Page 1 of 14

Republic of the Philippines

7TH Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 60, Municipality of Barili

HEIRS OF HYUN BIN;

Plaintiffs;
-- versus -- Civil Case No. 11100004
QUEEN’S CHOICE For: Nullity of Documents,
CORPORATION, SIRI BIN, Quieting of Title with Damages
SPOUSES ARIEL SABON and and Attorney’s Fees
PERLA SABON;
Defendants.

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

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,

COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM
COMES NOW, the Defendant QUEEN’S CHOICE
CORPORATION, through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states THAT:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This Answer is filed ex abundante ad cautelam in obedience
to the directive of the court, pursuant to IBP-OCA Memorandum
on Policy Guidelines dated March 12, 2002, signed between the
Office of the Court Administrator and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. In filing this Answer, Defendant has not waived the
grounds for dismissal of the Complaint and the case. Jurisdictional
issues and objections are also not waived.

ADMISSIONS AND SPECIFIC DENIALS

1. Defendant admits the averments in paragraphs 1 and 2.
2. Defendant specifically denies the averments in paragraphs 3
and 4, for lack of sufficient knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the truth thereof.
 Page 2 of 14

3. Defendant admits the averments in paragraph 5, with respect

to the location of the subject properties and the titles over them.
4. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 6, the
truth of the matter being that the subject properties had been
transferred to Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest Siri Bin prior to
Hyun Bin’s death; thus, the Plaintiffs could not have inherited the
property through intestate succession.
5. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 7, with respect to
Hyun Bin being the owner of the subject properties as of 1972.
6. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 8, with respect to
the Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest Siri Bin being named as
the owner of the subject properties based on 1978 tax declarations.
7. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 9, with respect to
the death of Hyun Bin in 1979, but specifically denies the claim
that the Plaintiffs inherited the subject properties, the truth of the
matter being that the subject properties had been previously
transferred to Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest Siri Bin in 1978.
8. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 10, with respect
to the issuance and registration of a land title over the subject
properties by Perla Sabon in 1992.
9. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 11,
the truth of the matter being that the Defendant’s
predecessors-in-interest exercised actual possession over the
subject properties, to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs.
10. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 12,
the truth of the matter being that no constructive trust existed
over the subject properties.

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

11. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference
its arguments in its Motion to Dismiss insofar as they are material,
wherein it respectfully submitted that the complaint should be
dismissed because of the following grounds:
a) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and,
b) Prescription.
12. In addition, Defendant raises the following defenses:
a) Plaintiffs failed to comply with a condition precedent, and,
b) Laches have barred the Plaintiffs’ claim.
 Page 3 of 14

c) Plaintiffs have no equitable title over the property.

d) Defendant bought the property in good faith and for value.

I. Lack Of Jurisdiction Over The Subject Matter

13. Plaintiffs’ did not submit any proof that they are in fact the
legal heirs of said decedent.
14. Legal heirship must be judicially declared in a special
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of deceased persons1.
15. The present case is an ordinary civil action2, not a special
proceeding.
16. A declaration of heirship is improper in an ordinary civil action
since the matter is "within the exclusive competence of the court in
a special proceeding”.3
17. In the case of Calica Vda. de Lee v. Calica-Eclipse, et. al.4, the
Supreme Court stated that persons claiming to be heirs must first
be declared as such in a special proceeding, before they can sue for
the transfer of a decedent’s properties to their names.

II. Prescription
18. Under the Torrens system, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued become incontrovertible after one (1) year
from the date of entry of the decree of registration.5 This rule
equally applies to titles acquired through free patents.6
19. Plaintiffs had one (1) year from the issuance and registration
of the land title in 1992 to file a case, or up to 1993. Since the
present action was filed past that, it is barred because the title has
attained the status of indefeasibility.
20. An action for reconveyance based on implied trusts may be
allowed beyond the one-year period, but this right is not absolute.

1
Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario, et. al., G.R. No. 124320,
March 2, 1999.
2
Sec. 3 (a), Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Reyes v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 162956, April 10, 2008.
4
G.R. No. 220533, January 30, 2017.
5
Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529.
6
Iglesia ni Cristo v. CFI of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-35273, July 25,
1983.
 Page 4 of 14

As an obligation created by law7, it must be brought within ten (10)

years from the time the right of action accrues.8
21. In this case, the right of action accrued on the date of the
issuance of the land title, which serves as constructive notice to the
whole world of an adverse claim to the property.9
22. Plaintiffs had ten (10) years from 1992, or up to 2002, to file
the present case. Because of their failure to do so, the action is
barred by prescription.
23. Despite the lapse of 10 years from the issuance of a land title,
an action for quieting of title may be allowed, if the plaintiffs were
in actual possession of the disputed property.10
24. Actual possession must be an ultimate fact in the complaint.11
25. Here, the Plaintiffs never claimed that they exercised actual
possession; rather, they admit that the Defendant’s
predecessors-in-interest reside on the subject properties.
Furthermore, Defendant’s predecessors-in-interest are named as
the owners in tax declarations, and have leased areas to tenants.
26. Assuming arguendo that the free patent was a nullity, the case
must be dismissed because Defendant has acquired ownership over
the properties through prescription.12
27. Prescription can either be acquisitive or extinctive.13
28. Acquisitive prescription, also called "adverse possession" or
"usucapcion", is the acquisition of a right by the lapse of time. It
can either be ordinary or extraordinary.14
29. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good
faith and with just title for a period of ten (10) years.15
30. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, there is good faith
when the possessor has the reasonable belief that the person from
7
Article 1456 of the New Civil Code.
8
Article 1144 (2) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
9
Villagonzalo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71110,
Nov. 22, 1988.
10
Ocampo v. Ocampo, Sr., G.R. No. 227894, July 5, 2017.
11
De Morales v. CFI of Misamis Occidental, et. al., G.R. No.
L-52278. May 29, 1980.
12
Article 712 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
13
De Morales v. CFI of Misamis Occidental, et. al., G.R. No.
L-52278. May 29, 1980.
14
Article 1117 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
15
Article 1134 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
 Page 5 of 14

whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could
transmit his ownership.16 On the other hand, there is just title
when an adverse claimant came into possession of the property
through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner
or could not transmit any right.17
31. All the parties to this case trace the ownership of the subject
properties to the late Hyun Bin, who died in 1979.
32. Plaintiffs had ten (10) years from 1979, or up to 1989, to file
this case. Since they did not, acquisitive prescription has vested
Defendant’s predecessors-in-interest with ownership.
33. Even if the Defendant’s predecessors-in-interest did not have
good faith or just title, ownership may be acquired through
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, which requires only thirty
(30) years of uninterrupted adverse possession.18
34. Besides their tax declarations, which are mere indicia of
possession19, the Defendant’s predecessors-in-interest had actual
possession over the properties; in contrast, Plaintiffs never
exercised actual possession.
35. Defendant, who is the present possessor, may tack its
possession to that of its predecessor-in-interest.20
36. Plaintiffs had thirty (30) years from 1979, or up to 2009, to
exercise their right. The uninterrupted actual possession of
Defendant has vested it with ownership through extraordinary
acquisitive prescription.
37. Even if no acquisitive prescription has set in, Plaintiffs are
barred by extinctive prescription, wherein rights and actions are
lost by the lapse of time.
38. Though the complaint is one for nullity of documents and
quieting of title, it is actually an accion reivindicatoria, as
Plaintiffs claim ownership over the properties.21
39. An accion reinvindicatoria must be filed within ten (10) years
from dispossession where there is good faith and just title, or
within thirty (30) years if neither of those requirements exist.

16
Article 1127.
17
Article 1129.
18
Article 1137 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
19
Palomo v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 95608, Jan. 21, 1997.
20
Article 1138 (1) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
21
Quimpo v. Onayan, et. al., G.R. No. 222597. February 19, 2018.
 Page 6 of 14

40. Due to the Plaintiffs’ neglect on both counts, extinctive

prescription has barred this action.

III. Failure To Comply With Condition Precedent

41. Under THE Local Government Code, “no complaint, petition,
action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of
the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other
government office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the
pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached
as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested
to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has
been repudiated by the parties thereto.”22
42. All the parties to this case reside or have their principal office
within Moalboal. Furthermore, the subject properties are located
within the same municipality.
43. The present case does not fall under any of the exceptions in
Section 408 of the Local Government Code.
44. The failure to resort to conciliation proceedings before the
barangay lupon produces the same effect as non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies, making the complaint dismissible.23

IV. Laches
45. Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that which, by the exercise of due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier. This raises the
presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either
abandoned or declined to assert it.24
46. The four elements of laches are:
a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom
he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is
made for which the complaint seeks a remedy;
b) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant
having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant's conduct
and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit;

22
Section 412 (a) of Republic Act No. 7160.
23
Aquino v. Aure, G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008.
24
Quintos v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 210252, June 16, 2014.
 Page 7 of 14

c) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that

the complainant would assert the right on which he bases
his suit; and,
d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be
barred.25
47. All the elements of laches are present in this case as follows:
a) By filing the present case, Plaintiffs claim possession and
ownership over the subject properties;
b) Plaintiffs admitted in the complaint that they knew about
the tax declarations naming Siri Bin and subsequently Perla
Sabon as owners, and the fact that Perla Sabon obtained
land titles over the subject properties; yet, they delayed in
asserting their alleged rights;
c) Defendant had no knowledge or notice that Plaintiffs sought
ownership over the properties, for it was only when it
received the complaint that they learned of their claim; and,
d) Defendant would be injured by the suit, since it has started
to invest and develop the subject properties.
48. Despite their knowledge of transactions concerning the subject
properties, Plaintiffs let an inordinate amount of time--more than
forty (40) years, in fact--pass before asserting their claim of
ownership. Thus, the present case should be dismissed.26

V. Plaintiffs Lack Equitable Title

49. Plaintiffs could not have inherited the subject properties from
Hyun Bin, because the same were not owned by him during his
death in 1979.
50. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, “inheritance includes
all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death.”27
51. In this case, Plaintiffs admit that they knew that Siri Bin was
named as the owner of the subject properties in tax declarations
from 1978.

25
Vda. de Tirona v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. 168902, September 28,
2007.
26
Quimpo v. Onayan, et. al., G.R. No. 222597. February 19, 2018.
27
Article 776.
 Page 8 of 14

52. Because Hyun Bin had transferred the subject properties to

Siri Bin prior to his death, the subject properties could not form
part of his estate.

VI. Defendant is a Purchaser in Good Faith and For Value

53. In cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may
pursue legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such
fraud; however, this will not prejudice the rights of an innocent
holder for value of a certificate of title.28
54. A purchaser in good faith is defined as one who buys a
property without notice that some other person has a right to, or
interest in, the property and pays full and fair price at the time of
purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of other
persons in the property.29
55. Here, Defendant is a purchaser in good faith and for value.
56. While Plaintiffs may seek relief from Defendant’s
predecessors-in-interest, the former can no longer seek
reconveyance of the subject properties.

COUNTERCLAIM
57. Due to the malicious filing of this suit, Defendant was forced to
hire the services of the undersigned counsel for an agreed amount
of Five Hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00) Philippine Pesos, plus
an additional Three Thousand (Php3,000.00) Philippine Pesos per
court appearance fee.

CROSS-CLAIM
58. Defendant’s predecessors-in-interest and co-defendants, Siri
Bin and Spouses Ariel and Perla Sabon, should reimburse it for
any and whatever amount it may be held answerable, or which it
may be ordered or suffered to pay under and by virtue of this
present action in favor of Plaintiffs, Defendant not having
benefited whatsoever from the transaction.
59. Defendant’s predecessors-in-interest and co-defendants, Siri
Bin and Spouses Ariel and Perla Sabon, should pay Plaintiffs

28
Section 55 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 3322.
29
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Felonia, G.R. No. 189477,
February 26, 2014.
 Page 9 of 14

directly and fully on the amounts claimed by the latter, since they
benefited directly and exclusively from this transaction.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court to:
1. Dismiss the complaint in toto on any or all grounds in this
Answer, or to render judgment in favor of Defendant;
2. Order Plaintiffs to solidarily pay Defendant attorney’s fee
of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PHILIPPINE PESOS
(P500,000.00), plus THREE THOUSAND PHILIPPINE PESOS
(Php3,000.00) per court appearance fee;
3. On the cross claim, declare co-defendants Siri Bin, Ariel
Sabon and Perla Sabon directly answerable for any amount the
answering Defendant may be made to pay under and by virtue of
the present action; and,
4. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances
are likewise prayed for.

Municipality of Barili. March 27, 2020.

BY:

ATTY. MARLA ARIELLE B. SO

Counsel for the Defendant
Roll of Attorneys No. 11100004
IBP No. 9063 / LIFETIME / Cebu City
PTR No. 5394 / January 5, 2020 / Cebu City
MCLE No. VI-0065 / Until April 15, 2022
EH501, USC Building, P. Del Rosario Street, Cebu City 6000,
Cebu, Philippines
 Page 10 of 14

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
I, PEPPA PIG, Filipino, of legal age, single, with office
address at PP Building, PP Road, Busay, Moalboal, after having
been sworn to in accordance with law hereby states that:

1. I am the President of Defendant Queen’s Choice Corporation;

2. I am authorized to represent the latter in the instant case as
shown in a Secretary’s Certificate attached herein;
3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my
own knowledge and authentic records;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving
the same issues as are now raised here, before the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other court, tribunal or agency;
6. Should I learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals in
any other court, tribunal or agency, I shall personally notify this
Honorable Court of such fact within five (5) days from said notice;
and,
7. I 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, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 27th day of March 2020, at Cebu City, Philippines.

PEPPA PIG
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 27th day of

March 2020. Affiant exhibited to me her Driver’s License with ID
No. 87000, valid until May 31, 2022.
 Page 11 of 14

HARLEY QUINN
Notary Public
Commission No. EJ-99
Notary Public for Cebu City
Until December 31, 2020
Roll No. 696969
PTR No. 11111 / January 13, 2020 / Cebu City
IBP No. 4444 / LIFETIME / Cebu City
MCLE No. VI-0029 / Until April 12, 2022
#20, BOP Building, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City

Doc No. 26
Page No. 20
Book No. III
Series of 2020
 Page 12 of 14

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Cebu ) S.S.
x-------------------------------------------x

SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
I, the undersigned Corporate Secretary of Queen’s Choice
Corporation, a domestic corporation duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that at a special meeting of the Board of
Directors of said corporation held at its principal office in PP
Building, PP Road, Busay, Moalboal on 13 March 2020, duly called
for the purpose, a quorum being present and acted throughout, the
following resolutions were unanimously adopted, and are now in
full force and effect, to wit:

“RESOLVED, that Ms. PEPPA PIG, President of

Queen’s Choice Corporation, be authorized to act for
and in behalf of the corporation to cause the
preparation and the filing of the Motion to Dismiss,
Answer with Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim and
Cross-claim until finality in connection with Civil Case
No. 11100004 for the Nullity of Documents, Quieting of
Title with Damages and Attorney’s Fees filed against
the corporation; to engage the services of counsel for the
purpose of preparing and filing the said Motion to
Dismiss, Answer with Affirmative Defenses,
Counterclaim and Cross-claim on behalf of the
corporation; and to sign under oath on behalf of the
corporation the requisite Verification of the Motion to
Dismiss and the requisite Verification and Certification
to be attached to the Answer with Affirmative Defenses,
Counterclaim and Cross-claim.

“RESOLVED FURTHER, for this purpose, Ms.

PEPPA PIG is hereby authorized to sign, execute,
deliver and receive any documents, and to perform such
actions as may be necessary in furtherance of the power
thus granted.”
 Page 13 of 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 13th day of March 2020 at Cebu City, Philippines.

TINKY WINKY
Corporate Secretary
Queen’s Choice Corporation

ATTESTED TO BY:

PEPPA PIG
President
Queen’s Choice Corporation

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 13th day of

March 2020. Affiant exhibited to me her PRC ID with No. 87000,
valid until August 8, 2022.

HARLEY QUINN
Notary Public
Commission No. EJ-99
Notary Public for Cebu City
Until December 31, 2020
Roll No. 696969
PTR No. 11111 / January 13, 2020 / Cebu City
IBP No. 4444 / LIFETIME / Cebu City
MCLE No. VI-0029 / Until April 12, 2022
#20, BOP Building, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City

Doc No. 13
Page No. 10
Book No. III
Series of 2020
 Page 14 of 14

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

ATTY. RENEE RODELAS

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Room 101, RR Building, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City 6000,
Cebu, Philippines
March 27, 2020