REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN
Malolos City, Bulacan
Branch 82
WILFREDO LANDAYAN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Civil Case No. 146-M-2010

For: Collection of Sum of Money
and Damages

MICRONSMEGA CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------------------x
SPOUSES MARIA EDNA A. JOTA
And ALLAN JAY C. JOTA,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
- versus -

Civil Case No. 146-M-2010

For: Collection of Sum of Money
and Damages

WILFREDO LANDAYAN, SR., ET AL.,

Defendants-in-Intervention.
x----------------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(In Lieu of Direct Testimony)
I, WILFREDO LANDAYAN, SR., Filipino, of legal age, married and a
resident of No. 398 Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan, duly sworn in accordance with
law hereby depose and state:
Pursuant to the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), my herein
direct testimony in affidavit form was recorded and prepared by my counsel of
record, Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr., before a Notary Public at Malolos City,
Bulacan;
I was fully apprised that I am under oath and that I may face criminal
liability for false testimony or Perjury;
My testimony is being offered to prove the following:

1.

Sometime in October 2008, defendants borrowed money from

plaintiff in the amount of P300,000.00, payable in one (1) year with a monthly
interest of 6%.
2.

To secure the payment of the loan obligation, defendant Myra

Cabigao issued to plaintiff a company check with check no. 0016280 in the
amount of P300,000.00 postdated to 04 October 2009 drawn from the account
of defendant MICRONSMEGA Corporation at Banco De Oro Balagtas, Bulacan
branch. Simultaneous to plaintiff's receipt of the said check, plaintiff gave the
money to the defendants
3.

Plaintiff agreed to grant the loan because of the assurance of the

defendants MYRA CABIGAO, CARLOS CABIGAO, AMADO LANSANG, and

MIKE MORGA that the same will be paid with interest;
4.

Upon presentation of the aforesaid check on its due date, the

same was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that the account upon
which it was drawn was already closed.
5.

Plaintiff informed the defendants of the dishonor of the said check.

Despite plaintiff's subsequent demands, however, the defendants intentionally

refused and continue to refuse to pay the subject obligation.
6.

Defendants are using the veil of corporate fiction to defraud a

creditor and evade the payment of their loan obligation;

7.

Contrary to their undertakings in the attachment bond, the

Intervenors Spouses Jota has been using the attached properties in their
business. Worse, they have removed the attached properties from the premises
of defendant Micronsmega Corporation and transferred it to their business in
Balagtas, Bulacan.
8.

The purported Deed of Absolute Sale covering the attached properties

in favor of plaintiffs-intervenors were executed in fraud of creditor (plaintiff Landayan)

and to prevent the said attached properties from being attached or levied upon by
herein plaintiff Landayan.

9.

That plaintiff-intervenors Spouses Jota should be held solidarily liable

with the defendants to pay damages to plaintiff because they conspired and unlawfully
connived with the defendants to execute the purported Deed of Absolute Sale
covering the attached properties in order to defraud plaintiff (creditor);
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:
Q:
A:

Mr. Witness, do you know the defendants in this case?

Yes, sir.

Q:
A:

How did you come to know them?

They borrowed money from, sir.

Q:
A:

When did they borrow money from you?

Sometime in October 2008, sir.

Q:
A:

How did they convince you to lend them money?

They talked to me and assured me that the loan will be repaid with
interest, sir.

Q:
A:

Who specifically talked to you?

All of the defendants talked to me, sir. Not all at once, on several
occasions, they all talked to me and convinced me to lend them money,
sir.

Q:
A:

Why were they borrowing money from you?

They told me that they needed it to finance their business expansion, sir.

Q:
A:

Why did you believe them?

I saw the machineries in their office premises and I also saw the brisk
business there, sir. I also trusted them since we all know each other as
we live in the same town, sir.

Q:
A:

What did you do next?

I asked them for a security, sir.

Q:
A:

What happened next?

They gave me a postdated check in the amount of P300,000.00, sir

Q:
A:

Who specifically gave you the check?

It was defendant Myrna Cabigao, but he used a company check , sir.

Q:
A:

If shown a copy of this check, will you be able to identify it?

Yes, sir.

Q:

I am now showing to you this check (previously marked as Exhibit "B")

with check no. 0016280 in the amount of P300,000.00 postdated to 04
October 2009 drawn from the account of defendant MICRONSMEGA
Corporation at Banco De Oro Balagtas, Bulacan branch. Can you
please tell us if this is the same check you referred to earlier?

A:

Yes, sir. This is the check the defendants issued to me, sir.

Q:
A:

Whose signature is this on the check?

It is the signature of defendant Myrna Cabigao, sir.

Q:
A:

Why do you know that?

She signed it in my presence, sir.

(We move that the signature of defendant Myrna Cabigao be sub-marked as

Exhibit "B-2")
Q:
A:

What happened to this check?

When I presented it for payment on its due date, it was dishonored by
the drawee bank, sir.

Q:
A:

Why was it dishonored?

It was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that the account
upon which it was drawn was already closed, sir.

Q:
A:

How do you prove that?

There is a stamp mark on the face of the check which says: "ACCOUNT
CLOSED" and the reason sir.

Q:
A:

What did you do next after the check was dishonored?

I immediately notified the defendants, sir.

Q:
A:

How did you notify them?

At first, I notified them verbally, sir.

Q:
A:

What was their reply?

Defendant Amado Lansang, on behalf of the other defendants, sent me a
letter dated 09 December 2008 wherein he acknowledged the bligation
and asked for an extension on the period of payment, sir.

Q:
A:

If shown a copy of this letter, will you be able to identify it?

Yes, sir.

Q:
A:

I am now showing to you this letter (previously marked as Exhibit "C"), is

this the same letter you referred to earlier?
Yes, sir.

Q:
A:

What happened next?

Even with an extension of time, the defendants still did not pay me, sir.

Q:
A:

What did you do next?

I asked my lawyer to send them a letter, sir.

Q:
A:

If shown a copy of this letter, will you be able to identify it?

Yes, sir.

Q:

I am now showing to you this letter (previously marked as Exhibit "D"), is

this the same letter you referred to earlier?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:
A:

How do you prove that the defendants received this letter?

There was a tracking receipt from the LBC, sir.

Q:
A:

If shown a copy of this tracking receipt, will you be able to identify it?
Yes, sir.

Q:
A:

I am now showing to you this tracking receipt (previously marked as

Exhibit "D-1"), is this the same tracking receipt you referred to earlier?
Yes, sir.

Q:
A:

What did you do next?

I filed this complaint and asked for a preliminary attachment, sir.

Q:
A:

What happened next?

I was able to levy an attachment on the machineries and equipment of
the defendant, sir.

Q:
A:

What happened to the attached properties?

The intervenors Spouses Jota filed a third-party claim, and discharged
the levy, sir.

Q:
A:

What did you do next?

I talked to them, sir. Thru their lawyer, Atty. Tagumpay Ponce, who is
also a member of Iglesia Ni Cristo, sir.

Q:
A:

What did they tell you?

They told me that the defendants already sold the attached properties to
them, sir. They assured me that they will not use the attached properties
and they will not remove it from the premises of the company while the
case is on-going, sir.

Q:
A:

What happened next?

Contrary to their undertakings, the Intervenors Spouses Jota has been
using the attached properties in their business. Worse, they have
removed the attached properties from the premises of defendant
Micronsmega Corporation and transferred it to their business in
Balagtas, Bulacan.

Q:
A:

How do you prove this?

I have pictures of the attached properties when they removed it from the
premises of the company, sir.

Q:
A:

Who took these pictures?

I took those pictures, sir.

(We move that the pictures be marked as Exhibit "E" series)

Q:
A:

Why are you still going after the subject properties if they were already
sold to the Intervenors Spouses Jota?
The purported Deed of Absolute Sale covering the subject properties in favor
of plaintiffs-intervenors is obviously simulated and fabricated, sir.

Q:
A:

Why do you say that?

While the sales in question purportedly transpired on July 17, 2009, the same
was not registered with the Registry of Deeds until to date. The intervenors (as
purported buyers) failed to explain the reasons for the delay in the registration
of the sale, until to date. Also, despite the purported sale of the subject
properties as early as July 2009, herein plaintiffs-intervenors (as purported
buyers) never took possession of the said properties (machineries and
equipment), which is contrary to human nature and common sense.

Q:
A:

Why would they simulate this deed of sale?

The fabricated sales were made only as an afterthought in fraud of creditors.
Indeed, the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated for the purpose of
putting the properties in question beyond the reach of creditors, like me, sir.

Q:
A:

How did these acts of the defendants and intervenors affected you?
I suffered emotionally, physically, and financially because of the malevolent
acts of the defendants, sir. I was practically begging them to pay me their loan
obligation, sir. But they gave me the run around. They fabricated a deed of
sale. They acted in obvious bad faith and in collusion and conspiracy with each
other. They continued to make money at my expense. I suffered from
sleepless nights, moral anxiety, social humiliation, and mental stress, sir.

Q:
A:

What are you asking from this court?

I ask for the Court to:
(i)

Declare as null and void the Deed of Sale dated 17 July 2009 in
favor of plaintiffs-intervenors covering the subject properties for
being simulated and made in fraud of creditors;

(ii)

Order the defendants and the intervenors to solidarily pay me the

following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
d.

Actual damages in the amount of at least P300,000.00 plus

interest;
Moral damages in the amount of at least P100,000.00;
Exemplary damages in the amount of at least P100,000.00;
Attorneys fees and expense of litigation in the amount of at
least P100,000.00; and
Costs of suit.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

Malolos City, Bulacan, 15 October 2012.

WILFREDO LANDAYAN, SR.,

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of October 2012 at

Malolos
City,
Bulacan,
affiant
having
exhibited
to
me
his
__________________________ as proof of identity.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. ____
Series of 2012.

Copy furnished:
Atty. Norman Benigno C. Roxas
Counsel for the Defendants
2nd Floor, VESRO Bldg.,Violeta Metroville,
Binan 2nd, Bocaue 3018 Bulacan
ATTY. TAGUMPAY PONCE
Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Intervenors
2nd Floor, Pearl Bldg., McArthur Highway,
Poblacion, Balagtas, Bulacan