Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
City of Cauayan, Isabela
Republic of the Philippines

JUAN CRUZ,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. ____
-versus- For: Accion Publiciana
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant.
x----------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS

COMES NOW the Defendant Pedro Santos, represented by

theundersigned counsels, before the Honorable Court, most
respectfullysubmits this Answer with Counterclaims, averring that:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. The allegation in paragraph 1 of the Complaint for AccionPublicia

na as to the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff Juan Cruz is
ADMITTED but the alleged residence of the latter in so far as it does not
reflect consistency and veracity as stated in paragraph 1of the
complaint
to wit: “Plaintiff Richard Chan, is of legal age, Filipino and a resident
of Eroreco Brgy. Mandalagan, Bacolod City…. xxx” in
contrary to the first paragraph of the Verification and Certification
ofNon-Forum Shopping
which provides “I, Richard Chan, of legal age,Filipino and a resident of
Brgy Villamonte Bacolod City… xxx”
ishereby
DENIED;2. The allegation in paragraph 2 of the Complaint for Accio
nPublicciana is ADMITTED.

3. The allegations in paragraph 3, as regards the ownershipof the Plaintiff

on the subject parcel of land situated in Eroreco,Bacolod City is
ADMITTED.4. However, the Transfer Certificate of Title attached as A
nnex A in the complaint for Accion Publiciana is specifically
DENIEDfor want of genuineness and authenticity. The alleged
TCT attachedas Annex A in the complaint for Accion Publiciana, is on its
facetainted with irregularity; the Heading of the Title provides
“REGISTRY
of DEEDS for
PROVINCE of NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
”
where, as alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint for
AccionPubliciana provides,
“Plaintiff is the tru
e and registered owner of acertain parcel of land situated in Eroreco,
Bacolod City identified asLot A and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 12345 of the
Registry of Deeds of Bacolod City
.
….” Truth of the matter being,
that when the property is located in Bacolod City, the Register ofDeeds of
Bacolod City has the sole authority to issue deeds coveredwithin
its territorial
jurisdiction.5. The allegations in paragraph 4 and 5 of the complain
t for Accion Publiciana
are ADMITTED;6. The allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint for
AccionPubliciana averring that
“Plaintiff had the property bought
surveyedsometime around December 2006 and it was discovered that
thedefendant knowingly and unlawfully occupied the portion of the
lotowned by the plaintiff, thus depriving the Plaintiff of his right of
possession over the property”
is DENIED. Around December 2006,the Plaintiff was not even the
lawful owner of the subject propertysince as stated in paragraph 4 of
the complaint, the deed of sale wasonly executed on December 18, 2008,
therefore Plaintiff began histitle to the property On December 18, 2008. He
was not the ownerand not a lawful possessor of the subject property
on December2006. He was not deprived his right of possession as there
was NOright to speak of at that time. And even granting arguendo
that theproperty was bought and surveyed on Decemeber 2006,
thedefendant Jack Pasaway would still be the lawful possessor of
thesubject property where the kitchen is located, the truth of the
matter
being that a Lease Contract was entered into by Angel Lopez and
theDefendant Jack Pasaway on January 5, 2006 covering 2x3
squaremeters of lot where the kitchen of Jack Pasaway was situated.
Theduration of the lease is for 50 years at one (1) peso per annum. Thefull
amount of which was paid in cash by Jack Pasaway on the daythe lease
contract was executed. Furthermore, such lease contractwas
annotated at the back of the title, which served as a notice to theworld that
an encumbrance is attached to the subject property.
Attached herewith as “
ANNEX A
” is the lease contract between Angel
Lopez and Jack Pasaway
and “ANNEX B” the Transfer Certificate
Title which shows the annotations at the back of the
Title.7. Further, the averment that
“Defendant’s kitchen area
composed of light materials occupying approximately two-by-3 (2x3)square
meters is situ
ated within Plainitiff’s property. Such structure
had been in existence at the time plaintiff acquired the property and
defendant had full knowledge that said structure is on
plaintiff’sproperty” is
ADMITTED for in fact, the ownership of the Plaintiff overthe
property, the reckoning point of which is at the time of theexecution
of the deed of sale on December 18, 2008, is not
disputed.8. The allegations in paragraph 7 of the complaint for Accio
nPubliciana insofar as the averment which read
“Plaintiff
, throughundersigned counsel demanded that defendant vacate and return
the
possession of said parcel of land to herein plaintiff”

and “The last and

final demand letter to vacate was received by the wife of
thedefendant on March 23, 2013 as it was personally served at
their
residence by John Javier, Law office Staff.” are
 ADMITTED.9. However allegation
that “Defendant has remained in
illegal possession of said land and up to the present , still retains
such possession” is DENIED.
Defendant did not submit to thedemands of the Plaintiff, precisely
because the subject portion of land
where the Defendant’s kitchen is situated is under a Lease Contract
lawfully executed between Angel Lopez and the herein
defendant. And by virtue of the Lease Contract, Jack Pasaway is ther
efore thelawful possessor of the subject property and not as what
the Plaintiffpurports it to be.
10. The allegation in paragraph 8 of the complaint for AccionPubliciana is
ADMITTED.11. The allegation in paragraph 9 of the complaint
for AccionPubliciana is DENIED. There was no unjust refusal on the
part of theDefendant, since in the eyes of the law, Jack Pasaway is
the lawfulpossessor of the subject land where his kitchen is situated by
virtueof the Lease Contract executed as between Angel Lopez and
thedefendant. The lease contract being attached as an encumbrance tothe
title over the property.12. The foregoing are subject to the
special and affirmativedefenses hereunder presented.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The Defendant replead and incorporate by way of reference theallegations
from paragraphs 1-11 and further state as follows:1. The Honorable
Court, with all due respect,
FAILED TO ACQUIREJURISDICTION
over the subject matter of the case; the complaintfailed to allege
jurisdictional facts required by law to wit:
Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the plenary actionof accion publician
a must be brought before the regional
trial courts. Withthe modifications introduced by Republic
Act No. 769 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts
was limited to real actions where theassessed value exceeds
P20,000.00, and P50,000.00 where the action isfiled in Metro Manila,
thus:SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.
—
Regional Trial Courts shallexercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x
x x x(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein, where the
a s s e s s e d v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y
involved exceeds Twentythousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil
actions in MetroManila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand
pesos(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawfuldetainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which isconferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
TrialCourts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value ofthe
property.
Assessed value is understood to be “the w
orth or value ofproperty established by taxing authorities on the
basis of which the tax rateis applied. Commonly, however, it does
not represent the true or marketvalue of the property
.1
Under the law as modified, jurisdiction is determined by the assessedvalue
of the property. A reading of the complaint shows that respondentsfailed to
state the assessed value of the property.1. NARS, JES, Im constrained not
to put the issue of docketfees, ky kahapos langgid katama eh rebut, lets not
give them
chance to make good of their case… Read bla
SunInsurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion wherein the Courtdecreed that
where the initiatory pleading is notaccompanied by the payment of the
docket fee, the courtmay allow payment of the fee within a reasonable
period oftime, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive
orreglementary period . OR WE CAN STILL PUT THEDEFENSE HERE IF
YOU GUYS WANT, WHAT YA THINK?2. The Plaintiff has
NO CAUSE OF ACTION
against thedefendant;By virtue of the Lease Contract entered into
between AngelLopez and the defendant Jack Pasaway on January 5, 2006
covering 2x3square meters of lot, were the kitchen of Jack Pasaway is
situated, JackPasaway has therefore a paramount right of possession over
the subject lot
1
G.R. No. 174346 Vda. De Barrera vs Heirs of Legaspi

in question insofar as the land where the kitchen of the defendant

issituated . The Lease Contract was to last for 50 years from the date of
itsexecution, at 1 peso ( Php. 1) per annum, the amount of which having
beenpaid in full by Jack Pasaway on the same date that the Lease
Contract was
executed, attached herewith as “ANNEX A”

and “ANNEX B” the Transfer

Certificate Title which shows the annotations at the back of the Title.
Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as:Sec. 2. Cause of
action, defined.
–
A cause of action isthe act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in
favor ofthe plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or iscreated; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect ornot to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the
part of suchdefendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach ofthe obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter maymaintain an action for recovery of
damages or other appropriate relief.
The right of possession over the subject property has alwaysremained with
the herein Defendant, even before the Plaintiff acquired suchproperty from
Angel Lopez. The Lease Contract served as anencumbrance over the
property regardless of its subsequent alienation tothe Plaintiff. If there is
anyone who has a cause of action, it would be thedefendant Jack
Pasaway, for the latter has all the right to be respected ofhis
possession over the property. Stated otherwise, if there is anyone
whois at fault here, it would be the defendant for not respecting
suchencumbrance attached in the property. Plaintiff was well aware of
theencumbrance from the time of his previous demands to the
defendantincluding during the Barangay Conciliation proceedings,
yet he maliciouslycaused the filing of the instant case.Even,
granting for the sake of argument that he was not aware ofthe
encumbrance, still under the law he is deemed to be constructivelynotified
( I don’t kn
ow if this is the correct term)of such encumbrance
annotated at the back of the title( insert pertinent law or jurisprudence
hereguys).3. The Title attached as
“
Annex
A” in
 the complaint for AccionPubliciana shows signs which cast doubt
on the genuinessof the Title.While we do not dispute the ownership
of one Richard Chan inthe subject property, the title submitted as
Annex A of the complaintshowed signs of irregularity
and anomalous circumstances to wit:a. As above mentioned, the
Transfer Certificate Title presented as
“
ANNEX A
” shows
on its heading that the Registry of Deeds ofNegros Occidental issued
said TCT. However, the subject property islocated inside Bacolod
City. Common practice dictates that if theproperty is located within
Bacolod City, the Register of Deeds ofBacolod City is the one authorized
to issue Titles within its territorial jurisdiction
and not the Register of Deeds of the Province of NegrosOccidental.b.
The Plaintiff did not include in the TCT No.12345 the back portionwhich will
show the list of liens and encumbrances attached to theproperty. One of
which is the encumbrance of the lease contractexecuted by Angle Lopez and
Jack Pasaway.4. The Plaintiffs complaint for Accion Publiciana is not
properlyverified.
Rule 7, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by A.M No.00-2-
10, provides:
S e c t i o n 4 .
Verification.
—
Except when otherwise specifically required bylaw or rule, pleadings need
not be under oath, verified or accompanied byaffidavit . A pleading
is verified by an
a f f i d a v i t t h a t t h e a f f i a n t h a s r e a d
t h e p l e a d i n g a n d t h a t t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s t h e r e i n a r e t r u e a n d
c o r r e c t o f h i s k n o w l e d g e a n d
b e l i e f .
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification
based on"information and belief", or upon "knowledge, information and
belief",
orl a c k s a p r o p e r
v e r i f i c a t i o n , s h a l l b e t r e a t e d a s
a n u n s i g n e d p l e a d i n g .
 A perusal of the VERIFICATION/ CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING of the complaint for Accion Publiciana which theaffiant-
complainant Richard Chan signed will show that he is a resident ofBrgy.
Villamonte, Bacolod City, however, as above mentioned, a closer
look at the complaint under paragraph 1, the complainant’s alleged
residence is Eroroeco, Brgy. Mandalagan, Bacolod City.Had the affiant-
complainant Richard Chan read the verificationand attested to the
allegations as true and correct to the best of hispersonal knowledge
and/or based on authentic records, Richard Chanwould have corrected
or at the least noticed the inconsistency as betweenhis Verification
and the complaint.In addition, albeit the jurat states that RICHARD
CHANpresented his Passport with ID No. EB-0123456, the validity
or expirationdate was omitted. It cannot therefore be determined if
the same is a validcompetent evidence of identity, hence,
bogus. As stated above, a complaint is deemed verified when theaffia
nt executes an affidavit that he has read the pleading and
theallegations contained thereat. However, the mere fact that the
affiant failedto even notice an inconsistency of his own residence in
his complaint andverification, cannot be considered as proper
verification.
Lack of proper
verification shall be deemed as an unsigned pleading. Being
anunsigned pleading, it is a mere scrap of paper.
With the foregoing premises, the defendants respectfully submit
thatthe Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the grounds
citedabove.
COUNTERCLAIMS
In the rare event that the Honorable Court shall resolve to proceed with
thetrial of the case despite the above special and affirmative
defenses, theDefendant submit the following compulsory counterclaims
and for thispurpose, hereby restate and repleads all the allegations in the
precedingparagraphs by way of reference and incorporation:1.
Due to the plaintiff’s willful
and patent disregard of the
defendants’ rights, the defendants suffered inconvenience,
embarrassment and humiliation thereby causing themmental anguish,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings andsocial humiliation, resulting
in moral damages for which theplaintiff should be held liable in the
amount of One HundredFifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine
currency;2.
To deter others from following after the plaintiff’s wanton acts
and evident bad faith, she should be held liable to pay theplaintiff
exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty ThousandPesos (P50,000.00),
Philippine currency, by way of exampleor correction for the public good;
PRAYERWHEREFORE
, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfullyprayed that
–
1. The Special and Affirmative Defenses shall be immediately setfor
preliminary
hearing;2. After the said preliminary hearing, to issue an Order dismissing
the plaintiff’s
complaint for Accion Publiciana, with
prejudice;3. In the remote event that the Honorable Court shall proce
ed withthe trial, the defendant pray for a judgment denying the
reliefs prayed for bythe plaintiff for lack of
merit;4. On the compulsory counterclaims-
to order the plaintiff to paythe defendants -
a. Moral damages in the amount of One Hundred FiftyThousand
Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine
currency;b. Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty ThousandPesos
(P50,000.00), Philippine
currency;c. Attorney's fees in the amount of Five Hundred ThousandPesos
(P500,000.00), Philippine
currency;d. Appearance fee of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00),Philippine
currency, per court
appearance;e. Other litigation expenses as may be proved during trial.Other
reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewiseprayed
for.Bacolod City, Philippines this --- day of --- 2013.COUNSELS FOR THE
DEFENDANT
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPINGI,
JACK PASAWAY
, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident ofBacolod City,
Negros Occidental, Philippines, under oath, depose and saythat:1. I
am the defendant in the above-entitled case;2. I caused the
preparation of the foregoing Answer withCounterclaims;3. I read all the
allegations thereof and that the same are true andcorrect based on my own
personal knowledge and authenticrecords;4. I have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceedinginvolving the same issue in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,or any other tribunal or agency;5. To the
best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding ispending in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any othertribunal or agency.6. If I
should hereafter learn that of any other similar action orproceeding
has been filed or is pending before the SupremeCourt, Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, Iundertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to theHonorable Court.
SIGNED
this ____________ at Bacolod City, Philippines.
Jack Pasaway

Republic of the Philippines)CITY OF BACOLOD )s.s.x - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - -xSUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on _________________at
Bacolod City by
Jack Pasaway
who is personally known to me, hence,no need to present a competent evidence of
identity.Doc. No._____;Page No._____;Book No._____;Series of 2012.Copy
furnished to:
ATTY. NOVE C. ABANADO
Counsel for the Plaintiff1
st
Lacson St., Bacolod City