Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 62 – MAKATI CITY

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

-v e r s u s- CIVIL CASE No. 02-1472

SPS. ALVIN AMAGO and

EMY AMAGO,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION

DEFENDANT EMY AMAGO, by herself, in compliance with the 5 August

2005 Court Order received on 31 August 2005, most respectfully submits her
Comment/Opposition to the Reply to the Motion for Alias Writ of Attachment filed
by plaintiff, in amplication thereof hereby states: THAT---

1. She has not received a copy of the Motion for Alias Writ of Attachment
filed by plaintiff.

2. As stated in par. 2 of her answer, she admits that the two (2) properties
discovered by the plaintiff to be under the name of defendant are the government
financed low cost house and lot in Blk. 41, Lot 21, Sulu St., Kassel City, Abucay,
Tacloban City, where she may be served with court processes. A copy of the
Certification issued by the Tacloban City Assessor showing that these 2
properties are in the name of defendant is hereto attached as Annex “1”.

3. However, the 2 properties have been acquired by defendant in June 25,

1998 through a loan with Home Development Mutual Fund, payable within 25
years. A certification from the HDMF is hereto attached as Annex “2”, showing
that defendant has an existing PAGIBIG Housing Loan Account with HDMF, and
that the properties are automatically mortgaged with HDMF as security. The
properties are not part of the conjugal partnership of gains, as she and her
husband are separated de facto since January 1996 up to the present. Clearly,
the properties which she loaned from HDMF is from her exclusive funds, as she
has to earn a living for her family sans Alvin Amago, who has totally abandoned
them.
 2

4. With respect to par. 1 of the plaintiff’s reply, it is admitted by plaintiff that

it is fully aware that Emy Amago is a public school teacher. If so, then plaintiff
admits the allegation in par. 6 of the answer that “it knows that defendant is a
low-salaried public school teacher only and has no capacity to repay such a big
amount, more so because she has no real property of her own.” Thus, it is
misleading for the bank to state that Emy Amago misrepresented herself to be in
a financial position to comply with her obligation to repay the loan. Defendant
likewise has no knowledge of any savings account and time deposit with the said
bank with her name on it, nor did she ever execute an affidavit of ownership of
any personal property submitted to said bank.

5. With respect to par. 1 and 3 of plaintiff’s reply, there can be no valid and
legal presumption that “the proceeds of the loan used for whatever purpose is
presumed to redound to the benefit of the family.” The burden of proof shifts with
the plaintiff. Moreover, Article 94 of the Family Code is misquoted by plaintiff, as
it does not pertain to conjugal partnership of gains. On the contrary, Article 121
(2) of the Family Code states that the conjugal partnership of gains shall be liable
for “all debts contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-
spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains….” As disputed earlier
by herein defendant, said loan solely benefited her spouse Alvin Amago, to
whom she is separated de facto prior to the execution of the promissory note
until the present. Rather, to reiterate par. 10 of the answer, “if there is any person
solely liable for the debt or obligation, it is solely Alvin Amago.” Moreover, par. 11
of the answer is repleaded that “defendant should not be further burdened with
this debt secured by her estranged husband, as she is already burdened by her
heavy responsibility as the single parent supporting her four (4) children
abandoned by her husband, whose whereabouts is unknown to her.

6. The truth or falsity of par. 9 of the answer or par. 4 of the reply lies with
the demand letter itself, to where it was addressed and who received the letter
for the Sps. Alvin and Emy Amago. Insofar as defendant Emy Amago is
concerned, she never received any or all demand letter/s from plaintiff.

7. The truth or falsity of par. 10 of the answer or par. 5 of the reply shifts
on the plaintiff to prove that defendant Emy Amago went to the bank to sign the
alleged promissory note.
 3

8. The motion for writ of attachment is misleading, as Section 1, Rule 57 of

the Rules of Court is not applicable to defendant Emy Amago, as she is not
about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud the bank, or has been
guilty of fraud in contracting a debt, or has disposed of her only property (house
and lot in Abucay) to defraud her creditors. As a matter of fact, the house and lot
was loaned from PAGIBIG and still mortgaged with it pending full payment within
25 years from 1998. This house and lot cannot be subject of attachment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

Motion for alias writ of attachment be denied forthwith, and the defendant
dropped as party defendant.

Tacloban City. 2 September 2005.

EMY AMAGO
Answering Defendant

COPY FURNISHED: (reg. mail with return card)

OCAMPO TEJADA GUEVARRA & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Plaintiff
2F Allied Bank Center
6754 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Leyte ) SS
City of Tacloban )

VERIFICATION

I, EMY AMAGO, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Tacloban City,

after having been first sworn according to law, hereby state:

I am a co-defendant in the above-entitled case; I have caused the

preparation of the foregoing COMMENT/OPPOSITION; that I have read and
understood all the allegations therein and that they are true and correct of my
own knowledge and belief and based on authentic records.

EMY AMAGO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 September 2005 at Tacloban

City, Philippines.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
SERIES OF 2005