REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
7TH JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 60
BARILI, CEBU
WON BIN, SIG BIN and WOO BIN
Plaintiffs,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 1430922
FOR: NULLITY OF
DOCUMENTS, QUIETING OF
TITLE WITH DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES
QUEEN’S CHOICE CORPORATION,
SIRI BIN, PERLA GARCIA and
ARIEL GARCIA
Defendants,
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - x
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM
COMES NOW QUEEN’S CHOICE CORPORATION,
(Defendant) one of the defendants in the above-captioned case,
through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file its Answer in
response to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs and interpose as well as
their counterclaim against the latter and its cross-claim against its co-
defendants , to wit:
1. Defendant admits the averment in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 of the complaint;
2. Defendant denies paragraph 6 insofar as the averment
that the Plaintiffs are the heirs of Hyun Bin there being no declaration
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;
3. Defendant likewise denies the averment under paragraph
6 concerning the tax declarations issued in 1972 over the properties
showing Hyun Bin as the owner thereof as well as the subsequent tax
declarations in 1978 showing Siri Bin as the owner of the said
properties for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
reasonable belief thereof;
4. Defendant admits paragraph 7 of the complaint insofar as
the averment that Perla applied for free patent on the properties and
titles were issued in her favor in 1992 but denies the averment that
Siri Bin donated the properties to her niece Perla for lack of
information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief
thereof;
5. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 8 of the
complaint;
6. Defendant specifically denies the averments under
paragraph 9 the truth being that stated in the affirmative defenses
hereunder;
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs is nothing but a malicious
lawsuit calculated to harass the Defendant. Further, answering
Defendant posits:
The Complaint being an action for Reconveyance requires Plaintiff’s
declaration of heirship in order to have personality to sue otherwise
the complaint lacks a cause of action
7. Although denominated as an action for “Nullity of
documents, Quieting of Title with Damages and Attorney’s Fees, a
reading of the allegation suggests that the complaint is actually an
action for reconveyance. For while Plaintiffs’ complaint filed was
captioned as an action for declaration of nullity of documents and
quieting of title, the caption of the pleading however should not be
Page 2 of 14
the governing factor, but rather the allegations therein which should
determine the nature of the action.1
8. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable
remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the
purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to
him.2
9. Plaintiffs, in a complaint for reconveyance of title, should
first substantiate their claim as heirs in a special proceeding and be
declared as such before they can ask the court for the transfer of the
properties to their names.3
[Link] their complaint, Plaintiff’s only alleged that they were
heirs of Hyun Bin, the alleged original owner of the subject
properties. Nowhere can it be found that the Plaintiffs alleged nor
substantiated that there had been a declaration of their heirship in a
special proceeding for such matter. “The trial court cannot make a
declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a
declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section
3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined
as "one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong" while a
special proceeding is "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact." It is then decisively clear that the
declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding
inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a
status or right.4
[Link] the absence of such declaration, Plaintiffs then do not
have the personality to ask for the reconveyance of the subject
properties in their favor. Without having any personality to sue, their
complaint then does not state any cause of action. 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.5
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
12. The right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust is not absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An action
for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must
perforce prescribe in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title
over the property. Thus, an action for reconveyance of a parcel of
land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10)
years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed
or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
[Link] way of additional exception, the Court, in a catena of
cases, has permitted the filing of an action for reconveyance despite
the lapse of more than ten (10) years from the issuance of title. The
common denominator of these cases is that the plaintiffs therein were
in actual possession of the disputed land, converting the action from
reconveyance of property into one for quieting of title.6
[Link] to the allegations in the complaint which the
Defendant firmly denies, “Plaintiffs allegedly were in possession of
the properties they inherited from their late brother and it was only
in late December 2019 that they learned that Queen’s Choice
Corporation purchased the properties from Perla and Ariel. Plaintiffs
allege that Siri, Perla and Ariel held the properties in trust for
plaintiffs, the true and actual owners.” Based on the allegations, there
exists an implied or constructive trust in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order
to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They
arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse
of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he
ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.7
15. As stated in the complaint, the Certificate of Title
covering the subject properties were issued in favor of Perla in 1992
or twent-eight (28) years from the filing of this present complaint. As
stated in the previous arguments, an action for reconveyance of a
parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten
(10) years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the
deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
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.
[Link] humbly submits that the exception to the ten
(10) year prescription period does not apply in this case. “An action
for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive
trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of
title over the property, but this rule applies only when the plaintiff or
the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property,
since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual
possession of the property, as the defendants are in the instant case,
the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to
the property, does not prescribe.”8
[Link] has done due diligence on the properties
purchased and it was established that it was indeed Siri, Perla and
Ariel who were in actual physical possession of the properties as can
be seen in the tax receipts, herein attached as ANNEX “3”, issued in
their favor, the contracts of lease, herein attached as ANNEX “4”,
with various tenants of the properties and the fact that Siri and Perla
lived in one of the properties subject of the litigation and used the
same as their place of residence. Hence, Plaintiffs not being in actual
possession of the subject properties cannot avail of the
imprescriptibility of such action for reconveyance.
Reconveyance is not proper because Defendant is an Innocent
Purchaser for Value
[Link] an action for reconveyance to prosper, the property
should not have passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value. (Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
138971, June 6, 2001) An innocent purchaser for value is one who
buys the property of another without notice that some other person
has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the
time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another
person’s claim.9
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
[Link] 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
[Link] bought the properties for value and which
were covered by certificate of titles. Likewise, defendant performed
due diligence upon the purchase of the subject properties. Defendant
established that it was Siri, Perla and Ariel who were in actual
physical possession of the subject properties and not the Plaintiffs.
Thus, being innocent purchasers for value, the action for
reconveyance against Defendant shall not prosper.
Plaintiffs’ rights and actions over the subject properties have
lost by prescription
[Link]. 1106 of the Civil Code provides that by prescription,
one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of
time, in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. In
the same way, rights and actions are lost by prescription. There are,
thus, two kinds of prescription: (1) the acquisition of a right by the
lapse of time, or acquisitive prescription; and (2) the loss of a right of
action by the lapse of time, or extinctive prescription.
[Link] was a statute of limitations. Whereas
usucaption expressly 'vests the property' and raised a new title in the
occupant, prescription did nothing more than bar the right of action.
The concept most fundamental to a system of title by possession is
that the relationship between the occupant and he land in terms of
possession is capable of producing legal consequences. In other
words, it is the possessor who is the actor. Under a statute of
limitations, however, one does not look to the act of the possessor but
to the neglect of the owner. In the former the important feature is the
claimant in possession, and in the latter it is the owner out of
possession which controls.11
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
[Link] 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.
Granting arguendo that complaint is an action for Nullity of
Documents and Quieting of Title, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to
state a cause of action for lack of personality to sue
25. Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (ROC) provides
that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
Moreover, Section 2, Rule 3 (ROC) provides that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. The
real party in interest being the party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit. One having no material interest cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. When the
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
26. In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the
allegations in the complaint may be properly considered. In their
complaint, the Plaintiffs challenge the legal title of Defendants and
the latter’s right to possession over the subject properties hence, their
cause of action relates to an action to quiet title under Article 476 of
the Civil Code. Under our existing laws, to be able to bring an action
to quiet title to land or any interest therein, “the plaintiff must have
legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the
subject matter of the action.”14
27. Defendant most respectfully submits before the Court
that the complaint hardly qualifies for a quieting of title because the
Plaintiffs failed to establish in their complaint that they had any legal
or equitable title to, or legitimate interest in, the subject properties so
as to justify their right to file an action to remove a cloud on or to
quiet title. “Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable
title means beneficial ownership, meaning a title derived through a
valid contract or relation, and based on recognized equitable
principles; the right in the party, to whom it belongs, to have the legal
title transferred to him.”15
28. The Plaintiffs failed to substantiate such fact that they
either have legal or equitable title. Plaintiffs do not hold any legal
title over the subject properties in the absence of registered
ownership. Likewise, they failed to support the fact of their equitable
title or interest over the properties. In their complaint, Plaintiffs
claimed title over the subject properties alleging that they are heirs of
Hyun Bin, the alleged original owner of the said properties.
However, the complaint does not bear any allegation that Plaintiffs
were declared as the heirs of Hyun Bin in a special proceeding. In
cases wherein alleged heirs of a decedent in whose name a property
was registered sue to recover the said property through the
institution of an ordinary civil action, such as a complaint for
reconveyance and partition, or nullification of transfer certificate of
titles and other deeds or documents related thereto, this Court has
consistently ruled that 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.16In the absence of
13
Ang v Pacunio, G.R. No. 208928, July 8, 2015.
14
Art. 477 of the New Civil Code.
15
Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016
16
Reyes v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 162956, April 10, 2008.
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
Plaintiff’s allegation in the complaint is a collateral attack
against the Torrens Certificate Title
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
31. It was alleged in the complaint by the Plaintiffs that the
free patent applied for was a nullity because the land covered thereof
was long converted into private property, not public land, hence, not
ripe for free patent issuance. This is a collateral attack against the title
of Perla which cannot be done in any proceeding.
COUNTERCLAIM
All the allegations of the preceding paragraphs are hereby
incorporate herein by way of reference.
32. Answering Defendant has been unnecessarily dragged
into litigation which caused their good name and reputation to be
sullied. Plaintiff should be made to pay moral damages in the
amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP
500,000.00);
33. Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, Plaintiffs
have exhibited a wanton, reckless and malevolent attitude which
17
Evangelista et al., vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005
18
Wee v Mardo, G.R. No. 202414, June 4, 2014.
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
That herein Defendant reiterates all the foregoing allegations as
far as they may be relevant hereto as against its co-defendants, Siri
Bin, Perla Garcia and Ariel Garcia:
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.
36. That a valid Deed of Absolute Sale, attached herein as
ANNEX “1”, has been executed between Defendant and its co-
defendant, Perla covering the subject properties with the following
certificate of titles attached herein, OCT No. P-0123 as ANNEX “2”.
37. That by virtue of a valid and consummated sale, the
answering defendant is an innocent purchaser for value and with due
diligence relied upon the title which its co-defendant, Perla had over
the subject properties;
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;
39. That the subject properties are actually possessed by
Perla, Siri and Ariel, its co-defendants and are rented as evidenced by
lease contracts with various tenants of the properties, herein attached
as ANNEX “4”;
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;
42. That because of the foregoing actuations of the Perla, the
herein defendant has been unnecessarily dragged into the present
litigation and has been compelled to engage the services of counsel to
protect and defend its interest;
43. That its co-defendants should reimburse answering
Defendant on any and whatever amount the latter may be held
answerable or which they may be ordered or suffered to pay under
and by virtue of the present action in favor of the plaintiffs,
answering defendants not having benefited whatsoever from the
property which its co-defendants are in actual physical possession;
44. That its co-defendants should be liable to answering
Defendant for the latters’ actual and moral damages as adverted to in
the counterclaim either individually or solidarily with the plaintiffs.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendant most
respectfully prays:
1. That Plaintiff’s complaint for Nullity of Documents
Quieting of Title with Damages and Attorney’s Fees be dismissed for
lack of merit;
2. That Defendant’s counterclaim against Plaintiffs and
cross-claim against co-defendants for specific performance and
payment of rentals be granted; and
3. That Defendant respectfully prays for other reliefs that
may be just and equitable.
Page 11 of 14
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, SONYE JIN, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of
Rosewood Residences, Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
1. I am the President and duly authorized representative of
the QUEEN’S CHOICE CORPORATION, one of the defendants in
the above captioned case;
2. For and in behalf of defendant QUEEN’S CHOICE
CORPORATION, I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim and all the factual
allegations therein are true and correct of own personal knowledge as
well as based on corporate records and files;
3. In compliance with Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, I
do hereby further state that:
a) Defendant QUEEN’S CHOICE CORPORATION in
the above-captioned case has not commenced any action or filed
any claim in any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
on a cause similar to our counterclaim and cross-claim.
b) That if there is such action or proceeding, which is
either pending or may have been terminated, defendant
QUEEN’S CHOICE CORPORATION obligates to state the status
thereof;
c) That if defendant QUEEN’S CHOICE
CORPORATION should learn that a case over similar cause has
been filed or is pending, it shall report such fact within five (5)
days therefrom to this Court.
Page 12 of 14
SONYE JIN
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of
March 2020 in Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her
Philippine Passport No. EH4042017 issued on January 07, 2016 in
Manila, Philippines.
Doc. No. 3;
Page No.5;
Book No. 12;
Series of 2020.
KRISSA MAE D. LAPIZ
Notary Public of Cebu, Philippines
Commission No. 09-87 UNTIL 12/31/18
RM. 404, LGB Building, Pelaez St., Cebu City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 87643
IBP No. 46637, Cebu City, 01/06/17
PTR No. 0097621, Cebu City, 01/06/17
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005029
EXPLANATION
Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel
through registered mail as personal service is impracticable.
Cebu City, March 23, 2020.
ATTY. ESTELLE MARIE A. OCAMPO
Counsel for Defendant
OCAMPO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
PTR No. 3212580 / 01-06-2010 /Cebu City
IBP LRN 02224 / 1-16-2001 /Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys 1234
MCLE Exemption no. III-00827
Page 13 of 14
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. KAREN S. DUMALAGAN
Counsel for Plaintiff
KBS Law Offices
Itaewon St., Poblacion, Barili
Cebu, Philippines
Page 14 of 14
