Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1 of 14
of heirship which gives Plaintiffs the right to claim and seek the
transfer of the subject property to their names to the knowledge of
the Defendant;
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Page 2 of 14
the governing factor, but rather the allegations therein which should
determine the nature of the action.1
1
Chacon Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46418, 29 September 1983, 124 SCRA
784.
2
Aboitiz vs Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017.
3
Calica Vda de Lee vs Estela F. Calica- Eclipse, et al., GR No. 220533, January 30, 2017.
4
Yaptinchay vs. Hon. Del Rosario, et al., GR No. 124320, March 2, 1999.
5
Evangelista et al., vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005.
Page 3 of 14
Plaintiff’s right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust has already prescribed
6
Ocampo vs Ocampo, GR No. 227894, July 5, 2017.
7
Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005.
Page 4 of 14
property. Clearly, more than ten years has passed from the time the
Certificate of Title over the said subject properties, OCT No. P-0123
herein attached as ANNEX “2”, were issued to Perla in 1992. Hence,
the action has already prescribed.
8
Vda. De Gualberto v Go, G.R. No. 139843, July 21, 2005.
9
Rufloe v. Burgos, G.R. No. 143573, January 30, 2009.
Page 5 of 14
19.The mirror doctrine echoes the doctrinal rule that every
person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and is in no way
obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the
property. The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither
be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in
good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection of the law.10
10
Locsin v Hizon, G.R. No. 204369, September 17, 2014.
11
Quimpo et al. vs Onayan, et al., GR No. 222597, February 19, 2018.
Page 6 of 14
23. Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing
ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the
possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful,
uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either
ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires
possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good
faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary
in character which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30
years.12
24.It was alleged in the complaint that while Hyun Bin was
the person who acquired the said properties in 1972, it was alleged
that the subsequent tax declarations as early as 1978 were issued in
the name of Siri Bin from whom Perla acquired the property.
Thereafter, Perla obtained a title for the said properties under her
name in 1992. Both Siri and Perla were in actual possession of the
properties since then. Siri and Perla being the Defendant’s
predecessor in interest have possessed the properties for forty-two
(42) years up to the filing of this complaint. In either ordinary
acquisitive prescription of ten (10) years or extraordinary acquisitive
prescription of thirty (30) years, Siri, Perla, Ariel and even the
Defendant’s possession of the properties remain protected and
uninterrupted. Hence, Plaintiffs have already lost their right and
action to claim ownership over the properties by acquisitive
prescription.
12
Heirs of Maningding v. CA, 342 Phil. 567, 1979.
Page 7 of 14
plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the
ground of lack of cause of action.13
Page 8 of 14
such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be
prevented or removed.
29. Being the case that the Plaintiffs neither possess a legal
title nor an equitable title nor interest in the property based on the
allegations in the complaint, they then do not have the personality to
file an action for removal of a cloud on, or quieting of, title. A case is
dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff
is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a
cause of action.17
30. A Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud, within one
year after the date of the issuance of the decree of registration. Such
attack must be direct, and not by a collateral proceeding. The title
represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified,
enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding.18
COUNTERCLAIM
Page 9 of 14
should be penalized with exemplary damages in the amount of
Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP 500,000.00);
34. That by this suit, Defendant has hired the services of the
undersigned counsel for an agreed amount of Philippine Pesos:
Thirty Thousand (PHP 30,000.00) and appearance fee for every
proceeding in the amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Thousand (PHP
5,000.00).
CROSS-CLAIM
35. That a sale between the Defendant as the buyer for value
and without notice of any defect on the titles and Perla Garcia (Perla)
as the seller has been consummated on May 21, 2015.
38. That the title over the subject properties have not yet been
transferred and issued under the name of Defendant and that
Defendant seeks that the title herein attached as ANNEX “2” be
delivered to it by Perla, its co-defendant;
Page 10 of 14
40. That the said accrual of rents from the time of
consummation of sale has been continuously collected in favor of its
co-defendants;
41. That the Defendant seeks the delivery of the said rents
from the time of consummation of sale in 2015 up to the present;
PRAYER
Page 11 of 14
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
Page 12 of 14
SONYE JIN
Affiant
Doc. No. 3;
Page No.5;
Book No. 12;
Series of 2020.
EXPLANATION
Page 13 of 14
Copy Furnished:
Page 14 of 14