Comment With Table

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Department of Human Settlement and Urban Development

Kagawaran ng Pananahang Pantao at Pagpapaunlad ng
Kalunsuran
Region IV-A
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT

OF ATTY. NESTOR VICENTE PASANO,
ATTY. NESTOR VICENTE PASANO

Complainant,
-versus-
VICTORINA CORPORATION
Represented by its President,
Engr. Victor S. Maralit Jr.,
Respondent.
X---------------------------------------------X
COMMENT
Undersigned Respondent, Victorina Corporation, thru its Engr.

Victor S. Maralit Jr., unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully
submits:
1. He received a Notice from this Honorable Office dated 29 July

2022 to file a written comment relative to the Complaint of Atty.
Nestor Vicente Pasano (“Atty. Pasano” for brevity);
2. It is only at this time that the Respondent was able to secure the
services of counsel as explained it its written sworn explanation
dated 03 February 2023.
3. The Respondent hereby comments on the following action/s
requested by Atty. Pasano, to wit:
ACTION/S REQUESTED COMMENT

3.1 “For purposes of determining The Undersigned had already
jurisdiction, please ascertain explained to Atty. Pasano that the
or verify whether the area property he bought is not included in
designated as “commercial” Base View Homes II (BVHII) and
(Refer to Annex C of Map of Base View Home III (BVHIII).
BVH), is in fact, part of or Attached herein is the aerial map of
included in License to Sell, both BVHII and BVHII marked as
Certificate of Registration and Annex “A”. As can be seen from the
Certificate Completion for BVH map, no part of the property he
II” (emphasis theirs). bought is part of it.
3.2 “In the affirmative, a As stated in paragraph 3.1, since the

declaration by DHSUD that said property that Atty. Pasano bought is
commercial area is part of or not included in BVH II nor BVH III,
included in BVH II and thus, within then BVHHAI cannot, and has no
the territorial jurisdiction of BVHHAI. right, to take over the commercial
Accordingly, the owner/developer area.
should turn over the management
and control of the “commercial area”
to BVHHAI.” (emphasis theirs)
3.4 “Owner/Developer be directed It is worthwhile to mention that there

to CEASE AND DESIST from is an existing mutual agreement
interfering with property rights of lot between Manolita A. Pasano, the
owners in the “commercial area”. wife of Atty. Pasano, and
Specifically, the owner/developer Respondent in which the design of
should CEASE AND DESIST from each building inside Base View
requiring lot owners to submit any Homes is standardized, and thus,
document for their approval and the cannot be changed, modified, or
payment of any amount as this altered, without the written approval
constitutes undue interference with and corresponding payment to
property right”. (emphasis theirs) Respondent. Thus, Respondent
cannot be stopped from enforcing
their Rules.
3.5 “Owner/Developer be directed For actions 5 and 6 of Atty. Pasano’s
to CEASE AND DESIST from complaint, it is submitted that based
threatening to close the gate which on the Approved Plan of Base View
serve as ingress and egress of Homes, Block. 11, Lot 17, which Atty.
homeowners to and from BVH II and Pasano is referring to as the
BVH Phase III.” (emphasis theirs). gate/Road Right of Way which
serves as the ingress and egress of
homeowners, such Lot does not
3.6 “Ascertain and declare whether actually serve as a Road Right of
the road lot from JP Laurel Highway Way. It is actually a residential lot in
(green arrow) to the gate of BVH II which Respondent may choose to
(yellow arrow), is the Road Right of sell if a vendee wants to buy it. It is
Way mandated under BP 220 and just out of the benevolence and
PD 957 and specifically intended for leniency that the Respondent chose
homeowners in BVH II. (Refer to to open it as a temporary ingress and
Annex C)” (emphasis theirs). egress for the benefit of the home
owners. But, if the Respondent may
choose to sell it to a prospective
vendee, then they may immediately
close it permanently. Besides, the
said Road Right of Way is not
included in BVH II as shown in the
Map, with marking, attached as
Annex _____ in this Comment.
3.7 “If warranted, imposition of The Respondent, thru its Board of

sanctions against the Directors, is already in talks with the
owner/developer for violation of Home Owners’ Association for the
pertinent provisions of PD 957, preparation of the Deed of Donation
including but not limited to, Section in favor of the City Government of
22- Alteration of Spaces to Local Lipa and other documents needed
Government, provisions of BP 220, for the proper turnover.
and rules and regulations
administered by DHSUD.”
4. The undersigned most respectfully submits the comments for the
different actions requested by Atty. Pasano. Moreover, the
Undersigned is ready to meet with him during office hours of any
regular working day to further clarify other issues and to amicably
settle his complaint.
5. The purpose of the execution of this sworn comment is to affirm

the facts alleged herein and for any legal purpose it may serve
Lipa City, for Laguna, 02 February 2023.
ENGR. VICTOR S. MARALIT, Jr.

President
Victorina Corporation
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________________ at the

City of Lipa, affiant personally appeared and exhibited to me his Passport
with number__________________ which is valid until ____________
Doc No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2023
EXPLANATION
This motion shall be sent to the Honorable Office and to the private
complainant via personal service.
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Nestor Vicente Pasano

Harold St. Baseview Homes,
Banay-Banay, Lipa City

Comment With Table

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment With Table

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comment With Table

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Human Settlement and Urban Development

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT

ATTY. NESTOR VICENTE PASANO

Undersigned Respondent, Victorina Corporation, thru its Engr.

1. He received a Notice from this Honorable Office dated 29 July

ACTION/S REQUESTED COMMENT

3.2 “In the affirmative, a As stated in paragraph 3.1, since the

3.4 “Owner/Developer be directed It is worthwhile to mention that there

3.7 “If warranted, imposition of The Respondent, thru its Board of

5. The purpose of the execution of this sworn comment is to affirm

Lipa City, for Laguna, 02 February 2023.

ENGR. VICTOR S. MARALIT, Jr.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________________ at the

Doc No. ____

Atty. Nestor Vicente Pasano

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.