Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
11th Judicial Region
Panabo City, Davao del Norte
Email: mtcc2pan000@[Link]
Contact No.: (084) 823-9002
HEIRS OF JESUSA ROCA OSORIO CIVIL CASE NO. 1640
Namely: RAUL R. REYES,
VIOLETA R. BENEDICTO,
BEATRIZ R. GAYANELO, JESUSA FOR: ANNULMENT
R. REYES, ESTELLA R. OF TITLE, DEED OF
TOLENTINO DONATION,
Plaintiffs, DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES
-versus-
MARIA ELENA E. OSORIO,
ELIZABETH OSORIO, and the
REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF THE
PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL
NORTE
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------/
REPLY
(To Plaintiffs’ Comment/Opposition
dated January 23, 2026)
Defendants, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that:
1. Defendants received Plaintiffs’ Comment/Opposition
through electronic transmittal last January 23, 2026.
1
2. Upon a careful perusal of the Comment/Opposition,
defendants find it necessary to address and rebut the
statements and allegations contained therein. Hence,
this Reply.
3. Plaintiffs argue that the presumption of regularity
accorded to a notarized document, such as the subject
Deed of Donation, may be overturned by clear and
convincing evidence. In an attempt to do so, they allege
that the Deed of Donation is invalid on the ground that
it was forged and falsified by defendant Elizabeth
Osorio, claiming that not only the signature of Jesusa
Osorio but also those of Antonio Osorio and Maria Elena
Osorio were forged. Plaintiffs further assert that the
signature appearing above the name “Maria Elena
Osorio” in the Deed of Donation is actually that of
defendant Elizabeth Osorio, allegedly because it is
identical to her signature.
4. These allegations are baseless accusations, highly
presumptuous and amount to nothing more than bare
conclusions of law. Thus, Plaintiffs failed to present any
competent, much less clear and convincing, evidence to
substantiate their claims of forgery and falsification.
5. It must be emphasized that the Deed of Donation was
duly notarized and acknowledged before Notary Public
Atty. Guillermo Llagumo, who was then counsel of
Jesusa Osorio in Civil Case No. 4158, a fact that
plaintiffs themselves do not dispute. This circumstance
strongly supports the conclusion that the document was
validly and regularly executed.
6. Moreover, plaintiffs conveniently ignore the fact that
the Deed of Donation was executed in 1992, when
defendant Maria Elena Osorio was only twenty-one (21)
years old, single, and a recent college graduate. At that
2
time, she signed the document using her maiden name.
After her subsequent marriage, her signature naturally
changed. Further, it is likewise reasonable to expect
that her signature would have evolved over time,
especially considering that more than thirty-three (33)
years have passed since the document’s execution.
Thus, any alleged variance in signatures, therefore, is
neither unusual nor indicative of forgery.
7. As regards the signature of Antonio Osorio, defendant
Maria Elena categorically affirmed, being herself a party
to the donation, that her father personally signed the
Deed of Donation. Absent any credible evidence to the
contrary, such affirmation further reinforces the
authenticity and due execution of the subject Deed of
Donation.
8. To prove further that the signature of Antonio Osorio in
the Deed of Donation was in fact his, a copy of the
Individual Reservist Data Sheet duly accomplished by
Antonio himself is hereto attached as Annex 7, and a
copy of the Application for Settlement of Claims of
Filipino Veteran under Republic Act No. 1889 is likewise
attached as Annex 8.
9. Plaintiffs further asseverate that defendants are
mistaken in asserting that plaintiffs seek to enforce the
Decision dated October 18, 1999 in SP Civil Case No.
98-05 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Panabo
City, Davao del Norte which was already barred by
prescription. Instead, they claim that the present action
was filed merely to protect their rights to their legitime,
which they allege was impaired by the Deed of
Donation. This contention is unavailing.
10. By repeatedly citing the said Decision and the
Compromise Agreement upon which it was based,
plaintiffs are, in effect, seeking to enforce the very
3
same judgment. However, said Decision can no longer
be enforced as it has long prescribed. More importantly,
plaintiffs had already fully litigated their alleged rights
over the one-half (1/2) share in the subject property in
the same case – Partition in SP Civil Case No. 98-05,
which involved the same property, the same parties,
and the same issues. Consequently, the Decision not
only became unenforceable by prescription, but also
constitutes a conclusive judgment that squarely bars
plaintiffs from relitigating the same issues under the
doctrine of res judicata.
11. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment,
facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a
former suit cannot again be raised in any future case
between the same parties, even if the latter suit may
involve a different claim or cause of action. 1
12. Assuming arguendo that the Decision dated
October 18, 1999 in SP Civil Case No. 98-05 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Panabo City, Davao del
Norte, exists and is valid, the Decision having been
based on the compromise agreement constituted the
final determination of the rights and obligations of the
plaintiffs vis-à-vis those of Antonio Osorio in that case.
13. By doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment,
plaintiffs should not be allowed to reopen the same
issues in this present case, as the decision of the
Regional Trial Court in their previous SP Civil Case No.
98-05 had already become conclusive upon them.
However, despite the said decision, due to plaintiffs’
failure to move for its timely execution, the said
decision has since been barred by prescription – a
consequence attributable solely to plaintiffs’ inaction.
1
Republic v. Yu, GR No. 157557, March 10, 2006
4
14. Although defendant Maria Elena Osorio was not
impleaded in SP Civil Case No. 98-05, her rights over
the subject property were inextricably intertwined with
those of the defendant therein, Antonio Osorio,
considering that she is his heir and a donee of the
subject property. Her non-inclusion in the said case is
attributable to plaintiffs’ failure to implead her as an
indispensable party.
15. Also, Plaintiffs dispute Defendants’ claim that the
one-half (1/2) share of Jesusa Osorio in the subject
property was already sold to Antonio Osorio, arguing
that there was no document evidencing a contract of
sale. Plaintiffs’ contention is misplaced.
16. Although there was no formal contract of sale
between Jesusa Osorio and Antonio Osorio, this does
not negate the existence of a perfected contract of sale
between them, the written contract being required only
for the convenience of the parties.
17. In the case of Estate of Valeriano Bueno, et. al. v.
Estate of Atty. Eduardo Peralta, et. al, G.R. No. 205810,
September 09, 2020, the Supreme Court held:
“Quite recently, We had the opportunity to discuss the
parameters of the Statute of Frauds in Heirs of Alido vs.
Campano,[20] which reiterated that an unenforceable contract
under Article 1403(2) is not necessarily void since it can be
ratified by failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence
to prove the contract itself, or by the acceptance of benefits. The
contract can be established by the express or implied conduct of
the parties. The Court explained, thus:
Article 1403 (2) of the Civil Code, or otherwise known as the
Statute of Frauds, requires that covered transactions must be
reduced in writing, otherwise the same would be unenforceable
by action. In other words, sale of real property must be
5
evidenced by a written document as an oral sale of immovable
property is unenforceable.
Nevertheless, it is erroneous to conclude that contracts of
sale of real property without its term being reduced in
writing are void or invalid. In The Estate of Pedro C.
Gonzales v. The Heirs of Marcos Perez, the Court explained
that failure to observe the prescribed form of contracts do not
invalidate the transaction, to wit:
Nonetheless, it is a settled rule that the failure to observe the
proper form prescribed by Article 1358 does not render the
acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid. It has been
uniformly held that the form required under the said Article is
not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction,
but merely for convenience. The Court agrees with the CA in
holding that a sale of real property, though not consigned in a
public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and
binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that
even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal
effects between the parties. Stated differently, although a
conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does
not affect the validity of such conveyance. Article 1358 does
not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a
public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but
only to insure its efficacy.
Further, the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory
contracts and not to those which have been executed either
fully or partially. In Swedish Match, AB v. Court of Appeals,
the Court expounded on the purpose behind the requirement
that certain contracts be reduced in writing, viz.:
The Statute of Frauds embodied in Article 1403, paragraph (2),
of the Civil Code requires certain contracts enumerated therein
to be evidenced by some note or memorandum in order to be
enforceable. The term "Statute of Frauds" is descriptive of
statutes which require certain classes of contracts to be in
writing. The Statute does not deprive the parties of the right to
6
contract with respect to the matters therein involved, but merely
regulates the formalities of the contract necessary to render it
enforceable. Evidence of the agreement cannot be received
without the writing or a secondary evidence of its contents.
The Statute, however, simply provides the method by which the
contracts enumerated therein may be proved but does not
declare them invalid because they are not reduced to writing.
By law, contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may
have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites
for their validity are present. However, when the law requires
that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or
enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that
requirement is absolute and indispensable. Consequently, the
effect of non-compliance with the requirement of the Statute is
simply that no action can be enforced unless the requirement is
complied with. Clearly, the form required is for evidentiary
purposes only. Hence, if the parties permit a contract to be
proved, wi1hout any objection, it is then just as binding as if the
Statute has been complied with. (Emphasis supplied)
18. Based on the foregoing jurisprudence, Plaintiffs’
assertion that the contract of sale between Jesusa
Osorio and Antonio Osorio is void for not having been
reduced into writing is clearly misplaced. As explained
in the said case, the requirement that a sale of
immovable property be in writing otherwise it is
unenforceable applies only to an executory contract. In
the present case, the contract of sale between Jesusa
and Antonio over the one-half (1/2) share of Jesusa in
the subject property was already fully executed. On the
part of Antonio, he already paid the purchase price
thereof amounting to One Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos
(₱110,000.00), which amount was expressly indicated in
the Compromise Agreement in SP Civil Case No. 98-05.
19. To prove further the existence of a contract of sale,
a copy of the Receipt dated February 4, 1992 is hereto
attached as Annex 9. The said Receipt was part of
7
Antonio’s evidence in SP Civil Case No. 98-05, which
contained the following statements:
“Received from MR. ANTONIO E. OSORIO the sum of ONE
HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND (₱110,000.00) Pesos, Philippine
Currency for payment of my one half (1/2) share on Lot 5700 and
covered by OCT-P11894 and my usufruct right on the residential
house situated at Lagao, General Santos City constructed on Lot
10, Blk 1 and covered by TCT-T No. 46933.
General Santos City, February 4, 1992.
(Sgd.)
JESUSA ROCA”
20. Thus, it is clear that there exists a perfected
contract of sale between Jesusa and Antonio Osorio.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed to this Honorable Court to CONSIDER this REPLY and
DISMISS the instant complaint and GRANT the prayers of the
Defendants as stated in their Answer with Counterclaims.
Such other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the
circumstances.
Respectfully submitted. ___________, Tagum City,
Davao del Norte (for Panabo City).