Republic of the Philippines

Sixth Judicial Region

5TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
(CULASI ‒ SEBASTE)
Culasi, Antique
-oOo-

MELDRED J. DAGOHOY, represented CIVIL CASE NO. 527-C

by her Attorney-In-Fact,
MERLY B. JUAYANG,
Plaintiff,

-versus
FOR:
RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION and
OWNERSHIP with DAMAGES

SONIA FILARO YMAS, and

EDUARDO FILARO YMAS,
Defendants.
X ------------------------------------ X

ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM

WE, SONIA FILARO YMAS, and EDUARDO FILARO YMAS, of legal

age, Filipino citizens, and residents of Barangay Valderrama, Culasi, Antique,
after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state, THAT:

1. We are the DEFENDANTs in the above-mentioned case;

2. We deny the allegations in paragraph 3 for reasons which will be

hereafter discussed;

3. Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, Alejandro Dagohoy, is only a

co-owner of Lot No. 2336-pt., which is co-owned by Alejandro
and his sibling, Jovita Dagohoy;
Page 1 of 13
4. Lot No. 2336-pt. was inherited by the Alejandro and Jovita from
their father, Fausto Dagohoy. Jovita Dagohoy Filaro had four (4)
children, namely: Faustino Filaro, Caridad Filaro, Andres Filaro,
and Moreta Padojinog;

5. DEFENDANTS SONIA FILARO YMAS, and EDUARDO

FILARO YMAS is the daughter and grandson, respectively, of
Faustino Filaro;

6. The allegations in paragraph 4 are admitted with regard to the

children of Alejandro Dagohoy, however, the marriage between
Plaintiff and Joey Dagohoy is denied for lack of personal
knowledge;

7. The allegations in paragraph 5 are admitted as to the death of

Alejandro Dagohoy, but the transfer by way of inheritance, of the
whole of Lot No. 2336-pt. is denied as the ownership of
Alejandro’s heirs shall only be up to the extent of his aliquot
share;

8. The allegations in paragraph 6 as to the relationship of Jovita

Dagohoy Filaro to Alejandro Dagohoy and the relationship of
Faustino Dagohoy Filaro to Alejandro Dagohoy are admitted;

9. The allegations in paragraph 7 are denied for lack of personal

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of such relationship and the alleged sale;

10. It can be gleaned from the PLAINTIFF’s RESIBO SA

PAGBALIGYA NGA WALA SING ULIAY, attached as Annex
“C”, and DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE dated October 18,
2016 attached as Annex “D”, of the COMPLAINT that the
purported sale is SIMULATED. The basis thereof shall be further
discussed in the Affirmative Defenses. Moreover, the two Deeds
of Sale are just private documents these have not been Notarized.
These documents may be binding only upon the signatories but
not to third parties, such as DEFENDANTS, who are not privy
thereto;

11. The allegations in paragraph 8 are denied for lack of personal

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of such allegation;
Page 2 of 13
12. The allegation in paragraph 9 regarding the alleged sale is denied
as the sale appears to be VOID for being a SIMULATED
ALIENATION and in the alternative a RELATIVE
SIMULATION. Moreover, the rest of the allegations in paragraph
9 are denied for lack of personal knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations;

13. The allegations in paragraph 10 regarding Lot No. 2336-pt. is

denied as the afore-mentioned lot is a co-owned property.
Further, DEFENDANTS had been in possession of their portion
said property since time immemorial. In-depth discussion shall be
made in the Affirmative Defenses;

14. The allegations in paragraph 11 are denied for being false and
without basis in law. Lot No. 2336-pt. is a co-owned property.
DEFENDANTS are the heirs of Jovita Dagohoy Filaro who is a
also an heir of Fausto Dagohoy, and hence, have an equal right to
their share of Lot 2336-pt.;

15. The allegations in paragraph 12 and 13 are also denied because

DEFENDANTS, are co-owners of Lot No. 2336-pt., and as co-
owners, they have the right to possess as it is one of the attributes
of ownership;

16. The allegations in paragraph 14 are also denied for lack of

personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of such allegation;

17. The allegations in paragraph 15 and 16 are denied for being false,
fraudulent, and contrary to law. PLAINTIFF’s demand has no
basis in law and deprives DEFENDANTs to the property, their
rightful share of the inheritance;

18. The allegation in paragraph 17 are denied for being fraudulent.

The Public Attorney’s Office cannot handle this case as
MELDRED DAGOHOY and MERLY JUAYANG are not
indigents, as they own several parcels of land. This is but a mere
attempt to shirk the payment of lawful filing fees;

Page 3 of 13
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

19. The present COMPLAINT should be dismissed on the following

grounds;

20. First, there was a failure to comply with a CONDITION

PRECEDENT on the part of COMPLAINANT;

21. The Certificate To File Action attached as Annex “H” to the

Complaint is defective. The Punong Barangay of Valderrama,
Culasi, Antique was not able to constitute a Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo to hear the dispute as required by Section 404 and
410 (b)1 which provides that:

Section 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. -

(a)There shall be constituted for each dispute brought

before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as
the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo, hereinafter referred
to as the pangkat, consisting of three (3) members
who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from
the list of members of the lupon. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. -

(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of

the complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the
next working day summon the respondent(s), with
notice to the complainant(s) for them and their
witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of
their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation
effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting
of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date
for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with
the provisions of this Chapter.

What the Punong Barangay of Valderrama did is just the first step
in the Katarungang Pambarangay, which is the mediation by the
Lupon Chairman. The Punong Barangay was not able to
constitute a Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo to hear the dispute. The
constitution of the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo is mandatory before a
1
Local Government Code of 1991

Page 4 of 13
 Certificate To File Action can be issued. Therefore, the
COMPLAINT should be DISMMISSED for failure to comply
with a CONDITION PRECEDENT specifically, the failure to
comply with the Katarungan Pambarangay Law, and Sections 404,
410 and 415 of the Local Government Code of 1991. The
COMPLAINT is afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity and the
controversy alleged thereat is not ripe for judicial determination;

22. Second, the COMPLAINT should be DISMISSED as the subject

lot is a CO-OWNED PROPERTY, therefore the PLAINTIFF has
NO LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE, which refers to the fact
2
that the PLAINTIFF is not the real party- in-interest . PLAINTIFF
therefore has NO CAUSE OF ACTION. It has no valid, legal and
sufficient cause of action. The COMPLAINT did not provide for
any factual basis in order for the PLAINTIFF to claim sole
ownership and recover possession of the whole Lot No. 2336-pt. as
the DEFENDANTs are co-owners of Lot No. 2336-pt.;

23. Fausto Dagohoy is the original owner of Lot No. 2336-pt.. Lot
2336-pt., has a declared area of FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-
EIGHT SQUARE METERs (598sqm). A copy of Tax Declaration
9617 for Lot No. 2336-pt., located at the Municipality of Culasi,
and in the name of Fausto Dagohoy is hereto attached as ANNEX
“1”, and made an integral part hereof;

24. Fausto Dagohoy had two (2) children namely: Alejandro Dagohoy,
the progenitor of the alleged VENDORS of Lot No. 2336-pt. to the
PLAINTIFF, and Jovita Dagohoy Filaro, the progenitor of the
DEFENDANTs;

25. When Fausto Dagohoy died intestate, his children, as the legal
heirs, Alejandro Dagohoy and Jovita Dagohoy Filaro inherited Lot
No. 2336-pt. by operation of law;

26. Since there was no extrajudicial settlement of estate between

Alejandro Dagohoy and Jovita Dagohoy Filaro of the intestate

2
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110318, 28 August 1996, 261 SCRA 144,
161-162.

Page 5 of 13
 estate of Fausto Dagohoy, the subject property became co-owned
by their respective heirs upon their death as provided by Article
7773, to wit:

“the rights to the SUCCESSION are transmitted

from the moment of the death of the decedent”

27. When Jovita Dagohoy Filaro died intestate, her children Faustino
Filaro, Caridad Filaro, Andres Filaro, and Moreta Padojinog
inherited their mother’s share in Lot No. 2336-pt., attached
herewith and made an integral part hereof are ANNEX “2”and
ANNEX “3”, Tax Declarations in the names of Faustino Filaro
and Beny Filaro, respectively, the latter the son of the former;

28. Artitcle 4844 provides that there is co-ownership whenever the

ownership of the undivided thing or right belongs to different
persons. As the DEFENDANTS are co-owners of Lot No. 2336-
pt., Article 4865 provides that each co-owner may use the thing
owned in common;

29. Jovita Dagohoy Filaro should have been entitled to half of the said
property. Alejandro could sell his aliquot share of the property but
the said share cannot exceed the half share to which Alejandro is
entitled to inherit;

30. In the year 1996, Lot No. 2336-pt. was subjected to LEVY by the
Office of the Treasurer by Municipality of Culasi for non payment
of taxes from 1980 to 1995. A copy of Warrant of Levy marked as
ANNEX “4”is hereto attached and made an integral part
hereof;

3
Civil Code of the Philippines
4
id.
5
id.

Page 6 of 13
31. The heirs of Fausto Dagohoy in the name of Felipe Dagohoy
representing Alejandro Dagohoy and Faustino Dagohoy Filaro
representing Jovita Dagohoy Filaro agreed to pay the amount of
LEVY of One Thousand Five Hundred Six Pesos and Twenty One
Centavos (PHP1,506.21), representing all the taxes, dues and cost
of sale. The said amount was equally divided and paid by the two
heirs. A copy of Official Receipts with Nos. 8680678, 2445742,
and 4783626 marked as ANNEX “5”, “6”, and “7”is
attached hereto and made an integral part hereof.

32. As a result of the payment of the amount of LEVY, Felipe

Dagohoy and Faustino Dagohoy Filaro executed an agreement
dated July 3, 2010 in Barangay of Valderrama titled “PARA
MAHESAYRAN SANG TANAN”, a copy of the said document
is attached hereto as ANNEX “8”and made an integral part
hereof. Moreover, Felipe Dagohoy and Faustino Dagohoy agreed
to divide equally Lot No. 2336-pt. with an area of Two Hundred
Thirty One square meters. Felipe Dagohoy got One Hundred
Fifteen square meters and Fifty square centimeters (115.5), same
area went to Faustino Dagohoy Filaro, a copy of the said
agreement marked as ANNEX “9”is attached hereto and made
an integral part hereof;

33. Third, being co-owners, DEFENDANTs have the right of FIRST

REFUSAL as provided for under Article 1088 of the Civil Code
which provides:

“Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a

stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may
be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing
him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the
period of one month from the time they were notified in
writing of the sale by the vendor.”

Page 7 of 13
 34. DEFENDANTs have never been informed of the purported sale
between the heirs of Alejandro and PLAINTIFF. Pursuant to
Article 1088, DEFENDANTs may demand that they be subrogated
to the rights of the purchaser, herein COMPLAINANT, insofar as
Alejandro’s share is concerned;

35. Fourth, a simulated Contract of Sale is void and of no effect as

stated in Article 221 paragraph (4) of the Civil Code 6, to wit:

ARTICLE 221. The following shall be void and of no

effect:

(4) Any simulated alienation of property with intent

to deprive the compulsory heirs of their legitime.
(emphasis supplied)

It is evident that the Heirs of Alejandro Dagohoy sold the whole

Lot No. 2336-pt. to PLAINTIFF to deprive the legal heirs of Jovita
Dagohoy Filaro of the legitime due them;

36. It also appears that the purported sale of Lot No. 2336-pt.
(RESIBO SA PAGBALIGYA NGA WALA SING ULIAY
attached as Annex “C”and DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
dated October 18, 2016 attached as Annex “D” of the
COMPLAINT) is SIMULATED. The consideration for the said
RESIBO SA PAGBALIGYA NGA WALA SING ULIAY is only
ONE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 1,000.00) which is grossly
inadequate for Lot No. 2336-pt. with an alleged area of FOUR
HUNDRED SIXTY THREE square meters. It must also be noted
that the alleged owner of the land being sold by Felipe Dagohoy,
Epepanio Dagohoy, Henry Dagohoy and Ma. Leny Dagohoy is
LEANDRO DAGOHOY who is not the owner of Lot No. 2336-pt..

37. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE dated October 18, 2016

attached as Annex “D” of the COMPLAINT with Lot No. 2336-
B and area of NINETY EIGHT square meters (98sqm.), was sold
for THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS only or

6
id.

Page 8 of 13
 THIRTY FIVE PESOS and SEVENTY ONE CENTAVOS
(Php35.71) per square meter. This is a “grossly inadequate
price”for a residential land which during the alleged date of sale a
residential land cost about Two Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00) per
square meter. Moreover, adding to the incredulous consideration
of the contract of sale is that the subject lot was sold twice to
Spouses Joey and Meldred Dagohoy.

38. Moreover, the CONTRACT OF SALE between the Heirs of

Alejandro Dagohoy and the PLAINTIFF is a RELATIVE
SIMULATION. Articles 1345, 1346 and 1471 of the Civil Code in
relation to SIMULATED CONTRACT provides that:

ARTICLE 1345. Simulation of a contract may be

absolute or relative. The former takes place when the
parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter,
when the parties conceal their true agreement.
(emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE 1346. An absolutely simulated or fictitious

contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does
not prejudice a third person and is not intended for
any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy binds the parties to their
real agreement. (emphasis supplied)

ARTICLE 1471. If the price is simulated, the sale is

void, but the act may be shown to have been in
reality a donation, or some other act or contract. (n)

Article 16027 is apt in this regard:

Article 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an

equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:

(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is

unusually inadequate;

7
id.

Page 9 of 13
 (2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or
otherwise; (emphasis supplied)

Since the purported Deed of Sale is an equitable mortgage, in fine,

the ownership should not pass to the PLAINTIFF, who could never
become an owner until Absolute Deed of Sale be executed between
the parties. Even if there was a valid sale, DEFENDANTs have
the right to be subrogated and PLAINTIFF could not become an
owner as long as the right of first refusal is exercised or is waived
by DEFENDANTs;

39. Since PLAINTIFF is not the real owner of the property subject of
the litigation, she therefore has NO LEGAL PERSONALITY TO
SUE, thus, the COMPLAINT should be dismissed outright.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

40. DEFENDANTs by way of COUMPULSORY COUNTER-CLAIM

reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing
insofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is
entitled to relief arising from the filing of this malicious and
baseless suit, as follows:

a. Moral Damages amounting to THIRTY THOUSAND

PESOS (PHP30,000.00) because their of sleepless nights
and their name and reputation were besmirched by this
malicious and baseless suit;

b. Attorney’s Fees amounting to THIRTY THOUSAND

PESOS (PHP30,000.00) because he was compelled to
secure services of counsel to vindicate his legal rights and
THREE THOUSAND PESOS (PHP3,000.00) as
appearance fee; and

c. Litigation Expenses in the amount of TWENTY

THOUSAND PESOS (PHP20,000.00).

Page 10 of 13
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that the present COMPLAINT be DENIED ADMISSION,
DENIED DUE COURSE, and outrightly DISMISSED, for the following
grounds:
1. MELDRED J. DAGOHOY represented by her Attorney-In-Fact,
MERLY B. JUAYANG, LACKS LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE
and therefore LACKS OF CAUSE OF ACTION;

2. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION PRECEDENT

for filing the COMPLAINT;

3. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL was not granted to the

DEFENDANTS; and

4. The Deed of Sale is a SIMULATED ALIENATION of property with

intent to deprive the compulsory heirs of their legitime or in the
alternative a RELATIVE SIMULATION which would make the
contract an Equitable Mortgage;

thereby ordering PLAINTIFF to pay DEFENDANTS:

1. P30,000.00 Pesos as moral damages;

2. P20,000.00 as litigation expenses; and
3. P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P3,000.00 as appearance fee.

Other reliefs and remedies which to this Honorable Court may be just and
equitable are also prayed for.

Culasi, Antique, December 17, 2018.

FORTALEZA, DIONELA & BACULNA

LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendants
Poblacion, Culasi, Antique

Page 11 of 13
 by:

ISAGANI M. DIONELA
Roll of Attorneys No. 68658
PTR No. 9133972/ January 05, 2018
San Jose, Antique
IBP No. Lifetime Receipt No. 008812
June 07, 2017 Pasig City
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. VI
March 21, 2018, Pasig City

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Antique ) S.S.
Municipality of Culasi )

We, SONIA FILARO YMAS, and EDUARDO FILARO YMAS, of legal

age, Filipino citizen, and residents of Valderrama, Culasi, Antique, after having
duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that:

1. We are the defendants in the above-entitled case;

2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER and have read
the allegations contained therein;

3. The allegations in said answer are true and correct of our own knowledge
and based on authentic records;

4. We hereby certify that We have not commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court , the Court of
Appeals, or any of its divisions or to any other tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and, to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein;

5. If We should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been

filed or is pending, We hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court or agency where the original pleading and
sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed;

Page 12 of 13
 6. We executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the
foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No.
04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto affixed our signatures this

17th day of December 2018, in Culasi, Antique.

SONIA FILARO YMAS EDUARDO FILARO YMAS

Copy furnished:

ATTY. RAMON L. SALVANI III

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Culasi District Office
Culasi, Antique
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Received by ______________________
Date:______________

Page 13 of 13