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
REPLY
PLAINTIFFS, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court by way of Reply, most
respectfully state, viz:
01. Defendants misread and misunderstood the allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s
cause of action is not based on fraud, the prescriptive period of which is four (4) years
but annulment based on simulated or fictitious contract. There was never an allegation
of fraud in the complaint.
02. The allegation in the Complaint was that the parties entered into a simulated Deed of
Donation in order for the defendants to secure a loan from the bank for the construction
of an improvement on the property. At the time of the execution of the Deed of
Donation, plaintiff-owner of the property was already an unemployed senior citizen
and as such, no bank will approve any real estate loan in favor of the plaintiff; hence
the scheme which was concocted by the defendants, with their commitment to return
the title and reconvey the property in the event when the loan is fully paid;
03. Defendants’ allegation that the action is barred by the statutes of limitation is
misplaced. In actions for reconveyance of property predicted on the fact that the
conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action
would be unavailing. The action for the declaration of an inexistent contract does not
prescribe.
04. Neither could laches be invoked. Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are
basically courts of law and not courts of equity.
Page 02.
05. Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code states and we quote “The action or defense for the
declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.” The positive
mandate of Art. 1410 conferring imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of
inexistence of a contract should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract arguments based
on equity. In this connection, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an
imprescriptible legal right.
06. The explicit provision of the law is clear. Hence the action to declare a nullity the
simulated Deed of Donation, subject matter of this controversy, does not and did not
prescribe. This is so because the action is imprescriptible! Defendants should therefore
disabuse their minds from thinking this case is about annulment of contract based on
fraud but rather to declare the Deed of Donation null and void for being a simulated
fictitious contract.
07. Moreover, the real estate loan was only fully paid in 2017 and all the time that the loan
subsisted, the title to the property was with the bank.
08. Defendants’ version in their Answer clearly or unmistakably admit that the property is
owned by his mother. Defendants’ admission that he secured a loan after the execution
of the Deed of Donation further bolsters plaintiff’s pronouncement that the execution
of the Deed of Donation was made for purposely for the defendant Eduardo Garcia to
secure a loan from the bank for the construction of an improvement/building on the
plaintiff’s property.
09. That as a matter of fact Atty. Maria Lourdes P. Garcia would not have agreed to the
drafting and execution of the Deed of Donation solely in favor of Eduardo Garcia to
the detriment of her husband’s legitime as well as that of the other siblings.
10. The only reason why Atty. Garcia agreed to the defendant Eduardo’s proposal to have
the property transferred in his name is his commitment to return the property to his
mother; which is so far, her only valuable property.
11. Even assuming without admitting that defendant put up 25% equity on the real estate
loan, defendants did not pay rentals when he and his family occupied the 3rd floor level
of plaintiff’s property for 25 years. He was supposed to pay Php10,000 per month for
25 years including the parking lot. This amounted to defendants’ total indebtedness of
Three Million Pesos (Php3,000,000.00).
12. As to defendant Eduardo Garcia’s allegation in his Answer that he did not sign a
Revocation annulling the Deed of Revocation, that is a blatant lie. “Res Ipsa Loquitur”!
And not only does the document speaks for itself, no less than the defendant himself
admitted in his messages to his brothers that he indeed signed the Revocation. Please
refer to Annex “A”, which is made integral part of this Reply.
13. Finally, plaintiff has no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Answer.
Page 03.
WHEREFORE premises considered it is most respectfully prayed that the foregoing Reply
form part of the records of this case. It is also requested that Pre-Trial be scheduled. Such other
reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City
October 31, 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
EXPLANATION
A copy of this Reply 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