plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff never knew the exact date how and when defendant came into possession of the lot as this is not stated in his complaint. There is no contract whatsoever between plaintiff and defendant that the former will no longer collect any rentals to the latter under the express condition that the property will be

return to plaintiff if he needed it. There is no gratuitous contract of lease that exists between plaintiff and defendant.

10. Hence, the plaintiff cannot terminate a contract that is non-existent since there is no contract of lease so to speak between defendant and plaintiff. Likewise, defendant did not receive any demand letter or any formal demand from the plaintiff.

11. The defendant came to know only the plaintiff sometime this October 2004 after the filing of the instant case when the latter suddenly appeared before the defendant claiming ownership over the property with instruction to the defendant to leave the property since he needs the same.

12. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff has no cause and/or lacks cause of action against the defendant.

13. Further, for the reason that the subject lot wherein the house of the defendant is erected is along the path of the tower and transmission lines of the National Power Corporation and the same lot is own by the government, the more reason that plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant. Likewise, since there is no contract of lease or lessor and lessee relationship between the defendant and plaintiff, the latter has no right of action against the former.

COUNTERCLAIM

That by reason of the unjustified filing of this case by the plaintiff, defendant unnecessarily incurred litigation expenses and had suffered moral damages in the form of mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendant to wit:

4. Dismissing the plaintiff’s Complaint.

5. Awarding to the defendant moral and exemplary damages in the amount P100, 000.00 to avoid such unjustified and wanton acts of the plaintiff.

6. Costs of suit / litigation expenses.

Other relief/s under the premises are likewise prayed.

November 26, 2004, Muntinlupa, Philippines.

Department of JusticePUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Muntinlupa District OfficeSuite 205 & 206 Fresnedi Bldg.,

National Rd., Putatan. Muntinlupa City

By: LEONCIO D. SUAREZ, JR.

Public Attorney II Roll No. 44185

IBP Lifetime No. 04860 / 5-19-03

VERIFICATION

I, the undersigned, under oath hereby state and depose:

7. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case.

8. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer.

9. That we have read and understood the contents thereof and all are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and information.

AVELINO CONSULTA Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of June 2004 in Muntinlupa, affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate No. ___________ issued at Muntinlupa on ________________, 2004.

Notary Public

Doc. No. ___;Page No. ___;Book No. ___;Series of 2004.

Copy furnished:

Atty. Leopoldo J. Valcarcel, Jr.Counsel for PlaintiffsSibulo Subdivision IISan Pedro, Laguna 4023

COMPLIANCE(With Sections 2, 4, 5, and 7, Rule 13of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

and

EXPLANATION(Pursuant to Section 11, same Rule 13)

Undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully states that copies of this pleading was served by registered mail to:

Atty. Leopoldo J. Valcarcel, Jr.Sibulo Subdivision IISan Pedro, Laguna

By depositing copies thereof on November ___, 2004 in the post office of Muntinlupa City, as evidenced by Registry Receipts No. ______________ hereto

attached and indicated after the name of the addressee and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

The mode of service by registered mail, instead of personal service was resorted to because of lack of personnel to effect personal service thereof.

LEONCIO D. SUAREZ, JR.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTBRANCH 80

CITY OF MUNTINLUPA

ADVANCE CREDIT CORP.,Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 5901

Sps. LIGAYA PORTON andNILO PORTON,

Defendants.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

OMNIBUS MOTION:

1. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( Order dated May 12, 2005 )

2. TO ADMIT ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANTS Spouses Porton, by counsel unto this Honorable Court, in support of its Motion, states:

In an Order of this court dated May 12, 2005, the