Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch ___, Manila City

MARIA A. SANTOS,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No.___________

FOR: Accion Reinvidicatoria
-versus-

MAXIMO B. VERGARA
Defendant.

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

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS

COMES NOW the Defendant MAXIMO B. VERGARA, represented by

the undersigned counsels, before the Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits this Answer with Counterclaims, averring that:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. The allegations in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the

Complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria as to the personal circumstances of
the Plaintiff Santos and the Defendant Vergara are ADMITTED;

2. The allegations in paragraphs 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4, insofar as

the ownership and the details of the respective properties of both the
plaintiffs and the defendant are concerned are likewise ADMITTED;
 3. However, the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 5
regarding numerous demands, particularly regarding those which she
alleges to have been made verbally are not only unsubstantiated and
uncorroborated but mere speculative.

4. The allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 6 is likewise

DENIED. Contrary to the assertion of the plaintiff, the defendant did not
receive any demand letter with respect to the alleged encroachment of
the portion of the said property. In fact, there was no way that the
defendant and the plaintiff could have confronted in the day when the
alleged demand letter was delivered as the former was in fact in Japan on
the day of November 30, 2017. Attached herewith as “Annex A” is the
Philippine Airlines ticket and boarding pass of the defendant evidencing
the trip to Japan on the said date;

5. Lastly, the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the

complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria is DENIED. Aside from the fact that
there was no demand letter to speak of as earlier stressed by the
defendant, there was neither any Barangay conciliation and intervention
and that the Certificate to file an action presented by the plaintiff is forged
and falsified. Attached herewith as “Annex B” is the certification from the
Punong Barangay of Alipit,, Sta. Cruz, Manila that both the plaintiffs and
the defendant were never parties in any proceedings before the Barangay
for purposes of conciliation or mediation;

6. The foregoing are subject to the special and affirmative

defenses hereunder presented.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Defendant replead and incorporate by way of reference the

allegations from paragraphs 1-10 and further state as follows:
 1. The claim of the plaintiff under Accion Reivindicatoria is
already BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION.

It is settled that the remedies of accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria must

be availed of within 10 years from dispossession. Under Article 555(4) of the
Civil Code, the real right of possession is lost after the lapse of 10 years.
Similarly, in Cruz v. Court of Appeals which an action for recovery of possession
and ownership of lands was brought only after 26 years had elapsed, this Court
ruled:

“And secondly, whether we consider the complaint of private

respondents to recover possession of the property in question as
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, the same has prescribed
after the lapse of ten years. After private respondents had abandoned
for 26 years the property which is unregistered land, the law as well
as justice and equity will not allow them "to lie in wait and spring as
in an ambush" to dislodge and dispossess petitioners who during said
period made and constructed residences, buildings and other
valuable improvements thereon, and enjoying the fruits therefrom.”

It is to be noted that the construction and the improvements which

allegedly were introduced by the defendant on the disputed portion of the
property on May of 2005 or 15 years from the filing of the complaint of Accion
Reivindicatoria. Hence, insofar as the defendant is concerned, private plaintiffs
cause of action was already barred by extinctive prescription.

2. The Plaintiff has NO CAUSE OF ACTION against the

defendant;

Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as:

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the 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 of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or
 omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to
the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery
of damages or other appropriate relief.

The remedy of Accion Reivindicatoria must be availed of within 10 years

from dispossession and since the improvements that caused the overlap was
effected in 2005 and even with the consent of its former owner, the defendant
had already effectively acquired such portion after May of 2015 by way of
prescription. Hence, the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the
defendants as the latter is the owner of the disputed portion.

With the foregoing premises, the defendants respectfully submit that the
Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the grounds cited above.

COUNTERCLAIMS

In the rare event that the Honorable Court shall resolve to proceed with the trial
of the case despite the above special and affirmative defenses, the Defendant
submit the following compulsory counterclaims and for this purpose, hereby
restate and repleads all the allegations in the preceding paragraphs 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 them mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social
humiliation, resulting in moral damages for which the plaintiff
should be held liable in the amount of One Hundred Fifty
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 the
plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand
 Pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency, by way of example or
correction for the public good;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed

that –

1. The Special and Affirmative Defenses shall be immediately set for

preliminary hearing;

2. After the said preliminary hearing, to issue an Order dismissing the

plaintiff’s complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria, with prejudice;

3. In the remote event that the Honorable Court shall proceed with
the trial, the defendant pray for a judgment denying the reliefs prayed for by
the plaintiff for lack of merit;

4. On the compulsory counterclaims- to order the plaintiff to pay the

defendants -

a. Moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Fifty

Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency;
b. Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00), Philippine currency;
c. Attorney's fees in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (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 likewise prayed
for.
Manila, Philippines this 24th day of February 2020.

COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENDANT

Joven Fajanilan.
IBP No. 12345/1-6-2018/Manila City
PTR No. 5678/1-6-2018/ Manila City
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. III-12345/1-25-2011

LeBron Bryant
IBP No. 12344/1-1-1111/ Manila City
PTR No. 12345/1-1-111/ Manila City
Roll No. 1234
MCLE Compliance No. III-12345-11

Kobe James
IBP No. 12345/1-6-3444/ Manila City
PTR No. 123456/1-6-4455/ Manila City
Roll No. 532233
MCLE Compliance No. III-012334/1-25-2011
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Maximo Vergara, Filipino, legal age, Filipino, and is currently residing

at Lot 2, Block 2, Hukom Street, Justice Village, Manila City, Philippines, under
oath, depose and say that:

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with Counterclaims;

3. I read all the allegations thereof and that the same are true and correct
based on my own personal knowledge and authentic records;

4. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding

involving 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 is pending

in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency.

6. If I should hereafter learn that of any other similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable Court.

SIGNED this 4 April 2018 at Manila City, Philippines.

Maximo Vergara
Republic of the Philippines)
CITY OF MANILA )s.s.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on _________________ at Bacolod

City by Maximo Vergara who is personally known to me, hence, no need to
present a competent evidence of identity.

Doc. No._____;
Page No._____;
Book No._____;
Series of 2018.

Copy furnished to:

ATTY. Sheila Ignacio

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
1233 United Nations Avenue, Paco, Manila