Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
10th Judicial Region
Buenavista, Agusan del Norte
LESLY A. GALVEZ,
Plaintiff,
—versus—
LEA REFUELA,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
CIVIL CASE NO. 712
For: Action for the Execution of Kasabutan,
Damages, and Attorney's Fees
x-----------------------------------x
DEFENDANT’S
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Defendant, Lea Refuela, by counsel, respectfully submits this Pre-
Trial Brief in compliance with the Rules of Court and states:
---
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case stems from the amicable settlement (Kasabutan)
reached between the plaintiff, Lesly A. Galvez, and the defendant,
Lea Refuela, during the Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings.
Under this settlement, the defendant agreed to vacate the
plaintiff’s property. In return, the plaintiff agreed to forgo any
other claims she may have had against the defendant.
Despite this, the plaintiff has filed this action to enforce the
settlement agreement, which the defendant contends has been
rescinded due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with its terms.
The plaintiff has revived her original complaint for eviction and
damages, which, according to the defendant, lacks legal and
factual basis.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff's actions, in reviving her
original complaint, constitute an abandonment and rescission of
the settlement agreement. Furthermore, the defendant contends
that the plaintiff had initially agreed to sell a portion of the
property to the defendant in exchange for services rendered,
including assistance in having the property titled in the plaintiff’s
name. The defendant complied with her obligations and made
partial payment for the property, but instead of honoring the
agreement, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate the
property.
The defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint and enforcement
of her rights under the original agreement with the plaintiff.
II. ADMITTED FACTS
1. The parties acknowledge that an amicable settlement
(Kasabutan) was entered into before the Barangay involving
the subject property.
2. The defendant’s entry to the land was legal and with the
knowledge and consent of Plaintiff.
3. The defendant was occupying the property in question,
pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiff.
4. The defendant rendered services to the plaintiff, including
facilitating the titling of the property in the plaintiff’s name.
AND PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
5. The fact that there was a prior agreement between the
parties wherein Plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant a portion
of her property, which accommodation was extended to
defendant for her services and assistance in having the land
of Plaintiff titled.
6. The fact that it was thru defendant’s efforts and services
that Plaintiff’s land is now titled in her name;
7. The fact that defendant built a house on said property with
the consent and knowledge of Plaintiff..
8. The fact that a portion of said property was sold to a third
person by Plaintiff after the land was titled in her name, thru
trhru the efforts of Defendant.
9. The fact that the property is traversed by a road’
10. The fact that said road needs to be reflected and
segregated in any survey plan of property, which will result
to the issuance of multiple deruivative titles.
III. MAIN FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES
1. Whether the Kasabutan (amicable settlement) is still
enforceable or has been rescinded by the plaintiff’s actions
in filing the original complaint|?
2. Whether the plaintiff’s original complaint has legal and
factual basis, particularly in light of the agreement between
the parties for the defendant to purchase a portion of the
property in exchange for her services?
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from seeking the eviction of
the defendant, having benefited from the defendant's
services and partial payment for the purchase of the
property as well as the improvements introduced by
defendant thereon?
4. Whether or not Defendant is a possessor and builder in good
faith?
5. Whether the defendant is entitled to the transfer of
ownership of the portion of the property, pursuant to the
original agreement between the parties.
6. Whether Plaintiff is liable to Defendant for damages
---
IV. PROPRIETY OF REFERRAL TO COMMISSIONERS
At this stage, the defendant does not see any need for referral of
any factual issues to commissioners. The issues can be resolved
based on documentary evidence and witness testimony.
---
V. DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT EVIDENCE TO BE MARKED
Kasabutan (Amicable Settlement) – to establish that an
agreement was reached between the parties.
- Purpose: To demonstrate that there was an amicable
settlement which the plaintiff has abandoned.
With reservation
VI. NAMES AND SUMMARIES OF WITNESSES’ TESTIMONIES
1. Lea Refuela (Defendant)
- Summary of Testimony: Lea Refuela will testify that the
plaintiff agreed to sell her a portion of the property in exchange
for her services in having the property titled. She will testify that
she fulfilled her obligations by processing the title and making
partial payment, but the plaintiff refused to honor the agreement
and instead demanded that she vacate the property. She is a
possessor and builder in good faith – her entry, possession and
introduction of improvements thereon were made with the
knowledge of Plaintiff.
She will also testify on other allied relevant matters.
2. Witnesses from the Barangay
- Summary of Testimony: Barangay officials who were present
during the Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings will testify to
the terms of the Kasabutan (amicable settlement) and the events
leading to the agreement.
3. Spouses Gacayan
= Summary of Testimony: To prove that Plaintiff was able to sell
a portion of her property to them thru the efforts of Defendant.
4. The son of Defendant
-To corroborate the testimonies of the foregoing witnesses.
VII. BRIEF STATEMENT OF POINTS OF LAW AND AUTHORITIES
Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Presidential Decree No.
1508)
- The law provides for the amicable settlement of
disputes before the barangay. When parties reach a
settlement, such agreement is binding unless validly
rescinded or abandoned.
Article 1315 of the Civil Code
- Contracts are perfected by mere consent and are
binding between the parties. Here, the plaintiff’s
agreement to sell a portion of the property in exchange
for the defendant’s services and partial payment
constitutes a valid contract.
Doctrine of Estoppel
- The plaintiff is estopped from demanding that the
defendant vacate the property after accepting the
defendant’s services and partial payment. To allow the
plaintiff to now deny the agreement would be unjust
and contrary to the principles of equity, especially that
she have introduced considerable improvements on the
property.
---
VIII. RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, defendant Lea Refuela
respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:
1. Dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of merit,
particularly the request to enforce the Kasabutan, which
the plaintiff has abandoned by pursuing the original
complaint;
2. Declare the defendant’s entitlement to the portion of
the property, as agreed upon by the parties in exchange
for her services and partial payment;
3. Award the defendant attorney’s fees, litigation costs,
and other damages as may be deemed proper by this
Honorable Court.
Other reliefs and remedies that are just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
---
Date: October 14, 2024
Place: Buenavista, Agusan del Norte
SALISE & ASSOCIATES
RGCS Bldg., Narra Road cor. Molave Street
8600 Butuan City
Counsel for the Defense
By
ATTY. ROLANDO G.C. SALISE
Roll No. 48977
MCLE Compliant (awaiting Certificate)
IBP no. 158127 3/28/2022 (double payment in 2022)
PTR No. 2343944 1/3/2023
TIN No. 908-310-719 e-mail add: boboysalise@yahoo.com
Cellphone no. 09485939047 ---
CC-
ATTY. TARA LOUISE A. DIONEN
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Region X Ill, Butuan City District Office "A"
Libertad, Butuan City
