REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH __
MAKATI CITY
RESTITUTO D. MAGCASE, JR.,
ET. AL.,
Plaintiffs,
- versus CIVIL CASE NO. __
AMBROSE M. AZUCENA,
Defendant.
xx-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --xx
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND COUNTERCLAIM
Now comes the DEFENDANT Ambrose BU M. Azucena in
the above-entitled case, by his undersigned counsel,
respectfully shows:
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. That Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Complaint
are admitted;
2. That Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is admitted only
insofar as to the date, age, place of death, and personal
circumstances of the DECEDENT Marino M. Magcase,

but that the allegation contained therein is specifically

denied for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to its veracity or falsity, the truth being
that, despite allegations of the PLAINTIFFS that Bel-Air
Property was included in the estate of the DECEDENT,
the Order of Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court
of San Pablo City dated 15 November 2010 has
already provided that:
On whether the Bel-Air and Alabang properties
should be included in the estate of Marino
Magcase, this Court holds the view that in view of
the undisputed fact that the said properties were
already disposed of during the lifetime of Marino
Magcase and long before his death, the same
should no longer be included in the estate of
the decedent for settlement among the heirs
xxx (cf. Paragraph 1, Page 2, Order dated 15
November 2010). (Emphasis supplied)
A copy of the Order dated 15 November 2010 is
hereto attached and marked as Annex 5 and made
an integral part hereof;
3. That Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is specifically denied
for being unsubstantiated and for lack of information or
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity
or falsity of the allegation, the truth being that stated in
the Affirmative Defenses below;
4. That Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is specifically denied
for being irrelevant to the issues raised by the
PLAINTIFFS;
5. That Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being unsubstantiated and for lack of
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the veracity or falsity of the allegations;

6. That Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of the Complaint is

specifically denied for being irrelevant to the issues
raised by the PLAINTIFFS;
7. That Paragraph 14 of the Complaint is admitted only
insofar as to the fact that Guadalupe M. Azucena was
the DECEDENTs last remaining surviving sibling, but
that the allegations contained therein are specifically
denied for being hearsay and for lack of information or
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to its veracity
or falsity;
8. That Paragraph 15 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, unsubstantiated, and
for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations;
9. That Paragraph 16 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being unsubstantiated, hearsay, and for lack
of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations;
10.
That Paragraph 17 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being unsubstantiated, hearsay, and for lack
of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations;
11.
That Paragraph 18 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, self-serving, and for
lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations;
12.
That Paragraph 19 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, hearsay, and for lack of
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the veracity or falsity of the allegations, the truth
being that the first time the Deed of Donation was to be

executed in 2008, the personal physician of DECEDENT

Marino M. Magcase, Dra. Maria Asuncion, averred that
the best person to attest to the mental health of the
DECEDENT was a neurologist and it was precisely due
to this reason that the execution of the Deed of
Donation was moved to a latter date to accommodate
this averment as laid down in the Affidavit of Judge
Bienvenido V. Reyes dated 8 October 2012, and
not because DECEDENT said No to the Deed of
Donation as alleged by PLAINTIFFS.
A copy of the Affidavit dated 8 October 2012 is
hereto attached and marked as Annex 3, and made
an integral part hereof;
13.
That Paragraph 20 is admitted only insofar as
there was a recognition that a neurologist would be the
best person to attest to the soundness of DECEDENTS
mind, which was later duly complied with as evidenced
by the Affidavit of Dr. Avelino B. Siquig dated 11
February 2008, but that the allegation contained
therein is specifically denied for being misleading, and
for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to its veracity or falsity.
A copy of the Affidavit dated 11 February 2008 is
hereto attached and marked as Annex 1, and made
an integral part hereof;
14.
That Paragraph 21 of the Complaint is admitted
only insofar as to the date of death of the DECEDENT,
but allegations are specifically denied for being
unsubstantiated,
self-serving,
and for
lack of
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to its veracity or falsity;

15.
That Paragraph 22 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being irrelevant to the issues raised by the
PLAINTIFFS;
16.
That Paragraph 23 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, the truth being that
PLAINTIFFS have expressly admitted that one of those
they represent in the instant Complaint, particularly
Wilfredo Magcase, leases and occupies the Bel-Air
Property and acknowledges the herein DEFENDANT as
owner and lessor of the Bel-Air Property, contrary to the
Complaint, as shown by a handwritten note dated
23 February 2012, to wit:
I am sending to first 6 checks Jan, Feb, March,
April, May, June 2012 for Bel-Air rental. Will send
the rest next time. xxx
A copy of the handwritten note dated 23 February
2012 is hereto attached and marked as Annex 7,
and made an integral part hereof;
16.1 That
the
acknowledgment
of
DEFENDANTs
ownership to the Bel-Air Property is further reinforced
by rental payments to the said Property, continuously
paid to the DEFENDANT, as evidenced by postdated checks dated 3 November 2012 and 1
December 2012 issued and delivered to the herein
DEFENDANT.
Copies of the post-dated checks dated 3
November 2012 and 1 December 2012 are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes 8 and
9, and made integral parts hereof;
16.2 That the foregoing are patent pieces of evidence that
the PLAINTIFFS could not have been surprised by the
alleged turn of events and even if indeed they were

surprised, there was a consequent recognition of the

cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
113638 [S-22712] and the issuance of TCT No.
225984;
17.
That Paragraph 24 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, unsubstantiated, and
for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations, the
truth being that, contrary to the allegations of the
PLAINTIFFS, the DECEDENTs mental faculty, after
falling ill in 2004 until his death, remained lucid and
sharp immediately even before he passed away as
certified by the Affidavit of Dr. Avelino B. Siquig
dated 11 February 2008 (Annex 1), who is a
licensed physician and practicing Neurologist, to wit:
On further mental examination, I found that Mr.
Magcase had lucid mental capacity as to the
execution of documents, and that he was able to
understand the implications of the same.
18.
That Paragraph 25 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, unsubstantiated,
misleading, and for lack of information or knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of
the allegations, the truth being that PLAINTIFFS have
manifestly erred in their appreciation of the law for
confusing contracts which are voidable from contracts
which are void ab initio, to wit, the Civil Code of the
Philippines provides that:
Art. 1390. The following contracts are
voidable or annullable, even though there
may have been no damage to the contracting
parties:xxx

(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by

mistake,
violence,
intimidation,
undue
influence or fraud. (Emphasis supplied)
Verily, assuming arguendo that the Deed of Donation
suffers from having been executed and signed under
undue duress and influence from the family of the
defendant, the same is not void ab initio but is, in fact,
a voidable contract, which is binding, unless they are
annulled by a proper action in court. They are
susceptible of ratification (Art. 1390, Civil Code of the
Philippines).
Be that as it may, the Complaint must be dismissed for
lack of cause of action;
19.
That Paragraph 26 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, mere conclusions of fact
and law, unsubstantiated, and for lack of information or
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity
or falsity of the allegations, the truth being stated in the
Affirmative Defenses below;
20.
That Paragraph 27 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being unsubstantiated, misleading, mere
conclusions of fact and law, and for lack of information
or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
veracity or falsity of the allegations, the truth being that
the PLAINTIFFS contradict themselves by averring that
he left no will but had substantial assets in Paragraph
21 of their Complaint.
Moreover, the Order of Branch 32 of the Regional
Trial Court of San Pablo City dated 15 November
2010 (Annex 5) expressly provides that there are
other properties that have been discovered and which
are not included in the inventory and not mentioned in
the Compromise Agreement, which proves that

DECEDENT Marino M. Magcase did have other

properties and sufficient funds in his accounts at the
time of the execution of the Deed of Donation contrary
to the allegations of the PLAINTIFFS;
21.
That Paragraph 28 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being unsubstantiated, mere conclusions of
fact and law, and for lack of information or knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of
the allegations, the truth already being stated in
Paragraph 14 of this Answer with Special and
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Answer);
22.
That Paragraph 29 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, and for lack of
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the veracity or falsity of the allegations, the truth
being that it was they who patently admitted to
excusing themselves when they were invited by
DEFENDANT to visit the DECEDENT Marino M. Magcase
as evidenced by the Complaints Annexes C and
D, respectively, to wit:
A few weeks after, I got another call from Bu
but I declined to come to the house of Tito
Marin because I had a very bad cough xxx
(Annex C)
The next time I was invited by Bu to go to
Marinos house, I excused myself because I
had a previous commitment; (Annex D);
Copies of the Complaints Annexes C and D are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes C and
D, respectively, and made integral parts hereof;
23.
That Paragraph 30 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, unsubstantiated, mere

conclusions of fact and law, misleading, and for lack of

information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the veracity or falsity of the allegations, the truth
being stated in the Affirmative Defenses below;
24.
That Paragraph 31 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, misleading, and for lack
of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to the veracity or falsity of the allegations, the truth
being stated in the Affirmative Defenses below;
25.
That Paragraph 32 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, unsubstantiated, mere
conclusions of fact and law, and for lack of information
or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
veracity or falsity of the allegations, the truth being
stated in the Affirmative Defenses below;
26.
That Paragraph 33 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being patently false, unsubstantiated,
hearsay, mere conclusions of fact and law, misleading,
and for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the
allegations, the truth being stated in the Affirmative
Defenses below;
27.
That Paragraph 34 of the Complaint is specifically
denied for being irrelevant to the issues raised by the
PLAINTIFFS;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

28.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, with consent from the DECEDENT Marino M.
Magcase;
28.1 That the DECEDENT duly executed a Deed of
Donation inter vivos dated 14 February 2008
whereby he donated his property (hereinafter
referred to as the Bel-Air Property), which was then
covered by TCT No. 113638 [S-22712] of the Registry
of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, in favor of herein
DEFENDANT.
Copies of the Deed of Donation dated 14
February 2008 and TCT No. 113638 [S-22712]
are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 2
and E, respectively, and made integral parts
hereof;
28.2 That the Deed of Donation dated 14 February
2008 was witnessed by three (3) friends of the
DECEDENT (two of whom have already passed on;
with one surviving, particularly Col. Lorenzo
Cornista), and Judge Bienvenido V. Reyes, who
prepared and notarized the said Deed of Donation.
Copies of the Affidavits of Judge Bienvenido V.
Reyes and Col. Lorenzo Cornista both dated 8
October 2012 are hereto attached and marked as
Annexes 3 and 4, respectively, and made
integral parts hereof;
28.3 That as a consequence of the Deed of Donation
dated 14 February 2008, the title to the said Bel-Air
Property, formerly covered by TCT No. 113638 [S22712] (Annex E), TCT No. 225884 dated 16
February 2009 of the Registry of Deeds of the City

of Makati was
DEFENDANT.

issued

in

favor

of

the

herein

A copy of TCT No. 225884 dated 16 February

2009 is hereto attached and marked as Annex 6
and made an integral part hereof;
28.4 That
the
PLAINTIFFS
allegations
that
the
DECEDENTs only source of income were rentals that
were derived from the properties he owned in Bel-Air
and Ayala Alabang Village, and that his funds had
been depleted are mere conclusions of fact and are
not substantiated by any material piece of evidence,
the truth being already stated in Paragraph 22 of this
Answer;
28.5 That the PLAINTIFFS allegation that the DECEDENT
orally voiced his disapproval of donating the property
is misleading, the truth being already stated in
Paragraph 12 of this Answer;
28.6 That given the relevant factual circumstances (and
not the PLAINTIFFS purported facts but which are
actually malicious conjectures), wherein DECEDENTs
sister and her family bore the entire burden of caring
for the DECEDENT without any help from the
PLAINTIFFS, it is apparent that DECEDENTs motive
for donating the property to DEFENDANT was not
only liberality but also gratitude for his four (4) years
of unwavering service even at the cost of
DEFENDANTs career progression. DECEDENT, having
been a businessman in his lifetime, would have
known that a five (5) million property was paltry
compensation for the income that DEFENDANT has
had to forego in the four (4) years he had thus far
spent on caring for DECEDENT, and in the next few
years to come wherein DEFENDANT would have
continued to do so;

29.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, notarized in line with Rule IV, Section 3, of
the Notarial Practice of Law (AM No. 02-8-13 SC);
29.1 That Judge Bienvenido V. Reyes was neither donor
nor donee, or a witness, and thus cannot be
considered party to the Deed of Donation. It is
apparent in the said document (Annex 2) that the
donor was Marino M. Magcase and the donee was
Ambrose Bu M. Azucena, and none of the witnesses
signatures on the left side of the documents was that
of Judge Reyess;
29.2 That, contrary to the allegation, Judge Reyes did not
receive any fee in notarizing the Deed of Donation,
and no piece of evidence was brought forth to prove
such;
30.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, in accordance with the form and solemnities
of law;
30.1 That Quilala vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 132681 (2001)
provides that, the requirement that the contracting
parties and their witnesses should sign on the lefthand margin of the instrument is not absolute. The
intendment of the law merely is to ensure that each
and every page of the instrument is authenticated by
the parties.xxx Also, the specification of the location
of the signature is merely directory. In this case, the
purpose of authenticating the page is served, and
the requirement of a valid donation and the signing
of all the parties to the said deed is deemed
substantially complied with.

30.2 That, by virtue of the abovementioned jurisprudence,

the absence of DECEDENTs thumb mark on the
second page of the Deed of Donation is of no matter,
the Deed having been validated by substantial
compliance of being duly acknowledged before a
notary public and presence of sufficient number of
witnesses who duly signed the said Deed;
30.3 That Carandang-Collantes vs. Capuno, G.R. No.
L-55373 (1983) provides that, a public instrument
duly acknowledged before a notary public, bears a
thumb mark which is not that of the donor, and
therefore forged, fictitious or fraudulent, it is their
duty to present strong, complete and conclusive
evidence in support thereof, and not merely by
preponderance of evidence, and the testimony of
the notary public who is also a lawyer is satisfactory
and must be given mere credence than the
testimonies of the Capuno witnesses which merely
implied that the thumb mark on the deed of donation
was not affixed by Josefa Capuno since no deed was
notarized during her confinement at the hospital.
30.4 That, by virtue of the abovementioned jurisprudence,
the PLAINTIFFS having utterly failed to present
strong, complete and conclusive evidence, the Deed
of Donation sustains the presumption of validity
vested upon it;
31.
That TCT No. 225984 dated 16 February 2009
is valid by virtue of a duly executed Deed of Donation
inter vivos, the consent not being vitiated by fraud,
duress, undue influence, and other circumstances;
31.1 That Sevilla vs. Sevilla, G.R. No. 150179 (2003)
provides that, [t]here is undue influence when a
person takes improper advantage of his power over
the will of another, depriving the latter of a

reasonable freedom of choice. The following

circumstances shall be considered: the confidential,
family, spiritual and other relations between the
parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have
been unduly influenced was suffering from mental
weakness, or was ignorant or in financial distress,
and that the Supreme Court consistently applied the
ancient rule that if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the
burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in
a satisfactory manner facts on which he bases his
claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove
his exception or defense.
31.2 That the DECEDENTs mental weakness has already
been specifically denied and disproved in Paragraph
19 of this Answer;
31.3 That given the relevant factual circumstances,
DECEDENT could not be reduced to being ignorant,
being a successful businessman, and during his
lifetime, amassed numerous properties, pieces of
jewelry, and shares of stocks in various businesses,
as averred in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint;
31.4 That the DECEDENTs financial distress has already
been specifically denied and disproved in Paragraph
22 of this Answer;
31.5 That, by virtue of the abovementioned jurisprudence,
the DEFENDANT could not have effected fraud or
undue influence over the DECEDENT and the
allegations stating otherwise are self-serving
testimonies without an iota of evidence to prove the
contrary;
31.6 That the inadvertent loss of the videotape, which was
affirmatively claimed to have recorded the said

donation, is insufficient to prove fraud nor make it a

voidable donation;
31.7 That, assuming arguendo that the Deed of
Donation dated 14 February 2008 was indeed
vitiated by fraud, as alleged in the Complaint, it is
still susceptible of ratification as provided for by
Article 1390 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
By the acts manifested in the handwritten note
dated 23 February 2012 (Annex 7) and postdated checks dated 3 November 2012 and 1
December 2012 (Annexes 8 and 9), the
PLAINTIFFS have executed acts which necessarily
imply an intention to waive their right and have,
therefore, ratified the contract, and consequently
extinguished the action to annul a voidable contract
as provided for by Articles 1393 and 1392 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines;
31.8 That Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 287
(1998) provides that, [i]mplied ratification may take
various formslike silence or acquiescence; by acts
showing approval or adoption of the contract; or by
acceptance and retention of benefits flowing
therefrom.
31.9 That, by virtue of the abovementioned provisions of
law and jurisprudence, PLAINTIFFS have, assuming
arguendo that said deed was vitiated by fraud,
ratified the contract and consequently extinguished
any action to annul a voidable contract;
31.10 That the acts manifested in the handwritten
note dated 23 February 2012 and post-dated
checks dated 3 November 2012 and 1

December 2012 constitute an estoppel on the part

of the PLAINTIFFS as provided for by Section 2,
Rule 131, of the Rules of Court, to wit:
xxx Whenever a party has, by his own
declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify
it.
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of the
relation of landlord and tenant between them.
31.11 That Article 1436 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines also provides that, [a] lessee or a
bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing
leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor;
31.12 That, by virtue of the abovementioned provisions
of law, PLAINTIFFS are estopped from denying the
title of DEFENDANT;
29.
That, moreover, donation inter vivos may be
revoked only for the reasons provided in Articles 760,
764, and 765 of the Civil Code of the Philippines;
the instant Complaint, having not alleged, much less
show, any of the grounds for revocation of a donation
inter vivos, must, therefore, be dismissed for lack of
cause of action;
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
30.
That due to the unwarranted and malicious filing
of the instant Complaint, the DEFENDANT suffered

mental anguish, serious anxiety, sleepless nights, and

besmirched reputation for which the PLAINTIFFS should
be adjudged to pay the DEFENDANT moral damages in
the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00);
31.
That due to the precipitate and baseless initiation
by the PLAINTIFFS of the instant Complaint, the sole
ploy of which to enrich themselves at the expense and
inconvenience of the defendant, the PLAINTIFFS should
be adjudged to pay the defendant exemplary damages
in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00); and
32.
That due to the PLAINTIFFS instant unwarranted
and malicious Complaint, the DEFENDANT incurred in
costs of litigation and was constrained to engage the
services of legal counsel in the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due
hearing, judgment be rendered as follows:
a. Ordering the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of
cause of action on the part of the PLAINTIFFS against
the DEFENDANT;
b. Ordering the PLAINTIFFS to pay the DEFENDANT the
sum of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for
and as moral damages;
c. Ordering the PLAINTIFFS to pay the DEFENDANT the
sum of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for
and as exemplary damages;

d. Ordering the PLAINTIFFS to pay the defendant the sum

of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for and
as attorneys fees; and
e. Ordering the PLAINTIFFS to pay the costs of suit.
The DEFENDANT likewise prays for such other measures of
relief, which this Honorable Court may deem just and
equitable in the premises.
Makati City, Philippines, 17 October 2012.
X, Y, & ZED LAW FIRM
Counsel for Defendant Ambrose M. Azucena
12/F 345 Sixth Street, Seventh Village, Makati City, Metro
Manila
Tel Nos. 8910111-21 Fax No. (632) 3141516
Email Address attorneys@xyzedlaw.com
By:
RUPERTO A. ALFAFARA III
Roll of Attorneys No. 67890
P.T.R. No. 1234567, 01/02/2012, Makati City
I.B.P. Lifetime Member No. 12345, Makati Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. III-0011089, 04/12/10

HUSSEIN S. BALT
Roll of Attorneys No. 89012

P.T.R. No. 2345678, 01/02/2012, Makati City

I.B.P. No. 345678, 10/24/2011, Makati Chapter
Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 2010
PAOLO RICASIO
Roll of Attorneys No. 89456
P.T.R. No. 3456789, 01/02/2012, Makati City
I.B.P. No. 456789, 10/24/2011, Makati Chapter
Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 2010

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, AMBROSE BU M. AZUCENA, of legal age, Filipino, with

address at c/o X, Y, & Zed Law Firm, 12/F 345 Sixth Street,
Seventh Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, after having been
duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state that:
1. I am the defendant in the instant case;
2. I have cause the preparation of the foregoing, which I
have read and understood, the contents of which are all
true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records; and
3. I further certify that I have not heretofore commenced
any action involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; to the best of
my knowledge, no such other action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency; and, if I should hereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court
within five (5) days therefrom.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
AMBROSE BU M. AZUCENA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of
October 2012, personally known to me as such, affiant exhibiting
to me his Passport No. EB3090290, issued in Lucena City, and
valid until 18 July 2016.
Doc. No. __

Page No. __
Book No. __
Series of 2012