Katigbak, Karla Elaine L.

LFW 8:00-10:00am

Republic of the Philippines) Lucena City ) S.S.

JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT We, Irene Desiree T. Ladron and Abraham V. Tolentino, are of legal age, Filipinos and residents of Lot 5, Blk 10, Uragon St., Supreme Village, Brgy Almanza, Las Pinas City, declare under oath that: 1. We are executing this Joint Counter-Affidavit as a reply and comment to the joint affidavit of Miriam L. Reyes, Nenalyn L. Pelan and Rosario O. Ladron who filed a criminal case against us. 2. We admit the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the affidavit of the plaintiffs which states that my father, Pedro Ladron, died intestate on 20 January 2010 and leaves an estate of one-half of a parcel of land with house built thereon which is located at Brgy Tupaay, Lucena City and owns by him as his conjugal share. It is true that the house and lot was transferred in our name through an extra-judicial settlement of estate signed by me and my mother before the notary public Ruel G. Wabe of Sampaloc, Quezon. 3. However, we deny the allegations in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 of their affidavit. The truth of the matter is that: a. I, Irene Desiree T. Ladron, am the only child of Marikit C. TalbasLadron and Pedro O. Ladron. I was born on 10 June 1978 at Gumaca, Quezon. My father, Pedro O. Ladron, was survived by me, my mother Marikit Talbas-Ladron and his siblings who are plaintiffs in this criminal case. b. When I received the complaint filed against us, I confronted my mother regarding the truth of the allegations in the complaint. My mother confessed that I am not her natural child because I am the product of an illicit affair of my father to Barbara Mendoza Nicolas who was our former house helper. When my mother discovered that my father had an illicit affair with Barbara, she decided to fire her. Barbara went back to Gumaca, Quezon where she and her husband, Nikolai Valentin dela Pena, live. When she came back, she told Nikolai that she is three months pregnant. After she gave birth, they registered the child as Ana Margarita dela Pena. However, Barbara was being disturbed by her conscience, she confessed to Nikolai that she had an affair with Pedro Ladron and Ana Margarita is their child. Nikolai got furious and threatened to kill the child. Barbara was haunted by her conscience that she decided to take her own life. Because of the death of Barbara, Nikolai decided to let my real father take care of me. Marikit did not want to accept me but my father convinced her. He told her that Barbara was already dead and Nikolai cannot provide for my needs. She agreed to my father due to reason
1

Katigbak, Karla Elaine L. LFW 8:00-10:00am

that they do not have a child because she is incapable of bearing a child. c. On 14 January 1981, they registered me as Irene Desiree T. Ladron and baptized me at Immaculate Conception Church in Lucena City. The birth certificate is hereby attached as Annex-1 and the baptismal certificate is attached as Annex-2. d. I used the name Irene Desiree T. Ladron in all my school records because I am known with this name and all this time, I believed that I was born out of the legal union of my known parents. The portions of my elementary, secondary and tertiary yearbooks are hereby attached as Annex-3. e. I also used Irene Desiree Ladron in my admission to the Philippine Bar on 14 May 2004 and when I married to Abraham V. Tolentino on 14 June 2008 at Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Sampaloc, Quezon. The certificate to admission to the Philippine Bar is hereby attached as Annex-4 and the marriage certificate is attached as Annex-5. f. My mother, Marikit Ladron, told me that they have planned to adopt me to become their legitimate child. My father represented to her that he had long taken care of the legalities of my adoption but unfortunately on 20 January 2010, my father died of heart attack. 4. Even in the absence of Judicial Decree of Adoption, I consider myself as an acknowledged illegitimate child of my father. 4.1 I am the child of Pedro Ladron under Article 163 of the Family Code. As above stated, I am the illegitimate child of Pedro Ladron to Barbara Mendoza Nicolas. Article 163 of the Family Code provides that the filiation of children may be made by nature or adoption. Natural Filiation may be legitimate or illegitimate.
1

In the case of Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, it is said that all illegitimate child to be entitled to support and successional rights from his putative or presumed parents must prove his filiation to them. Filiation must be established by the voluntary or compulsory recognition of the illegitimate child. It is compulsory when by court action the child brings out his recognition. 4.2 I established my filiation to my father through the following documents: birth certificate, baptismal certificate and school records which are signed by my parents. Article 175 of the Family Code states that illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

Mendoza v. CA, Gr. No. 86302.

Katigbak, Karla Elaine L. LFW 8:00-10:00am

Article 172 of the Family Code also provides that the filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: 1. The record of birth appearing in the civil register of a final judgment; or 2. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public instrument or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: 1. The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or 2. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special Laws.
2

In the case of Heirs of Cabals, et al v. Court of Appeals, a birth certificate, being a public document, offers prima facie evidence of filiation and a high degree of proof is needed to overthrow the presumption of truth contained in such public document. This is pursuant to the rule that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. I presented the birth certificate signed by my parents Pedro Ladron and Marikit-Talbas Ladron. My father acknowledged me as his child as evidence by documents of my school records such as his signature in my report card indicating that he is my father. A copy of my report card is hereby attached as Annex-6. Filiation may also be established by other means allowed by the Rules of Court such as Act or Declaration against Pedigree under Section 39 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
3

According to the case of Mendoza v. CA, such acts or declarations may be received in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is the best nature of the case admits and because greater evils are apprehended from the rejection of such proof than from its admission. In considering other circumstances other than the acts or declarations of Pedro Ladron, my father, it can be reasonably conclude that I am a recognized child of my father. 4.3 Article 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate child may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by their father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or instrument is made by the father. Provided the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of onehalf of the legitime of a legitimate child.

2 3

Heirs of Cabal, et al. v. CA, Gr. No. 106314-15. Mendoza v. CA, Gr. No. 86302.

Katigbak, Karla Elaine L. LFW 8:00-10:00am

As a recognized child of my father, I have the right to use his surname and entitled to his estate in proportion to my share as his heir. 5. As an acknowledged illegitimate child of my father, I have preferred rights than the complainants who are siblings of my father. 5.1 Article 887 of the Civil Code states that the following are compulsory heirs: 3. The widow or widower. 4. XXX 5. Other, illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. Compulsory heirs mentioned in nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another. In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. In relation to the above stated, Article 998 of the Civil Code states that when the widow or widower survives with illegitimate children, such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to the other half. In the Rule of Preference between lines, those in the direct descending line shall exclude, in the succession, those in the direct ascending and collateral lines, and those in the direct ascending line, shall in turn, exclude those in the collateral line. Under the facts stated, I am a compulsory heir of my father and enjoy preferred rights over the complainants. The complainants who belong to the collateral line have no right over the estate of my father. The estate should be divided equally between me and my mother Marikit Talbas-Ladron. 5.2 The complainants have no right to impugn my filiation to my father. Article 171 of the Family Code mentions that the heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the child within the period prescribed in the preceding article only in the following cases: 1. If the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action; 2. If he should die after the filing of the complaint, without having desisted therefrom; or 3. If the child was born after the death of the husband.
4

In Marquino v. IAC, it is said that in action for compulsory recognition, the party in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himself. The need to hear the side of the putative parent is an overwhelming consideration because of the unsettling effects of such an action on the peace and harmonious relationship in the family of the putative parent.

Marquino v. IAC, Gr. No. 72078.

Katigbak, Karla Elaine L. LFW 8:00-10:00am

As a rule, only the father, not the heirs, who may impugn the legitimacy. However, in the three cases given in Article 171 of the Family Code, the heirs are given the right. Even if there are instances in which an heir can oppose the legitimacy of the child, the complainants cannot claim their rights under the exceptions. 6. There is no connivance between me and my mother Marikit Talbas-Ladron in the execution of the extrajudicial settlement of estate. There is no need for connivance because we are the compulsory heirs of my father and have right over his conjugal share. My mother has the right to transfer her share and there is no need for the consent of the complainants because they do not have interest or share in the estate. 7. The complainants request for damages of not less than PhP 350,000.00 should be denied. One of the elements to obtain damages is that the plaintiff must suffer losses or injuries through the act of the accused and it must be proved. In the facts stated, the complainants do not have any right over the estate and it is impossible for them to sustained loss or injury for right in which they dont possessed. 8. My husband, Abraham Tolentino, should not be involved in this case. He was not in the country when the extra-judicial settlement of estate was executed. In fact, he worked as a family driver and had a contract for five years in Saudi Arabia. He only went in the Philippines this year when I told him about the complaint filed against us. He does not even know my real identity until he saw the complaint filed by the siblings of my father. 9. The Competent evidence of Identity presented by the complainants in executing their joint affidavit is invalid. A.M. 02-8-13-SC-Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice amended Section 12 (a) of Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. It declares that a community tax certificate issued to individuals is no longer a competent evidence of identity for purpose of carrying out notarial acts. Community tax certificate is excluded from the list of documents that can be presented to a notary public. The complainants in their affidavit executed only their community tax certificate which is already excluded in the list of documents allowed by law in the execution of a notarial act. 10. We are executing this Joint Counter-Affidavit to attest the truthfulness of the foregoing facts and to support the outright dismissal of the complaint filed against us due to lack of merit.

27 September 2013, Lucena City.

(SGD) IRENE DESIREE T. LADRON Affiant

(SGD) ABRAHAM V. TOLENTINO Affiant

Katigbak, Karla Elaine L. LFW 8:00-10:00am

JURAT Signed and sworn to before me in Lucena City, this 27 September 2013 after I personally examined the affiants and was convinces that they had voluntarily executed their counter-affidavit and that they have read and understood the counteraffidavit they executed.

(SGD) CANUTO FELIXBERTO B. DANAO, JR. Assistant City Prosecutor