EXH, ‘‘V’’ – Certificate of Registration- issued by DOH-THOMPSON

Genera
Hospital – Owner – Samuel T. Thompson.

EXH, ‘‘W’’ – License to Operate Thompson General Hospital-

August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003

EXH, ‘‘X’’ – Appointment of Rhemia Guianan, M.D. – Naida S.

Thompson – director
Lebron S. Thompson.

EXH, ‘‘Y’’ – Appointment of Carmelita B. Joaquin, M.D. – resident

physician-Naida
D. Thompson owner – Lebron S. Thompson director
EXH, ‘‘Z’’ – Mandatory Hospital Report February 2005 – Naida
Thompson
Administrator.
EXH, ‘‘AA’’ – List of Hospital personel showing Dr. Samuel Thompson –
owner.

EXH, ‘‘BB’’ – Letter sent by Naida Thompson to DOH – Naida

Administrator

EXH, ‘‘CC’’ – Appointment of Lebron Thompson Medical Director

Thompson Babol –
appointing authority;

EXH, ‘‘DD’’– Tax Receipts;

EXH, ‘‘EE’’ – Checking Account Np. 7337506514 – Metro Bank Lebron S.

Thompson
and Klan Thompson Joint depositor with Metro Bank
Kidapawan City;

EXH, ‘‘FF’’– Resolution RE: Falsification of Public Document against

Lebron S.
Thompson issued by Department of Justice, Regional Office,
General Santos City;

6. Q. What is your purpose in marking those exhibits?

A. To prove that the owner of the Thompson Generak Hospital were our late
parents
Lebron S. Thompson.

7. Q. What about claim of that he is the sole owner of the said hospital?
A. It is a false claim, it has no legal basis, the Thompson General Hospital
was constructed and operated while all of us were still students including
myself as the eldest among the sibilings. My brother Jeff Samuel S.
 Thompson who is next to me finished his medical course only 1997 and
took his residency but was not able to finish and eventually was employed
by our parents to work in the said hospital in order that he will be able to
exercise his profession;

8. Q. Can you recall if you parents executed any document transferring

ownership of the Thompson General Hospital to Jeff Samuel S. Babol before
their death?
8. A perusal of the aforesaid sketch plan ( Annex ‘‘E’’ would show that
defendant Mangilet encroached upon an aggregate area of Two Hundred
Sixty One ( 261) square meters, more or less, out of the Seventeen
Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Nine Square meters ( 17,429) owned
by herein plaintiff thus leaving the latter with measly Four Thousand
Fifth Seven ( 17, 168) square meters to control, posses and enjoy. As proof
thereof, hereto attached and marked as Annex ‘‘ F’’ is a picture showing
where the legal property line is and the wall where defendants encroached
plaintiff’s property.

9. Further, defendants have introduced improvements to the land in bad

faith thus allowing plaintiff to appropriate the same pursuant to Article 449
of the Civil Code which reads, thus: Art. 449. ‘‘ He who build, plants or
sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown
without right to indemnity.’’

10. Defendants claim on plaintiff property, taken in contrast with the

evidence submitted by herein plaintiff, is manifestly invalid notwithstanding
the prima facie appearance of validity of defendants’ claim. Perforce, it only
behooves defendants to restore plaintiff in the possession of the subject land
taking into consideration that plaintiff clearly have a better right to the land
illegally built structures by herein defendants.

11. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites

must concur: (a) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or
interest in the real property subject of the action; casting a cloud on his title
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy,( De Guzman V. Tabanggao Realty
Incorporated, G.R No. 154262, 11 February 2015). Plaintiffs have
established the presence of the aforesaid requisites in this case

12. Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, sent a Demand Letter

dated 17 August 2016 demanding defendants Mangilet to destroy the
structures they built that impeded the boundaries of their respective lots.
However, the defendants refused and still refuses to heed plaintiff’s
mentioned demand to destroy the structures they built on the Demand Letter
dated 17 August 2016 is hereto attached and marked as Annex ‘‘ G’’ hereof.
3.6 Thus, when Defendants erected the said perimeter fence, it was
evidently not in bad faith, intended to defraud plaintiff, as, first, Defendants
merely relied on the representation of the previous owner regarding the
boundaries of the lot sold to them.

3.7 Secondly, the construction of subject fence was never intended to

defraud anybody, much less the Plaintiff, because, based on her certifate of
land title ( Annex ‘‘B’’) Plaintiff acquired her property only in 2016, when
Defendants fence is already about nine (9) years in existence.

3.8 Under the Law, and prevailing jurisprudence, bad faith is never
presumed, whereas good faith is always presumed, and upon him who
alleges bad faith rests the burden of proof.

3.9 Since Plaintiff did not ( and could not) offer any proof that Defendants
constructed their perimeter fence in bad faith, the latter should be presumed
to have constructed the same in good faith.

3.10 When a person builds in good faith on the land of another, Article 448
of the Civil Code governs.

ART.448. The owner of the land on which

anything has been built, sown or planted in
good faith, shall have the right to
appropriate as his own the works, sowing
or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provide for in Articles 546 and 548, or to
obliged the one who built or planted to pay
the price of the land, and the one who
sowed, the proper rent. However, the
builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy
the land if its value is considerably more
than that of the building or trees. In such
case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the
owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after
proper indemnity. The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.