Page 1 of 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 84
Caloocan City

ROMMEL MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff/s,

- versus - Civil Case No. 21-31968

For: Unlawful Detainer

Spouses ERNESTO MARCELINO

JEAN MARCELINO and all other persons
claiming rights and interest from the said
defendants,
Defendant/s.
x------------------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(For spouses Ernesto and Jean Marcelino)

OFFER OF TESTIMONY

1. To prove that the dilapidated property at Block 9 Lot 4, Villa

Magdalena was sold to spouses Ernesto and Jean Marcelino in a rent to
own basis by means of an agreement between Mr. Romualdo C. Guintu
and the herein defendants;

2. To prove that Mr. Romualdo C. Guintu bestowed for authority to

occupy the said property for the defendants;

3. To prove that the sale of the property is deemed in bad faith.

We, spouses Ernesto and Jean Marcelino, both of legal age, and with
postal address at Blk 9 Lot 4, Villa Magdalena, Caloocan City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state
that, we are executing this Judicial Affidavit as our counter testimony to
prove that the sale of the said property is in bad faith. We were examined
by Atty. Narzal B. Mallares and the questions were asked in Filipino and
translated in English language what we fully understand and that we
aware that we may be held criminally liable if proven to have given false
testimony of perjured the statements made hereunder:
 Page 2 of 4

Q1: Are you Ernesto and Jean Marcelino, the defendants in this
case?
A1: Yes, sir.

Q2: Do you know the herein complainant in this case?

A2: No, sir.

Q3: Who is the owner of this subject property?

A3: Mr. Romulado C. Guintu is the owner of the said property.

Q4: Are you aware that the said subject property was sold to Mr.
Rommel S. Martinez?
A4: No, sir.

Q5: Do you have a proof that you have an agreement?

A5: Yes, sir. We have attached hereto a copy of the said agreement
between us and Mr. Romualdo C. Guintu, that he is giving us
the full authority to occupy the said subject property.

Q6: Would you know why they sold the subject property?
A6: Yes, sir. Because after our total renovation of the subject
property, they feel greedy and they think that they can sell it in
much higher price.

Q7: Do you have a proof of your renovation?

A7: Yes, sir. Attached hereto are the receipt of all the materials and
labor cost of the renovation.

Q8: Do you have a witness that the said subject property were
being sold to you by Mr. Romualdo C. Guintu?
A8: Yes, sir.

Q9: Do you have anything more to say to your statement?

A9: Yes, sir. The herein plaintiff did not verify nor evaluate that
there is an existing agreement between Mr. Romualdo C.
Guintu and us. It is very clear that the said sale was done in bad
faith. If the intention of the plaintiff is to acquire the said subject
property, why he did not approach us and instead he filed
charges against us and claiming that we are unlawfully
occupying the said subject property. The said property is
dilapitated and abandoned for many years, why is it that when
we occupied the said subject property by giving us full
 Page 3 of 4

authority of Mr. Romualdo C. Guintu by means of an

arrangement for a rent to own basis and allowed us to renovate
the subject property upon completion of its renovation, the
herein plaintiff got an vested interest to recover the said
property. It is crystal clear that the plaintiff has no conscience
and heart, it is very impossible for us to occupy the said subject
property without without the agreement. We are a legitimate
owner of the subject property by means of agreement between
Mr. Guinto and us. An agreement it may be express or implied.
We are occupying this property legally and not subject for
unlawful detainer since there is an agreement exist between us
and Mr. Guintu.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed our signature on

this ____ day of January 2022, in Quezon City.

ERNESTO MARCELINO JEAN MARCELINO

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this ___ day of

January 2022 in Quezon City, affiants exhibited me their proof of identities,
all know to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the
foregoing instrument acknowledge to me that the same are their free acts
and voluntary deed.

Doc. No. _______;

Page No. _______;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2022.

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I, ATTY. NARZAL B. MALLARES, hereby attest that I faithfully

recorded the questions propounded and the corresponding answers given
by spouses Ernesto and Jean Marcelino. I duly interpreted the question I
asked in the Tagalog dialect which the defendants understands and they
provides the answer the best way they could which duly translated by me
in the English language. I did not in any way coach or taught or instruct
the witness on how to answer or any other person or persons then present
or assisting the defendants regarding the latter’s answer.
 Page 4 of 4

ATTY. NARZAL B. MALLARES

No. 2 Sct. Dr. Lazcano cor. Mo. Ignacia St.
Brgy. Paligsahan, Quezon City
PTR No. 0730294/1-6-2021/Quezon City
IBP No. 142668/1-6-2021/Quezon City
MCLE No. VI-0017109/01-10-2019
Roll of Attorney: 29557
Email: mslawfirm19@gmail.com

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this ___ of January

2022 at Quezon City.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2022.

Copy furnished:

Uy Deticio & Derit & Associates

Counsel for Plaintiff
Admin. Unit, Ushio Plaza II,
No. 79 Tinog Ave., Quezon City

Rommel Martinez
No. 1053-B, Blumentritt St.,
Sampaloc, Manila