Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Complaint Mamerto
Complaint Mamerto
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the protester, through undersigned counsel, and unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully and humbly avers:
a) LOT NO. 8983, CAD. 463-D, currently declared under the name
of Sps. Pablo C. Umbay and Belden C. Umbay, situated at
Pitalo, San Fernando, Cebu, and covered by Tax Declaration No.
21457. A copy of the said Tax Declaration No. 21457 is hereby
attached as Annex “B”;
10) That plaintiff had come to know that based on the records of the
DENR, CENRO Argao, Cebu, a certain ANA MARIE U. BRESSON
had filed a Free Patent Application on LOT NO. 8983, CAD. 463-
D, under FPA No. 0722431-2042;
11) That the plaintiff immediately signify her objection to the Free
Patent Application on LOT NO. 8983, CAD. 463-D, under FPA
No. 0722431-2042 as she is the owner of the above –mentioned parcel
of land subject of the Free patent Application;
12) That upon knowing that the tax declaration of the subject lot
was transferred in the name of SPS. ANN MARIE U. BRESSON
AND RAYMOND ANTHONY BRESSON, SPS. VINCENT
ANTHONY UMBAY AND JOANNE A. UMBAY, the plaintiff
through her attorney-in-fact immediately executed an Affidavit Of
Adverse Claim on the Free Patent Application of ANA MARIE U.
BRESSON, claiming that the latter is not the owner of the
aforesaid subject lot;
13) That the DENR, CENRO Argao, Cebu, took cognizance of our
protest and it still pending for resolution by their good office;
14) That after plaintiff made a protest, she was surprised to find out
that the subject lot was reverted by the Provincial Assessor’s
Office unto her name under tax Declaration No. 21437 and was
simultaneously cancelled and declared under the name of
defendants SPS. PABLO C. UMBAY and BELDEN C. UMBAY.
Copy of Tax Declaration No. 21437 is hereby attached as Annex
“F” and made an integral part hereof;
15) That the reverting of the subject lot was made through a letter
request only and not through a court order which is not valid and
not conforming to the procedure. The Office of the Provincial
Assessor had made an error in reverting the property through a
letter request;
17) That the Deed of Absolute Sale is invalid as plaintiff an her late
husband had never executed the said document in favor of SPS.
PABLO C. UMBAY and BELDEN C. UMBAY and that the Deed
of Sale was executed long time ago;
18) The plaintiff could only surmise that defendants uses the Deed
of Sale inorder for them to find a way out from the criminal and
civil consequences when they adjudicate the subject lot under their
name using the falsified Deed of Adjudication;
19) That plaintiff had come to know that the defendants are dealing
the subject lot to different prospect buyers to her prejudice being
the rightful owner;
PRAYER
2. That I have read and understood all the contents thereof and the
same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief based on
authentic records;
________________________________
MAMERTO ENCABO GENERALE
Affiant