REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 3
LEGAZPI CITY

NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION

OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
SPEC. CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-045
FOR: EXPROPRIATION
-versus-

SPOUSES ROSENDO O. NAVARRO

AND NOEMI A. GOYENA, GIL
GOYENA AND LEGAZPI SAVINGS
BANK, INC.
Defendants.

x--------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Defendant LEGAZPI SAVINGS BANK INC. (hereinafter referred to for

brevity as “ Defendant”), by counsel, most respectfully states: - THAT-

1. Paragraph 1 to 7 of the Complaint are hereby specifically

denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief;
2. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is hereby admitted;
3. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is hereby specifically denied for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief;
4. Paragraph 10 to 13 of the Complaint are hereby specifically
denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief;
Defendant pleads the foregoing defenses and states: - THAT-

5. It is not a real party in interest in this above entitled case. Rule

67, Section 1 of the then Rules of Court provides to wit:

“The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of

a complaint which shall state with certainty the right and
purpose of condemnation, describe the real or personal
property sought to be condemned, and join as defendants all
persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part
thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the
interest of each defendant separately. If the title to any
property sought to be condemned appears to be in the
Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private
individuals, or (Emphases supplied.)

A careful perusal of the above section provides that only

persons with an existing interest over the property sought to be
expropriated can be made a defendant in an expropriation
suit. Defendant having denied any knowledge of an existing
mortgage over the subject lot in the Complaint is not the real
party in interest. Thus not being a mortgagee Defendant bank
should be dropped as a Defendant in the above- entitled
case.

6. It cannot be denied that the subject property was indeed

mortgaged by the Defendant / Registered Owner Rosendo O.
Navarro in favour of the bank as a security. This fact was
evidenced by annotation of the mortgage in favor of Legazpi
Savings Bank in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62154 with a
notarization date of November 9, 2002. However upon
checking it existing records of a Loan or Mortgage under the
name of Rosendo Navarro or his wife Noemi A. Goyena.

7. The lack of record under the name of Defendant Navarros,

may be attributed to the practice of banks in disposing of
records that were of no importance already. Under RA 9160 or
 the Anti Money Laundering Act of 2001 specifically Section 9
which provides that: “Record Keeping. - All records of all
transactions of covered institutions shall be maintained and
safely stored for five (5) years from the dates of transactions.
With respect to closed accounts, the records on customer
identification, account files and business correspondence, shall
be preserved and safely stored for at least five (5) years from
the dates when they were closed.”. As the mortgage
transaction occurred more than five years ago it is customarily
expected that the bank no longer possesses records of the said
trasansaction in the absence of a suit.

8. It may be assumed for the sake of argument, that the

mortgage no longer exist and no encumbrance in favor of the
bank subsists as there is no record of any transaction that
occurred after the annotation of mortgage was recorded. It
could be presumed that the loan covered by the mortgage
was paid already and the notice of cancellation of Real Estate
Mortgage was given to the mortgagor. Otherwise, upon
default, the bank would have foreclosed the property and
records of that foreclosure should have been available.

9. Assuming that a Notice of Cancellation of Real Estate

Mortgage was issued, the failure of the Defendants Navarros to
have the annotation of the Real Estate Mortgaged cancelled
should not work to the prejudice of the Bank. The bank not
being a real party in interest as it has no claim as against the
property sought to be expropriated should be disjoined and be
saved from the hustle of a lengthy litigation.

Prayer
Wherefore, it most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
an order be rendered:

1. That Legazpi Savings Bank Inc. Be severed and disjoined as a

a party defendant.

Other reliefs and remedies available under the premises are likewise
prayed for.