Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

5th Judicial Region Branch 12 Legazpi City JOHN DOE, Petitioner, -versusCivil Case No. 2743 JUAN DELA CRUZ, JUANA DELA CRUZ and PEDRO DELA CRUZ, Respondents. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

REPLY
COMES NOW, the Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Regional Trial Court, respectfully replies to the June 11, 2013 Answer of the Respondents and avers that: 1. In the Answer of the Defendants it is clear that they are refuting the validity of the Agreement executed between them, they also allege lack of cause of action and questioned the authority of the sheriff to execute the agreement. In contrary however such contentions are but mere excuses in order for the respondent to evade the consequences of not following the order of the Tribunal. 2. On the first point, we would like to stress that the validity of the Agreement cannot be questioned by the allegation that it is obtained through fraud or that the respondents were forced to sign the document. 3. First of all, the Respondents were not forced to sign the agreement, the Sheriff merely explained to them the consequences of not entering into an agreement at that stage of the proceeding. There was clearly no showing that they were forced or was made to sign the agreement against their will.

4. Secondly, the presence of counsel is not a prerequisite for an agreement to be valid, it is enough that the parties have understood the same and is willing to undertake the stipulations stated within it, if in fact there lies a question as to the contents of the agreement the respondents should not have signed the same. 5. Next, the signature of the parties remarks the existence of good faith in complying with the agreement, only clear and convincing proof reversing the same must be presented in order for the allegation to be given at least a scant consideration. 6. More importantly, contrary to the statement that the Agreement executed is void, the undersigned would like to maintain that the contract is valid. If indeed, assuming arguendo that there is a question to the execution of the same it would only then render the agreement to be voidable, and as voidable as it is, it is considered valid until annulled. 7. This was bolstered in the case of Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 966, 978 (1998) which provides: Thus, contracts where consent is given through fraud, are voidable or annullable. These are not void ab initio since voidable or anullable contracts are existent, valid, and binding, although they can be annulled because of want of capacity or the vitiated consent of one of the parties. However, before such annulment, they are considered effective and obligatory between parties. 8. Thus, being effective and obligatory we are left with the impression that regardless of the question on the due execution of the same, it must remain valid until the office requires the annulment of the same. 9. On another point, the Respondents cannot allege that they have not read the Agreement, since the fact of signing the same provides the presumption that they have read and understood the same and are willing to follow it provisions.

10. Our jurisdiction is replete with Jurisprudence regarding this matter, some are stated hereunder:
A contract or conduct apparently honest and lawful must be treated as such until it is shown to be otherwise by either positive or circumstantial evidence.1 A duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity. The party who impugns its regularity has the burden of proving its simulation. 2 A notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.3 As plaintiffs in the action before the trial court, respondents have the burden to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Hence, parties who have the burden of proof must produce such quantum of evidence, with plaintiffs having to rely on the strength of their own evidence, not on the weakness of the defendants.4

11. Consequently, although it may be true that the Decision states that the MARO should be the authorized person to assist the parties in the execution of the lease contract, nevertheless, the Sheriff is the person authorized to execute the order of the court, and since the MARO was the one who failed to appear before the execution of the agreement then the petitioner must not be blamed for its absence. More importantly, the important aspect of the contract is not the presence of the person authorized to assist the parties but the agreement of the parties themselves to comply with the order of the court. 12. Finally, the alleged lack of cause of action is obviously misunderstood by the respondents. In Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, 76 Phil. 666, a cause of action is defined as the delict or
1 2

Archipelago Management and Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 363, 382 (1998) Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr., 431 Phil. 337, 346 (2002) 3 Lao v. Villones-Lao, 366 Phil. 49, 58 (1999). 4 Montanez v. Mendoza, 441 Phil. 47, 56 (2002).

wrong by which the defendant violates the right or rights of the plaintiff. Clearly, in the contemplation of the definition above stated the right of the Petitioner was violated by the Respondent not directly in its failure to honor the Agreement but its failure to honor the Writ of Execution which is a valid order of the court to the parties. 13. In addition, our client has informed us that the above stated defendant have been making false reports that they have already made advances on the contract, we would like to inform however the defendant to stop making this sorts of declarations since in reality no such advances were made or lest even an attempt to do so. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is still most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered as follows: 1. Ordering the respondents to honor the writ of

execution dated November 14, 2012 issued by the Darab; 2. Ordering respondents to honor the agreement dated

November 29, 2012; 3. judgment be rendered against the

respondents,punishing them for indirect contempt for willfull defiance and disregard of the Agreement and the Writ of Execution. And; OTHER reliefs and remedies available under the premises are likewise prayed for. Daraga, Albay for Legazpi City, Philippines, June ___, 2013

AAA and ASSOCIATES

Rawis, Legazpi City

Counsel for Plaintiff

By: Abogado A. Abogado MCLE Exemption No. 0000000000 IBP No. 0000000/Albay/01-01-01 PTR No. 0000000/01-01-01 Roll No. 000001