Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fifth Judicial Region
Branch I
Legazpi City
SALVE P. ALBELLO, ROMMEL P.
ALBELLO,
RUTZELLE
P.
ALBELLO-JOAQUIN,
RONALDO
P.
ALBELLO,
REYNARD
P.
ALBELLO,
ROWIZZA
P.
ALBELLO, REIGRED P. ALBELLO,
& RODEL P. ALBELLO
Plaintiffs,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 11213

For: Annulment of Judgment
Temporary
Restraining
Order
and
Preliminary
Injunction

MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT
TRIAL
COURT OF STO. DOMINGO AND
MANITO NOW PRESIDED BY
THE HON. CARLOS L. BONA,
SPS.
GLENN
AND
LORNA
BANZUELA
Defendants.
x ------------------------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS
The private-defendants Spouses Glenn and Lorna
Banzuela through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully submit this Pre-Trial Brief:

A A statement of willingness to enter into an

amicable settlement, etc.
The defendants are willing to enter into an amicable
settlement based on reasonable terms and conditions
mutually acceptable to the parties.

Page 1 of 6

B Summary of Admitted Facts and Proposed

Stipulation of Facts:
B-1 ADMITTED FACTS
1. The parties to the case in Civil Case No. S-269, For:
Quieting of Title, etc. before MCTC Sto. Domingo,
Alba, were Sps. Glenn A. Banzuela and Lorna A.
Banzuela as plaintiffs against
Salve Albello,
Saturnino and Visitacion Balderama, Ignacio Banea
and Venus Balean as defendants;
2. Salve Albello was married to Wilfredo Albello;
3. The Decision of MCTC Sto. Domingo, Albay, dated
September 6, 2013 in favor of Sps. Banzuela and
against Salve Albello;
4. Salve Albello did not file a Notice of Death during the
entire proceedings of the case at MCTC Sto.
Domingo, Albay, in Civil Case No. S-269, For: Quieting
of Title;
5. Salve Albellos two (2) counsels, Atty. Bien and Atty.
Raeses, did not file a Motion for Substitution of
Parties during the entire proceedings of the case at
MCTC Sto. Domingo despite their active participation
in the case;
6. Salve Albello did not Appeal the Decision of MCTC
Sto. Domingo, Albay in Civil Case No. S-269, For:
Quieting of Title to the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi
within the reglementary period;
7. Salve Albello did not file Motion for New Trial in the
Sto. Domingo case.
8. Salve Albello thru her lawyer filed a Motion for
Reconsideration to the MCTC Sto. Doming, Albay in
Civil Case No. S-269, For; Quieting of Title but failed
to inform the court of the death of her husband as
required under Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court;
9. Atty. Irene J. Rejuso-Bien and Atty. Amore Rex B.
Raeses, the collaborating counsels of Salve Albello
did not inform the court within 30 days after the
Page 2 of 6

death of Salve Albellos husband for the purpose of

giving the names addresses of Salve Albellos legal
representatives/heirs as required under Sec. 16, Rule
3 of the Rules of Court.
10. Rafael Banzuela, the wife of Rosario Banzuela, did
not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Salve
Albello (Annex D of the Complaint) dated April 10,
1988 of a portion of the property in question with an
area of 2,929 sq. m for P10,000;
B-2 PROPOSALS FOR ADMISSION
Will Plaintiffs admit that:
1. During the entire proceedings of the case in MCTC
Sto. Domingo, Albay, docketed as Civil Case No. S-269, for
Quieting of Title, Salve Albello and her counsels did not give
a Notice of Death to the court and neither they filed a Motion
for Substitution of Parties for the purpose of substitution of
heirs to the deceased husband of Salve Albello?;

C - ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Decision of MCTC Sto.
Domingo, Albay can be annulled without Salve
Albellos deceased husband, Wilfredo Albello
having been substituted by the heirs for failure
of Salve Albello and her counsels to notify the
court of the death of Wilfredo Albello or filed a
Motion for Substitution of Parties as required in
Sec. 16, Rule 3 of Rules of Court.
2. Whether or not the Decision of MCTC Sto.
Domingo is binding upon the successors-ininterest of the late Wilfredo Albello in the
absence of the Notice of Death having been
given by Salve Albello and her counsels to the
court pursuant to the case of Regoso v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 91879, July 6, 1992, 211 SCRA
348 and in the case of Florendo, et. al. versus
Coloma, et al., 129 SCRA 304;
D - DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEAULT
AND TO ADMIT ANSWER dated January 10, 2013 by Atty.
Page 3 of 6

Amore Rex B. Raeses, counsel of Salve Albello in the Sto.

Domingo case;
EXHIBIT 2 COURT ORDER of MCTC Sto. Domingo
dated November 14, 2012, declaring Salve Albello et al in
default;
EXHIBIT 3 ORDER of MCTC Sto. Domingo dated
February 11, 2013 denying the Motion to Lift Order of Default
and to Admit Answer;
EXHIBIT 4 DECISION of MCTC Sto. Domingo,
Albay, dated September 6, 2013, in favor of Sps. Banzuela
and against Salve Albello, et. al.;
EXHIBIT 4-A

Dispositive portion of the Decision;

PURPOSES: To prove that:

1. The Decision is valid and binding upon the
successors-in-interest for failure of Salve Albello to inform
the court of the Notice of Death of her husband and of her
counsels to file a Motion for Substitution of Parties pursuant
to Rule 3, Section 16 of the Rules of Court and also in
accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in
Regoso vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91879, July 6, 1992,
211 SCRA 348 and Florendo, et. al. vs. Coloma, et. al., 129
SCRA 304;
2. MCTC Sto. Domingo, Albay, cannot be faulted for
proceeding to render judgment without ordering the
substitution of parties for failure of Salve Albello and her
counsels to inform the court of the death of Wilfredo Albello
for the reason that the rules operate on the presumption that
the attorney for the deceased party is in a better position
than the attorney for the adverse party to know about the
death of her client and to inform the court of the names and
addresses of his legal representatives, applying the case of
Regoso vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 348 and Florendo et.
al. vs. Coloma,a et al., 129 SCRA 304;
EXHIBIT 5
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION dated November 15, 2013, of the
Courts Decision;
EXHIBIT 6 COURT ORDER dated December 9,
2013, of MCTC Sto. Domingo denying the Motion for
Reconsideration;
Page 4 of 6

PURPOSES OF EXHIBITS 1; 2; 3 5 and 6 - To

prove that:
1. Salve Albello and her counsels actively participated
in the proceedings of the case before MCTC Sto. Domingo,
Albay, and despite of their participation, they never complied
with their obligation under Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court which is to give Notice of Death to the Court or to file
a Motion for Substitution of Parties for the purpose of
identifying the heirs of the deceased husband of Salve
Albello;
E - A manifestation of their having availed or their
intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures
or referral to commissioners.
Defendants are willing to avail of discovery procedures
or referral to commissioners.
F - APPLICABLE LAWS
1. Rule 3, Section 16, Rules of Court;
2. Regoso v. Court of Appeals; G.R No. 91879, July 6,
1992, 211 SCRA 348;
3. Florendo, et.al. v. Coloma, et.al., 129 SCRA 304.
G WITNESSES
1. Glenn Banzuela;
2. The Clerk of MCTC Sto. Domingo, Albay;
3. Two (2) reserved witnesses.
Each witness will take about 30 minutes to testify.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief be
admitted for purposes of the pre-trial conference.
Such other reliefs and remedies as may be deemed just
and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Legazpi City, January 21, 2015.
Page 5 of 6

MONTEFALCO LAW OFFICE

Rm.203, 2nd Floor, RCY Building,
Albay District, Legazpi City
CP No. 0929-6627515
Tel. #(052) 481-3375

By:

RAGE JOSEF E. MONTEFALCO,

JR.

ROA No. 29563

MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009575; 11-20-12
IBP No. 953870; 12-04-14; Leg. City
PTR No. 4675363-I; 1-06-15; Leg. City
Email add: Rjmontefalco@ymail.com

Copy Furnished:
Received by:
ATTY. IRENE J. REJUSO-BIEN
Rm. 205, Los Baos Bldg.,
Pearanda St., Legazpi City

__________________________
Signature over Printed Name

Date: ______________

Page 6 of 6