Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 80
Quezon City
SEGUNDINA GATMAITAN Vda. de GARCIA
Represented by:
DANIEL G. GARCIA
NICASIO G. GARCIA
TERESITA G. GARCIA
Plaintiffs,
-versus-
Civil Case No. R-QZN-19-12987
For: Annulment of Deed of Donation
Surrender of Title with Reconveyance
And Damages
Sps. EDUARDO & SUERTE GARCIA,
Defendants.
X----------------------------X
MOTION TO AVAIL OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY
Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that plaintiff
is availing modes of discovery in civil cases and serves upon the adverse party written
interrogatories under Rule 25 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and likewise moves for
production & inspection of document under Rule 26 of the same Rules, viz:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Defendants have already filed their Answer to the Complaint. Pursuant thereto, plaintiffs
filed a Reply and thereafter a Motion To Set the Case for Pre-Trial.
In their Answer, defendants failed to state whether the safekeeping or custody of the title
is with them or with another person or judicial entity like a banking institution. Plaintiff, mother
of the defendants and their siblings have reason to believe that defendant may have mortgaged the
property to a bank or to a private person.
Since this case is for Surrender of Title, it behooves upon the defendants to state whether
the title is still personally with them or with some banking institution or other persons. Knowledge
of this circumstance will allow the plaintiffs to amend the Complaint to implead other persons or
juridical entity. Hence this Motion To Avail of the Modes of Discovery before the Pre-Trial
proceedings is conducted.
Page 02.
Likewise, in the event that the title is with the defendants, there is therefore a need to
produce the Owner’s Duplicate copy of the Title for examination in Court. Further, plaintiff is
serving written interrogatories to defendant for him to file his responses thereto under sanctions or
pain of default and contempt of court.
To further specify, plaintiff is availing of both Motion for Production
NECESSITY OF THESE MODES OF DISCOVERY
As earlier stated, there is a need to ferret out the truth from the defendants who refused to
surrender the title and reconvey the property to his mother; who trusted him with the execution of
a Deed of Donation, ONLY for the purpose of securing a loan for the construction of an
improvement (building) on the property. The real estate loan had already been paid as of 2017.
Since then, plaintiff had been asking and pleading to her son, defendant Eduardo Garcia, to return
the title to her and reconvey the property. Unfortunately, defendant refused and still refuses to do
so.
Since defendants failed to state in their Answer whether or not the title is with them or with
another person or entity, there is a need for the defendant to clarify this matter. And if the
Certificate of Title No. 80790 is in their custody, there is a need for the production and inspection
of the document before this court.
This is so because it is the duty of the contending parties to lay before the court the factsin-issue fully and fairly, i.e., to present to the court all the material and relevant facts known to
him, not suppressing or concealing, nor preventing the other party, by clever and adroit
manipulation of the technical rules of pleading and evidence, from presenting all the facts within
his knowledge. Hence, the necessity to avail of the modes of discovery.
The Supreme Court; in the case of Elena S. Ong versus Hon. Francisco V. Mazo, etc.,
et al. (G.R. No. 145542, June 04, 2004), said that “the thrust of the Rules is to even make the
availment of the modes of discovery – depositions, interrogatories and request for admissions –
without much court intervention since leave of court is not necessary to put into motion such modes
after an answer to the complaint has been served. The rationale behind the recognition accorded
the modes of discovery is that they enable a party to discover the evidence of the adverse party
and thus facilitate an amicable settlement or expedite the trial of the case. Thus, to deny a party
the liberty to have his written interrogatories answered by his opponent, as what the trial court did,
on the premise that the interrogatories were a “fishing expedition,” is to disregard the categorical
pronouncement in aforementioned case of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan that the time-honored
cry of ‘fishing expedition’ can no longer provide a reason to prevent a party from inquiring into
the facts underlying the opposing party’s case through the discovery procedures. The trial court’s
orders, not being in accordance with law and jurisprudential dictum, are therefore correctible by
writ of certiorari.”
Page 03.
In another case, Koh vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 71388, September 23,
1986), the trial judges were reminded that they should encourage the use of different modes of
discovery; and that it is indeed “the duty of each contending party to lay before the court all the
material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing or concealing nothing, nor preventing
another party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of evidence, from also
presenting all the facts within his knowledge.” (Regalado: Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1,
Sixth Revised Edition, pp. 305, 306)
The truth is that “evidentiary matters” may be inquired into and learned by the parties
before the trial. Indeed, it is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties — before the trial,
if not indeed even before the pre-trial –– should discover or inform themselves of all the facts
relevant to the action, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to
adversaries; in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the
dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the deposition-discovery
mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29.
SUMMATION
In the light of the foregoing discussion, plaintiff through the undersigned counsel moves
that this Honorable direct the defendant to produce the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 80790
registered in the name of Spouses Eduardo & Suerte Garcia in court for inspection in accordance
with Rule 27 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.
Notice is likewise made upon this Honorable Court that Request for Written Interrogatories
is served upon defendants Eduardo & Suerte Garcia for them to respond and file a verified answer
to the written interrogatories, Annex “A”, within 15 days from receipt thereof so that the same
may be considered during the pre-trial conference.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that defendants be directed to produce the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 80790 to this Honorable
Court for inspection. It is likewise prayed that herein attached Request for Interrogatories be noted.
Quezon City
November 14, 2019
The Law Firm
Of
PADILLA VILLANUEVA VIERNES GARCIA & ASSOCIATES
Atty. MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA
Wheels Executive Suites Wheels Building
No. 222 E. Rodriguez Sr., Ave., Quezon City
PTR No. 1250535 January 9, 2019 San Juan
IBP No. 057818 January 3, 2019 Rizal
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance VI No. -00018119 up to April 2022
Tel. Nos. 416-3901; 09209053089
Atty. MARIFE S. TAEZA
Wheels Executive Suites Wheels Building
No. 222 E. Rodriguez Sr. Ave., Quezon City
PTR No. 7377016 January 08, 2019 QC
IBP No. 064665 Janaury 08, 2019 Pasig City
Roll No. 52730
MCLE Compliance VI No. -0017142-1-10-19
Tel No. 416-3901
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. GIRLIE YULORES DIMACULANGAN - - - - Registered mail with return card
No. 34 Examiner St., Brgy. West Triangle
Quezon City
Spouses Eduardo & Suerte Garcia -------Registered mail with Return Card
#37 Anakbayan Street, Brgy. Paltok
San Francisco del Monte Quezon City
EXPLANATION
A copy of this Motion was sent to the Atty. Girlie Yulores Dimaculangan and Sps. Eduardo
& Suerte Garcia by registered mail instead of personal service in view of the lack of messenger to
effect personal service.
Atty. MARIFE S. TAEZA