You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

Eight Judicial Region


Regional Trial Court (RTC)
BRANCH 10
Abuyog, Leyte

Alicia T. Advincula rep. by


Elizabeth A. Beringuel CIVIL CASE NO. 755
Plaintiff, For: Recovery of Possession and
Ownership and Damages

-VERSUS-

Spouses REUBEN P. GARCELAZO, SR.


and ELENA R. GARCELAZO, et . al,
Defendants.

VERIFIED ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM

Defendants, by the undersigned counsel, and with this Honorable Court,


most respectfully file this Verified Answer in counter to the allegations contained
in the Complaint filed against defendants. Pursuant to this Verified Answer with
Counterclaim, the following factual circumstances invalidating the allegations of
the plaintiffs are hereby alleged as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 and 1.a are hereby DENIED for lack of knowledge or


information on the part of the defendants as sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth thereof.
2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint is ADMITTED, in so far as the personal
circumstances of herein defendants and the permanent address of the
defendants.
3. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint are hereby DENIED for being
fabrications and an outright lie of the complainant. The ownership,
including the possession over that property identified as Lot No. ____
belongs to the Heirs of Jose Rodriguez, the registered owner of the
property subject of this case. The trace or history of defendants
ownership and rights over the property shall be discussed or
expounded on the Affirmative Defenses.
4. Paragraph 5 is likewise DENIED for being false and untruthful.
During the lifetime of Andres Advincula, he dispose his share in favor
of Jose Rodriguez transferring whatever right or interest he may have
over the property of the vendee. What is there to be adjudicated
among the heirs of Andres Advincula where the property had long
been disposed by the owner/decedent.
5. Paragraph 6 of the complaint is in the same manner DENIED for
being a distortion of the truth actual events. The truth of the matter is
that defendants predecessor-Jose Rodriguez is the VENDEE of the
property in controversy. This transaction is supported by an
instrument entitled ___________, dated ___________. Copy of this
documents is hereunto attached as ANNEX ___ and made as as
integral part of this Verified Answer. As early as 1957, upon the
closure of the sale transaction between Andres Advincula and Jose
Rodriguez, the VENDEE assumed possession over the property. The
possession of defendants predescessor-Jose Rodriguez was by virtue
of the legal implications sale transaction between Andres Advincula
and Jose Rodriguez and NOT by mere tolerance. Contrary to the
allegation of the complainants, the nature of dependants possession
was a result or the legal effect of the disposal of the property made by
their father.
6. Paragraph 7 of the complaint is DENIED Defenedants have no
knowledge of the transfer made by the plaintiff. In fact, the transfer or
the issuance of title in favour of the plaintiff is in itself questionable
considering that a transfer certificate of title over the property in the
name of Jose Rodriguez and two (2) other is existing and is or record
with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Leyte. The issuance of
a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo (Free Patent) in favour of the
complainant over the property while at the same time being covered
by TCT No. TP-13065 (formerly OCT-P-101) is an indizia of
anomaly. For emphasis, this property, Lot No. 160 with a total area of
7.1839 hectares was covered by OCT P-101 registered in the name of
Petra Rael. Consequently the Original Certificate of Title was
cancelled by Transfer certificate of Title No. TP-13065 in the name of
Jose Rodriguez, alvina Amago, and Perpetua Canales. The Transfer
Certificate of Titled was issued in the year 1996. On the other hand,
the KOT of the complainant was issued only in 2016. The Transfer
Certificate of the Title No. 13065 has not been cancelled nor
invalidated by the issuing agency, thus is valid in all respect.
7. Paragraph 8 of the complaint is hereby ADMITTED, in so far as the
issuance by the Barangay of a Certificate to File Action in Court. The
rset are denied for being concretions of the complainant.
8. Paragraph 9 of the complaint is DENIED. Defendants should not be
faulted by the unfounded and groundless filing of this suti by the
complainants. Had the complainants incurred expenses, they are the
ones to borne it. Such is a result of their in apt filing of baseless
complaint.
9. By way of Counter-Claim, the