1) Judicial Affidavit

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Region
Makati City, Branch 31

ROSEMARIE P. TORRES,
Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 123456
- versus - For: Damages

LOIDA D. VERANO,
Defendant.
x ---------------------------------------- x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF LOIDA D. VERANO

(in lieu of direct examination)

PURPOSE: The testimony of the witness is being offered to prove:

1. The defendant, Loida Verano did not utter any offensive nor
degrading language against the plaintiff.
2. The damages sought by the plaintiff, Rosemarie Torres are
based on unmeritorious grounds and fabricated stories.

I, Loida D. Verano, Filipino, single, of legal age, with residence at 416

Malamig St., Barangay 523, Pembo, Makati City, after having been duly
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The person examining me is Atty. Maybelle S. Bernardo, with address

at Benardo & Associates Law Office, Vasra St., Barangay Obrero,
Makati City . The examination is being held at the same address. I am
answering his questions fully conscious that I do so under oath and
may face criminal liability for false testimony and perjury.
 AFFIDAVIT PROPER

Q1: Please state your name and other personal circumstances.

A: I am Loida Verano, single, of legal age, with residence at 416
Malamig St., Barangay 523, Pembo, Makati City. I am a public
school teacher at the P. Guevarra Elementary School in Makati
City.

Q3: You said you were a public school teacher at an elementary school,
what grade level are you teaching?

A: Grade 3. In fact, I teach Araling Panlipunan to third graders. I have a

friend and co-teacher, Mrs. Violeta Martagon and Mr. Gerry Lao.

Q4: You mentioned, Mrs. Violeta Martagon and Mr. Gerry Lao, who are
they and what are their relations to you and in this case?

A: Mrs. Violetta Martagon is a fellow teacher in Araling Panlipunan, the

plaintiff entered her room to get the copy of the test paper. Mr.
Gerry Lao, is also a fellow teacher, did not permit the plaintiff to
enter the room and also prohibited the plaintiff from getting the
copy of the test paper.

Since, the plaintiff is caused a disturbance and insisted in getting a

copy of the test questionnaire, she succeeded in taking pictures of
it. Unfortunately, Tamiya Bolante saw what she did.

Q5: Do you have proof of your allegation?

A: Yes. I have the Sworn Affidavit of Mr. Gerry Lao, marked as “Annex 1”
in my Answer.

Q6: You mentioned a certain Tamiya Bolante, who is she?

A: She is a student to whom the plaintiff sent the copy of the
questionnaire in Araling Panlipunan, which was alleged to be
leaked. In fact, after the said leakage, parents, including the
plaintiff were summoned by the Guidance Counselor for a meeting.

Q7: Do you have proof of the leakage of the questionnaire?

A: Yes, I have a screenshot of the facebook messenger between the
plaintiff and Tamiya Bolante, showing the plaintiff’s act of sending
the test questionnaire to Tamiya Bolante, which is marked as
“Annex 2” in my Answer.
Q8: You said that the plaintiff was summoned by the Guidance
Counselor, what occurred in the meeting?
A: The plaintiff signed a written document promising that she will no
longer enter the school premises. But she is persistent, and
continues to enter the premises of the school up to present.

The school teachers, including myself, had been warning her of the
consequences of her actions. Unfortunately, the plaintiff became
infuriated and started spreading rumors and false accusations
against me. The principal of the school can also attest as to how
untrustworthy the plaintiff is.

Q9: Do you have a copy of the document signed by the plaintiff?

A: Yes, I have a copy of the document executed and signed by the

plantiff, which is marked as “Annex 3” in my Answer.

Q10: You mentioned that the plaintiff was spreading rumors about you,
can you tell me more about it?

A: Yes. The plaintiff claims that it was me who gave the test paper to her
for her to answer it for her two sons, Brian Andrew Haden and
Eugene Torres, and that I have been spreading lies against her.
She even filed a criminal case for Oral Defamation against me
before the Office of Prosecutor of Makati, which was eventually
dismissed for lack of probable cause.

Q11: You said that she filed a case for Oral Defamation, which was later
on dismissed. Do you have a copy of the Resolution of the
Prosecutor?
A: Yes, I have a copy of the Resolution, which is marked as “Annex 4” in
my Answer.

Q12: In your statement earlier, you mentioned the principal of P.

Guevarra Elementary School, who is she and what is her relation
to the plaintiff?
A: She is Mrs. Edita Lopez, she has a letter to the Superintendent of the
Division of City Schools-Manila, which was attached by the plaintiff
in her complaint as Annex K without the consent and approval of
the said principal. The letter did not involve the defendants in the
issue of leakage of the test questionnaire.

Q13: Do you have proof of your claim?

A: Yes, the Sworn Affidavit of the principal stating that she did not give
her consent to the plaintiff, is attached as “Annex 5” in my Answer.

Q14: Do you wish to add anything else?

A: No more.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

MAKATI CITY; JUNE 15, 2022.

(Sgd.)
LOIDA D. VERANO
Affiant

V. SWORN ATTESTATION OF THE LAWYER WHO CONDUCTED OR

SUPERVISED THE EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS.

The undersigned ATTY. MAYBELLE S. BERNARDO of legal age, and

with law office address at Benardo & Associates Law Office, Vasra St.,
Barangay Obrero, Makati City, under oath, deposes and states that:

1. She is the Legal Counsel for the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. She faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions asked

and the corresponding answers given by the the above-named witness;

3. Neither she nor any other person then present or assisting him
coached the witness regarding the latter's answers; and

4. She conducted the examination of the witness at

MAKATI CITY; JUNE 15, 2022

 (Sgd.)
ATTY. MAYBELLE S. BERNARDO
Counsel for Defendant
IBP Lifetime No. 12345678;
MAKATI CITY
PTR No. 22234567; APRIL 10, 2019,
MAKATI CITY
Roll of Attorney No. 23456781
MCLE Compliance No. 3457890

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of Makati on this

day of June 15, 2022, affiant exhibiting before me her Passport no.
2234858 issued on September 6, 2018 at DFA, Aseana, Parañaque
City.

(Sgd.)
ATTY. CHERRY P. SOLEDAD
Notary Public
Until December 3, 2024
PTR No. 1237890
Issued at MAKATI CITY
On JUNE 5, 2018

Doc. No. 1
Page No. 2
Book No. 3
Series of 2022

PROOF OF SERVICE

Copy furnished through personal service:

Atty. Gelina V. Rodirguez

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Rodriguez & Associates Law Office
123 Maceda St., Brgy. 333, Pembo, Makati City
 2) Deed of Donation
DEED OF DONATION

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, MONICA D. DAVID,of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, and

resident of Calamansi St., Poblacion, Mun. of San Felipe, Prov. Of
Batangas, DONOR, and BENJAMIN D. DAVID likewise of legal age,
Filipino citizen, married to Sorsalina S. David, and resident of Father
Gomez St. San Fernando, Pampanga, hereinafter called the DONEE,

Witnesseth:

That the DONOR is the registered owner of a parcel of land with

improvement located at Poblacion, Mun, of San Felipe, Prov. of
Batangas., more particularly described as follows;

A parcel of land containing an area of ONE THOUSAND FOUR

HUNDRED AND NINETY ONE (1,491) SQUARE METERS, more
or less. Bounded on the NE., by Lot 3-C, of the subd. plan, on the
SE, by Lot 1 of plan Psd-1943, on the SW., by St. Lot No. 2, and
on the NW, by Lots 3-F, and 3-G of the subd. plan. Beginning at a
pt. marked “l” on plan being N. 5 deg. 15’W., 352.89 m. from Non.
17, thence S. 45 deg. 43’E., 49.59m. to pt. 2; thence S. 44 deg.
17’W., 30.00 m. to pt. 3; thence N. 45 deg. 43’W., 49.80 m. pt. 4;
thence N. 44 deg. 41’E., 15.00 m. All pts. Referred to are indica
on the plan and are marked on the ground by PLS conc. Mons.,
bearings true; dec. 0 deg. 48’E., date of the orig. survey, Jan. 27,
1926 and that of the subd. surveys March 3, 1927.

That the DONEE is the brother of the DONOR, who has lovingly
dedicated years of his life as the latter's personal caregiver and
companion;

That FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the DONEE's love,

devotion and affection shown to the DONOR, and as an act of gratitude
and liberality on her part, the DONOR hereby voluntarily GIVES,
TRANSFERS, and CONVEYS by way of donation, unto the said
DONEE, her heirs and assigns, the above described real property with
improvements thereon, subject to any and all liens and encumbrances;

That the DONOR affirms that this donation is not made with intent
to deceive her creditors, and that she has reserved for herself sufficient
funds and property;
 That the DONEE hereby accepts and receives this donation made
in her favor by the DONOR, and hereby manifests her gratefulness for
the latter's generosity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both the DONOR & DONEE have
hereunder subscribed their names this 1st day of June 2022 at Manila,
Philippines.

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
MONICA D. DAVID BENJAMIN D. DAVID
DONOR DONEE
DL ID No. B0316000721 DL ID No. N26-98-012033
Issued by: Land Transportation Issued by: Land Transportation
Office Office
TIN: 469-356-112-000 TIN: 268-444-876

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
MARICAR S. DE GUZMAN JHOANA P. FRANCISCO
Witness Witness
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Batangas ) S.S
Municipality of San Felipe )

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

BEFORE ME, a notary for and in the City of Manila, personally

appeared MONICA D. DAVID and BENJAMIN D. DAVID known to me
and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
Deed of Donation and acknowledged to me that the same is their free
and voluntary act and deed.

This instrument treats of a Deed of Donation consisting of two (2)

pages including this page whereon the acknowledgment is written, which
is signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses on each and
every page thereof.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, on this 22nd of JUNE 2022 in the

PROVINCE OF BATANGAS.

( Sgd.)
ATTY. BUBOY HERNANDEZ
Notary Public

IBP Lifetime No. 010101;

PTR No. 1010;
Roll of Attorney No: 111
MCLE Compliance No. 101
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book 3;
Series of 2022

3) Affidavit of Loss of Title

Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Batangas ) S.S
Municipality of San Felipe )

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS OF TITLE

I, MONICA D. DAVID, of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of

Calamansi St., Poblacion, Mun. of San Felipe, Prov. of Batangas , after
being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I was a beneficiary of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

Program by the government. I was issued a Transfer Certificate of
Title No. CLOA-28276 over the parcel of land that I am cultivating;
(Copy of the Tranfer Certificate of Title No. CLOA-28276 is hereto
attached and marked as Annex “A”)

2. The said Title was under the custody of my father, Ramon M.

David since it was issued to me. He kept it in their house located
at Calamansi St., Poblacion, Mun. of San Felipe, Prov. of
Batangas;

3. In the first week of May 2022, the house of my parents was

transferred to an adjacent lot. My father made a general cleaning
and left those things which are no longer necessary and burned
them when he transferred. When I asked my father about my Title,
he search for it but it was never found. I believe that it was burned
when he made the general cleaning. All diligent efforts I and my
father exerted to locate and retrieve it were in vain; hence for all
legal intents and purposes it is now deemed lost and beyond
recovery;

4. I certify and confirm that the parcel of land covered by Transfer

Certificate of Title No. CLOA-28276 of the Registry of Deeds of
Batangas was never mortgaged, sold, conveyed, disposed of, or
encumbered, to any other person or entity. I certify and confirm
further that said document was neither confiscated nor
 relinquished in favor of, any government entity agency, or
authority;

5. I attest to the truth of the foregoing statements to the best of my

own personal knowledge and based on authentic documents or
records. I am executing this Affidavit of Loss to support my
application for a new owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate
of Title No. CLOA-28276 as well as for all lawful intents and
purposes it may serve. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand
this 22nd day of June 2022 at Municipality of San Felipe, Province
of Batangas, Philippines.

(Sgd.)
MONICA D. DAVID

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 nd day of JUNE, 2022

at the Province of Batangas. Affiant has exhibited to me her COMELEC
ID with VIN: 3112-0080AH1679CBV1000 bearing her picture and
signature as competent proof of her identity.

Doc No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2022

4) Information
 Regional Trial Court
National Capital Region
Manila, Branch 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No.
1234689
- versus - For: Fencing

GODO B. REVILLA ,
Accused.
x ---------------------------------------- x

INFORMATION

The Undersigned accuses GODO B. REVILLA of the crime of

Fencing, committed as follows:

That on or about [APPROXIMATE DATE OF

COMMISSION OF OFFENSE] ____________, in the
[PLACE OF COMMISSION] ______________ and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused,w ith intent to gain for himself bought and sold
the property of Rose Magalang, which he knows, or
should be known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft to the prejudice
of the owner.

CONTRARY TO LAW

(Sgd.)
ATTY. ALEX B. CASTRO
Assistant City Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF INQUEST

 I hereby certify that the accused was lawfully arrested without a
warrant and that, upon being informed of his rights, refused to waive the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and, for this reason,
an Inquest was conducted; that based on the complaint and the
evidence presented before me without any countervailing evidence
submitted by the accused, despite opportunity to do so, there is
reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime
of theft and should, thus, be held for said crime; that this Information was
with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor.

(Sgd.)
ATTY. ALEX B. CASTRO

Assistant City Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 22nd day of

JUNE 2022 in MANILA.

ATTY. EUGENE P. KOH

City Prosecutor
 5) Legal Opinion

22 June 2022

Mr. Tom Rodriguez

Craig St., Sampaloc
Manila

Dear Mr. Rodriguez:

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not

you can now remarry under Philippine law after you and your American
wife had obtained a divorce decree in America.

The Facts

According to our discussion and the documents you have shown me, the
following are the pertinent facts:

On January 3, 2017, you married Carla Abellana, in the Philippines.

In 2018, your marriage turned sour, and decided to separate physically.

Later on, in 2019, you discovered your wife was dating another guy.
Sometime in 2020, you discovered that your wife had been naturalized
as an American citizen. Subsequently, last, May 2022, your wife
obtained a divorce decree in the United States.

The Applicable Law

The applicable law is Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

It provides that:

“Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is

validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
 On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to directly
govern your situation. It seems to apply only to cases where at
the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner.

Your case, on the other hand, is one where at the time the marriage was
solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the
wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained
a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed she
remarried an American citizen while residing in the U.S.

The Applicable Jurisprudence

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of

VAN DORN v. ROMILLO, JR. (G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139
SCRA 139). The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Supreme Court held therein that a
divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the
Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to
remarry under Philippine law.

In relation to this, 1998 in the case of QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 124862, 22 December 1998, 300 SCRA 406), the parties
were, as in your case, Filipino citizens when they got married. The
wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 and obtained a
divorce in the same year. The Supreme Court therein hinted,
although by way of obiter dictum only, that a Filipino divorced by his
naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and
can thus remarry.

Analysis and Conclusion

Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of
reason, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would apply to your case because it
should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at
the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens,
but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen
and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be
allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of
the solemnization of the marriage.

Hence, the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time
of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid
divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to
remarry.

Recommendation
In order to invoke Paragraph 2 of Article 26, it is required that you
should submit competent evidence concerning the divorce decree and
the naturalization of your wife. This is based on the settled rule that one
who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation
is not evidence (CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
121772, 13 January 2003, 395 SCRA 33).

Likewise, it is also a rule under Philippine law that before a foreign

divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading
it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity
to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved
as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws (GARCIA v.
RECIO, G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001, 366 SCRA 437).

Furthermore, you must also show that the divorce decree allows your
ex- wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise,
there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that you are
capacitated to enter into another marriage.

It is my pleasure to advise your regarding this matter. Should you wish to

discuss further, please let me know. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

(Sgd.)
ATTY. KEVIN P. DOMINGO
Legal Counsel
6) Parts of thesis and distinction between APA and MLA citation
 The parts of a legal thesis consists of the following:
1) Abstract,
2) Background of the study,
3) Thesis statement,
4) Scope and limitations,
5) Objectives of the study,
6) Significance of the study,
7) Review of related literatures or review of related laws and
jurisprudence,
8) Methodology
9) Analysis and key findings,
10) Conclusion
11) Recommendation
12) Draft Law

APA and MLA citations differ in various aspects.

MLA citation is often used in the filed of humanities while APA is often
used in the field of social sciences.

As to in-text citations, APA includes the last name of the author and the
publication yea, while in MLA, it includes the author’s last name and
page number.

In terms of formatting, in APA, a separate cover page is needed while in

MLA, no title page is required. As to page header, in APA, the header
includes a page number, while MLA, the last name and the page number
appear in the header of each page.
7) Legal Services Agreement

LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This CONTRACT made and executed by and between:

TOM RODRIGUEZ, duly represented herein by its authorized

representative ATTY. IBARRA M. GUTIERREZ III, Filipino, of legal age,
with business address at 2415 Palm Ave., Makati City, Metro Manila
(hereinafter referred to as the CLIENT);

-and-

ATTY. MARRIANE RIVERA, Filipino, of legal age, single with office at,
Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the COUNSEL);

WITNESSETH:

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants

and agreements herein agreed upon, the CLIENT and the COUNSEL by
these presents, have entered, as they hereby enter into a contract of
services whereby the COUNSEL shall render legal services to the
CLIENT, under the following terms and conditions:

SCOPE OF AGREEMENT

This Contract shall cover the legal services to be rendered by the

Counsel with respect to a petition for the recognition of foreign divorce
decree in the Philippines.
The Counsel undertakes to handle the Client’s case with utmost
competence and diligence. However, the Client recognizes that there is
no guaranty regarding the outcome or success of the Client’s case.

COSTS AND FEES

The Client agrees that the Counsel’s fees shall be paid as follows:

ACCEPTANCE FEE – Php 30,000

INITIAL CONSULTATION FEE – P2,000

FIXED RETAINER FEE – P15,000

APPEARANCE FEE – Php P5,000 per hearing

The said fees shall be inclusive already of acceptance fees and

appearance fees. This shall only cover the handling of the case in the
original jurisdiction. Handling of the case on appeal shall be subject to a
separate agreement by the parties.

All other charges shall be shouldered by the Counsel, unless otherwise

agreed by the parties.

DISCHARGE AND WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY

The Client may, at any time and for whatever reason, discharge the
Counsel through a written notice which shall become effective
immediately upon receipt by the Counsel. The Counsel may withdraw as
the Client’s counsel at any time in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

In case of discharge for whatever cause by the Client, the Counsel shall
be entitled to the agreed fees, proportionate to the work done.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any and all information, documentary or otherwise, received by the
Counsel in relation with this Agreement shall be considered privileged
and confidential and shall only be used, without need for further authority
from the Client, in the filing and prosecution of the instant case. In other
instances, such privileged or confidential information may be used by the
Counsel with the written consent of the Client.

Any and all provisions of this Agreement shall likewise be considered

privileged and confidential and may not be used or disclosed by any of
the parties herein without the written consent of the other party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto set our hands this 20 th day

of June 2022 in the Quezon City, Philippines.

TOM RODRIGUEZ ATTY. MARIANNE RIVERA

Client Counsel