REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND ADJUDICATION COMMISSION
REGIONAL ADJUDICATION BRANCH-NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
HULRB Building, Kalayaan Avenue
Diliman, Quezon City
GOLDMINE INTERIOR HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
Complainant,
-versus- HLURB Case No. HOA-072619-
3045
ROWENA BONGA, BLAS SORIANO,
ALMA AGGABAO, CATHERINE MAY
LITERATUS, MICHAEL TEJADA,
ARLENE BERMEO, CREZZEL AGGA-
BAO, DIANA ACEDERA, ALLAN BA-
LINGIT, FRANCISCO ELCANO,
ESTELA ACUYAN, MARLYN AGGABAO,
CORAZON ANGELA MELENDEZ, EN-
RIQUE ANONUEVO, SHEILA MARIE
CUDILLA and GEMARIE LORISTRO
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Respondents, ROWENA BONGAT, BLAS SORIANO, ALMA
AGGABAO, CATHERINE MAY LITERATUS, MICHAEL TEJADA, ARLENE
BERMEO, CREZZEL AGGABBAO, DIANA ACEDERA, ALLAN BALINGIT,
AARON BALUYOT, EDGARDO BALINGIT, FRANCISCO ELCANO,
ESTELA ACUYAN, MARLYN AGGABAO, CORAZON ANGELA
MELENDEZ, ENRIQUE ANONUEVO, SHIELA MARIE CUDILLA and
GEMARIE LORISTRO, through undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Office, submits this POSITION PAPER and avers that:
I.
THE PARTIES
1. Complainant, Goldmine Interior Homeowners Association, Inc. with
business address at Goldmine, Sitio Pasacola, Barangay Nagkaisang Nayon,
Novaliches, Quezon City with Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(“HLURB”) registration number 14415;
2. Respondents, Rowena Bongat, et al., all of legal age, Filipino, residents of
Units in Goldmine Interior Homeowners Association, Inc., in Sitio Pasacola,
Barangay Nagkaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon City, Metro Manila,
Philippines;
II.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
3. The respondents have been complying faithfully to the Lease/Purchase
Agreement (LPA) or the Kasunduan ng Pagpapaupa/Bilihan, and that the
complaint filed by the complainant is baseless, without merit, and frivolous;
III.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4. The following are the facts of the case:
a. On February 2016, the Social Housing Finance Corporation
(“SHFC”) granted the complainants collectively with a loan which is
payable for thirty (30) years in consideration for the lease of SHFC’s
property located in Goldmine, Sitio Pasacola in Novaliches, Quezon City,
Metro Manila, Philippines;
b. Later on, the Goldmine International Homeowners Association was
established. Its office among others is to appoint its President to act as a
withholding agent in behalf of SHFC as regards the payments of the
respondents’ loan;
c. Goldmine International Homeowners Association elected Mr. Ric B.
Edianel as its Chairman and President. Being the withholding agent in behalf
of SHFC, the Complainant has been receiving the payments made by the
respondents, and issues receipts as an incident thereto since 2016;
d. Respondents have been paying their monthly amortizations on time.
However, starting July 2018, the complainant has refused to accept the
payments of the respondents, and has prevented the latter from further
complying with their obligations with SHFC.
Attached hereto are the official receipts issued by the Social Housing
Finance Corporation (SHFC) as ANNEX “1” Series;
e. These payments are made through the Goldmine Interior Home
Owners’ Association.
Attached hereto are the acknowledgment receipts issued by the
Goldmine Interior Home Owners’ Association as ANNEX “2” Series.
f. The respondents likewise made payments to the Goldmine as far as
2018 and yet as of date, no official receipt was issued to them.
Attached hereto are the acknowledgement receipts for said payments
as ANNEX “3” series.
g. The complainant already refused to receive and accept the monthly
payments of the respondents without justifiable grounds. Worse, they were
constantly being harassed by the president of the Home owner’s association.
The respondents herein were left with no other choice but to send the
complainant a demand letter for the acceptance of their monthly
amortization dues, and to cease and desist from any other acts of harassment.
Attached hereto is the Demand Letter dated January 15, 2019 as
ANNEX “4”.
h. Respondents likewise wrote to different government agencies to voice
their concern and hopefully assist them in their predicament. They wrote to
Atty. Arnolfo Ricardo B. Cabling, President of the Social Gousing Finance
Corporation (SHFC) and received on October 20, 2018, to Director Bobby
Dumlao of the Presidential Action Center (PACE), to Maria Lourders L.
Agustin, NCR Regional Director of the DILG, Atty. Lloyd Christopher A.
Lao of the HLURB and Atty. Ariel G. Ronquillo of the Civil Service
Commission.
Attached hereto are the letters sent to different government agencies
as ANNEX “5”.
i. These letters yielded responses from said government agencies and
acknowledged receipts thereof.
Attached hereto are the letters received from different government
agencies as ANNEX “6”.
j. On April 3, 2019, Respondents received the Order of Termination of
Conciliation Conference pursuant to the notice of postponement filed by the
complainant Goldmine on the ground that they believe that their concerns
belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Social Housing Finance
Corporation.
Attached hereto is the Order of Termination from the HLURB as well
as its minutes as ANNEX “7” series.
k. Upon the advice of the Social Housing Finance Corporation, the
respondents opened an account with the Bank of Philippine Islands with
account number 4543-1470-07.
Attached hereto is the Photocopy of the Passbook opened by
respondents Rowena Bongat, Rene Baluyot and Blas Soriano as ANNEX
“8” series.
l. Contrary to the complainant’s allegation, Respondents have been very
responsible to their obligations. In fact, respondents have just paid the real
estate taxes of their respective properties.
Attached hereto are the Real Estate Tax and the corresponding
Official Receipts as proof of their payments as ANNEX “9” series.
m. As proof of occupancy, the respondents have already applied for the
electric meter with Meralco as well as water meters. In addition, the bills
would show that there are occupants on said properties as there are
electricity and water consumption, contrary to the allegation of the
complainant that the respondents are not occupying these properties.
Attached hereto are the Meralco and Maynilad Bills as ANNEX “10”
Series
n. Complainant alleged that the respondents have grossly violated the
provisions of the KASUNDUAN particularly sections 4 and 9 thereof;
IV.
ISSUES
A.
WHETHER OR NOT the respondents violated the provisions of the
KASUNDUAN particularly sections 4 and 9;
B.
WHETHER OR NOT the complainant has the right to compel the respondents to
vacate their residential units.
C.
WHETHER OR NOT the complaint filed is frivolous, unfounded and retaliatory.
V.
DISCUSSION
The respondents did not
violate the provisions of
the KASUNDUAN
5. The sections 4 and 9 of the KASUNDUAN specifically provides that:
“SEKYON 4. GAMIT ng ARI-ARIAN.
Ang LESSEE/BUYER, sa panahon ng termino ng
lease, ay may tiyak na paghahawak at buong
karapatang gamitin, panatilihin at patakbuhin ang ARI-
ARIAN, eksklusibo para sa layuning pang tirahan at
alinsunod sa itinakdang alutuntunin at talunton sa
Kasunduang ito at sa mahigpit na pang-alinsunod sa
mga batas, ordinansa at mga regulasyon na
ipinapatupad dito at hindi dapat pahintulutan na
gamitin ang ARI-ARIAN para sa layuning labag sa
batas o para sa mga layuning hindi pinahihintulutan
dito. Kung ang LESSEE/BUYER ay ginagamit at
nagbibigay-daan sa paggamit ng ARI-ARIAN para sa
iligal na layunin o sa mga layuning hindi
pinahihintulutan, ang LESSEE/BUYER ay nararapat
na isauli ang nagugol sa LESSOR/SELLER para sa
anumang pinsala, pananagutan, pagkawala o gastusin
na maaring danasin ng LESSOR/BUYER dahil o
bilang resulta ng nasabing maling paggamit, kabilang
ang pagbabayad ng anumang uri ng multa na maaring
ipataw sa LESSOR/SELLER. Bilang karagdagan sa at
sa kabila ng karapatan sa nagugol, ang
lESSOR/SELLER ay maaaring, sa ganitong
pagkakataon, kanselahin ang kasunduan ng
pagpapaupa na ito.
SEKYON 9. PAGTATALAGA/SUBLEASE
9.1 Ang LESSEE/BUYER ay di maaring i-sublease o
italaga ang kanyang karapatan at interes sa ARI-
ARIAN ng walang paunang nakasulat na pahintulot ng
LESSOR/SELLER o kanyang assignee. Anumang
paglabag sa probisyon na ito ay magbibigay ng
karapatan sa LESSOR/SELLER, o kanyang assignee,
na wakasan ang pagpapaupang iginawad alinsunod
dito.”
6. The complainant has no proof that the respondents have indeed grossly or
even remotely violated the above mentioned sections. A perusal of the
complaint would only show the allegations are conjectures and no
corroborating evidence was included herein to support such allegation.
7. In the case of FRANCISCO LIM [Link] PCI BANK, now known as
the BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., *1 court said that “The basic rule is
he who alleges must prove his case.”
8. In the instant complaint, nothing was shown that the respondents have
violated section 4 of their agreement. The purpose to which the properties
were leased to the respondents was kept within the bounds of the law. Also,
said properties were not used to any illegal, unlawful or not intended
purpose.
9. There was also no proof that the respondents violated section 9 of the
Agreement. No corroborative document of evidence to support the
1
Fransico Lim V. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 183918, January 15, 2014
allegations of the complainant that the said property was indeed subleased to
another person.
The complainant has no right
to compel the respondents to
vacate the residential units
[Link] to Article 1654 of the New Civil Code, “The lessor is obliged:
1. To deliver the thing which is the object of the contract in
such a condition as to render it fit for the use intended;
2. To make on the same during the lease all the necessary
repairs in order to keep it suitable for the use to which it has
been devoted, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary;
3. To maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate
enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
contract.” (emphasis supplied)
11.A valid and existing contract is still in full force and effect between the
complainant and the respondents. The complainant has no right to compel
the respondents to vacate the residential units since the latter have been
paying religiously their monthly amortizations on time, until the
complainant refused to accept payments and has prevented the respondents
from further complying with their obligations;
[Link] complainant placed the respondents in DEFAULT STATUS when in
fact; the latter have been complying with their obligations. The complainant
has repeatedly threatened the respondents to forcefully leave their units
despite the existence of a valid lease contract and the willingness of the
respondents to pay their dues;
[Link], the complainant declared that the residential units, in which the
respondents are occupying, are open for lease by new tenants. The former
has repeatedly threatened the latter to vacate the units by force as the same
will be occupied by the new tenants;
[Link] complainant has clearly no right to compel the respondents to vacate the
residential units. By threatening the respondents to vacate the units, the
complainant is clearly not maintaining the lessee in the peaceful and
adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract.
The Complaint is
frivolous, unfounded
and retaliatory.
[Link] the case of BUDENCIO DUMANLAG V. ATTY. JAIME BLANCO, JR., 2
the court specifically ruled that “as a rule, a complainant should not be
penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate. But the rule applies only if
the right is exercised in good faith. When the complaint is filed in bad faith,
the Court has to step in and penalize the erring complainant.
[Link] the present complaint, the complainant filed a baseless complaint
knowing full well of the absence of violations of the respondents of the
provisions of the KASUNDUAN;
[Link] complaint is retaliatory since the complainant unquestionably knew of
the pending criminal case against them filed by the respondents dated 31
January 2019; yet, they insisted on their unfounded claim by filing the
present complaint;
[Link], the complaint filed against respondent is nothing but an
attempt to intimidate, harass, and coerce them into acceding to the demands
of the complainant.
PRAYER
2
Budencio Dumanlag V. Atty. Jaime Blanco JR., A.C No. 8825, August 03 2016
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. To dismiss the instant complaint for being frivolous, unfounded and
retaliatory;
2. To order the complainant to receive the payments of the respondents which
are set aside and deposited to a BPI account;
3. To compensate the respondents damages in the amount this Honorable
Office deems fit; and
4. To order the complainant Attorney’s fees equivalent to 15% of the damages
that may be awarded to the respondents.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Pasig City for Quezon City, this ____ day of March 2020.
LALO LAW FIRM
th
8 Floor, Pasig Revolving Tower,
Market Avenue, Brgy. San Nicolas
Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 (2) 2601312
legaladvocate1927@[Link]
By:
ATTY. LIFRENDO M. GONZALES
Roll No. 56526
IBP No. 113799 / 14 January 2020
PTR No. 6532526 / Pasig City / 16 January 2020
MCLE No. VI – 0026760, 04/13/2019 until 04/14/2022
Copy furnished:
Goldmine Interior Homeowners
Association, Inc.
Sitio Pasacola, Brgy. Nagkaisang Nayon,
Novaliches, Quezon City
EXPLANATION
Copies of this Position Paper were served by registered mail due to time and
distance constraints, and for lack of the undersigned’s staff who can serve the same in
person.
ATTY. LIFRENDO M. GONZALES
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
(AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING)
WE, ROWENA BONGAT, BLAS SORIANO, ALMA AGGABAO,
CATHERINE MAY LITERATUS, MICHAEL TEJADA, ARLENE BERMEO,
CREZZEL AGGABBAO, DIANA ACEDERA, ALLAN BALINGIT, AARON
BALUYOT, EDGARDO BALINGIT, FRANCISCO ELCANO, ESTELA
ACUYAN, MARLYN AGGABAO, CORAZON ANGELA MELENDEZ,
ENRIQUE ANONUEVO, SHIELA MARIE CUDILLA and GEMARIE
LORISTRO, all of legal ages, Filipino, and a residents of GOLDMINE BRGY.
NAGKAISANG NAYON NOVALICHES QUEZON CITY, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. WE am the Respondents in the foregoing Complaint, and we have caused the
preparation of the same, the contents of which are all true and correct to the best of
our personal knowledge, information and belief;
2. We certify that neither have we commenced nor is there any pending petition
of similar nature before any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and if I should
hereafter learn that the same or similar petition has been filed or is pending in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, we shall report the fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
__________________ in Pasig City.
ROWENA BONGAT
BLAS SORIANO
ALMA AGGABAO
CATHERINE MAY LITERATUS
MICHAEL TEJADA
ARLENE BERMEO
CREZZEL AGGABBAO
DIANA ACEDERA
ALLAN BALINGIT
AARON BALUYOT
EDGARDO BALINGIT
FRANCISCO ELCANO
ESTELA ACUYAN
MARLYN AGGABAO
CORAZON ANGELA MELENDEZ
ENRIQUE ANONUEVO
SHIELA MARIE CUDILLA
GEMARIE LORISTRO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before this ______ day of ________________,
20___ at _____________________________.
Doc. No.: _____
Page No.: _____ NOTARY PUBLIC
Book No.: _____
Series of 2020.
