LFW9.docx

7/27/2019 LFW9.docx

1/6

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

1

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 tothe 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 theplaintiffs which states that my father, Pedro Ladron, died intestate on 20January 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 theiraffidavit. The truth of the matter is that:

a. I, Irene Desiree T. Ladron, am the only child of Marikit C. Talbas-Ladron 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 motherregarding 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 ourformer 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 herconscience 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

7/27/2019 LFW9.docx

2/6


2

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 andbaptized me at Immaculate Conception Church in Lucena City. The

birth certificate is hereby attached as Annex-1 and the baptismalcertificate is attached as Annex-2.

d. I used the name Irene Desiree T. Ladron in all my school recordsbecause 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 Baron 14 May 2004 and when I married to Abraham V. Tolentino on 14June 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 adoptme 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 asan acknowledged illegitimate child of my father.

4.1I 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.

1In the case of Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, it is said that allillegitimate 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 followingdocuments: birth certificate, baptismal certificate and school records

which are signed by my parents.

Article 175 of the Family Code states that illegitimate children mayestablish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same

evidence as legitimate children.

1Mendoza v. CA, Gr. No. 86302.

7/27/2019 LFW9.docx

3/6


3

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 finaljudgment; or

2. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public instrument or aprivate 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 legitimatechild; or

2. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and SpecialLaws.

2In the case of Heirs of Cabals, et al v. Court of Appeals, a birth

certificate, being a public document, offers prima facie evidence offiliation 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 copyof 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.

3According 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.

4.3Article 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate child mayuse 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 hislifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-

half of the legitime of a legitimate child.

2Heirs of Cabal, et al. v. CA, Gr. No. 106314-15.

3Mendoza v. CA, Gr. No. 86302.

7/27/2019 LFW9.docx

4/6


4

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 rightsthan the complainants who are siblings of my father.

5.1Article 887 of the Civil Code states that the following are compulsoryheirs:

3. The widow or widower.4. XXX5. 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 fixedfor bringing his action;

2. If he should die after the filing of the complaint, without havingdesisted therefrom; or

3. If the child was born after the death of the husband.4In 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 ofsuch an action on the peace and harmonious relationship in the family

of the putative parent.

4Marquino v. IAC, Gr. No. 72078.

7/27/2019 LFW9.docx

5/6


5

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 theestate 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 (SGD) ABRAHAM V. TOLENTINO

Affiant Affiant

7/27/2019 LFW9.docx

6/6


6

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 counter-

affidavit they executed.

(SGD) CANUTO FELIXBERTO B. DANAO, JR.

Assistant City Prosecutor

Documents

LFW9.docx