You are on page 1of 2

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court


Branch 26, 11th Judicial Region
Surallah, South Cotabato

AMALIA T. BOCALA
AS THE SURVIVING SPOUSE Civil Case No: 2258
OF THE LATE JOSE BOCALA
Plaintiff,

Versus

IMELDA PUEDAN AND HEIRS, For: RECOVERY OF POSSESSION


HERNANIE VIEJO AND THE OR ACCION PAULIANA, DECLARATION
REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF SOUTH OF NULLITY OF DEED OF ABSOLUTE
COTABATO, SALE, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS
FEES.
Defendants,
x----------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND


COUNTERCLAIM

COMES NOW, Defendants IMELDA PUEDAN (Defendant Imelda for


brevity), unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:

1. The defendant admits the allegations in paragraph (1), (2), (3) and
(4) of the complaint;

2. The defendant denies the allegation in paragraph (5) of the complaint.


The Plaintiff cannot be considered as the lawful owners of the Four
Hundred Seventy- Three square meter, more or less, land situated in
Barangay Zone III, City of Koronadal, South Cotabato, covered by TCT
No. 145-T 26533 considering that Viejo bought the said parcel of land
from Plaintiff Bocala. A photocopy of the Deed of sale is herein
attached as Annex 1.

3. The defendant denies the allegation in paragraph (6) of the complaint.


The possession of the ascendants of the Defendant cannot be
considered as possession by mere tolerance considering that the
contested land was not that of the Plaintiff as evidenced by an
assessment issued by the City of Koronadal. A photocopy of the
assessment is hereto attached as Annex 2;

4. The defendant would also like to point out that the plaintiff failed to
questioned their possession and occupation on the contested land
from 1892 up to 2016. This is a strong indication of the failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that which by the exercise of due diligence could or should have been
done earlier or laches;
5. The defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs (7), (8) , (9) and
(10) of the complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to prove the
truth or falsity thereof;

6. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph (10), (11) of the


complaint;

7. 12

8. The defendant denied the allegations in paragraphs (13), (14) and


(15) of the complaint for lack of knowledge suffiecient to prove the
truth or falsity thereof.

Counterclaim

9. By virtue of the abovementioned frivoulous complaint, Defendant


suffred sleepless nights, anxiety and humiliation to the above-cited
allegations that Plaintiff must be made to pay 50,000.00 pesos as
moral charges;
10. The instant case tarnished the good name and reputation of the
Defendant that Plaintiffs must likewise be made to pay 50,000.00
pesos as moral damages;
11. The plaintiff must be made to py Defendant the amount of
50,000.00 pesos as exemplary damages to prevent other from
following their unfiat and unjustiable actions.