Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11TH Judicial Region
Branch 20
Panabo City, Davao Del Norte

DIONESIA COCKROACH Civil Case No. 9876-09

Plaintiff

-versus- For Recovery of Possession and

Ownership of Land

PAPA SMURF
Defendant
X----------------------X

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file

their Answer in response to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs and interpose as
well as their counterclaim against the latter, to wit:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are admitted;

2. Paragraph 5 is denied insofar as the validity of the sale between Papa

Smurf and Freddie Cockroach is concerned, considering that the land
sold by the latter is a property gratuitously donated to Freddie
Cockroach by the latter’s employer as proven by the Deed of Donation
executed by ABC Corporation. Hence, excluded from the spouses’
absolute community property as indicated in Paragraph 1, Article 92 of
the Family Code of the Philippines.

Affirmative and Special Defenses

3. Moreover, while it is true that Dionesia Cockroach was not made to sign
the Deed of Absolute Sale, she was nevertheless present when the said
document was executed by the late Freddie Cockroach and Papa Smurf.
It was even Dionesia Cockroach who received the cash amount of Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00), as witnessed by Chiz Moso,
 Cockroach’s helper, who was also present during the execution of the
sale.

4. Defendant Papa Smurf also hereby submits he has been in possession of

the subject land for more than seven (7) years. Pointing out Article 124
of the Family Code of the Philippines, Dionesia Cockroach’s right of
action has already prescribed as the said provision provides that:

“The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall

belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s
decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for
proper remedy, which must be availed of within five (5) years from the
date of the contract implementing such decision.”

5. By filing this legal action, it is crystal clear Plaintiff has only resorted to
the contemptuous act. Significantly too, the issue in this case is moot
and academic;

6. But in all likelihood, Defendant respectfully submit, this legal action for
recovery of possession and ownership of land is destined to be doomed
as the causes of action and prayers are elusive as plaintiff has apparently
no right over the property in controversy of this case.

Counterclaim

7. Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, Defendants have hired the
services of the undersigned counsel for an agreed amount of Philippine
Pesos: One Hundred Thousand (PHP 100,000.00) and have suffered
sleepless nights and besmirched reputation which when quantified in
monetary terms is in the amount of Philippine Pesos: One Hundred
Thousand (PHP 100,000.00)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendants most respectfully

pray for the dismissal of the complaint and the award of counterclaim to them.
Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

EXPLANATION

Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel through

registered mail as personal service is impracticable.

2
 Panabo City, March 20, 2020.

PIRMI B. MANALO II
Roll No. 43030
IBP No. 873272 Dec 28, 2012
PTR No. 1833670 Jan. 2, 2013 Tagum City
MCLE Exemption No. III-000657
December 16, 2009

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Antonio Banderas

Counsel for Plaintiff
PTR No. 8884567, Panabo City, 1/2/20
IBP OR No. 688821, Panabo City, 1/2/17
Attorney’s Roll No. 11882