REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
TAGUIG CITY
BRANCH _____

SPS. LOLITO L. LOVERANES;

NERISSA C. LOVERANES,
Plaintiffs,

-versus-
Civil Case No. ________
For: Recovery of Ownership and Possession
with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ Temporary
Restraining Order and/ or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and/ or Writ of Preliminary
Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction

SPOUSES SYLVIA MANOSCA-

OCAMPO and GENARO V. OCAMPO,
Defendants.
x--------------------------------------------------x

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

PLAINTIFFS, LOLITO L. LOVERANES and NERISSA C. LOVERANES, by

counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver:

PLAINTIFFS’ DENIALS
OF THE QUALIFIED ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANTS

Threading the allegations of Defendants’ Answer, Plaintiff’s take issue and

hereby controvert the following qualified admissions of the Defendants. In the guise
of making purported admissions, Defendants extended explanations are downright
baseless and self-serving without basis, both in fact and in law. Thus:

1. The defendants allege that “the Plaintiffs were not included in the forcible
entry case that was filed by the Defendants against the heirs of Maura
Clemente.”1 This is a glaring falsity with the deliberate intent to mislead the
1
Paragraph I.3 of the Answer
1|Page
 Court and the Plaintiff. The truth of the matter is that there was never a
Forcible Entry case filed by the Defendants against the Clementes.

2. The Defendants claim that the Decision of MTC 74 Taguig became final and
executory on March 29, 2016 a date when the sale between Plaintiffs and
Ferdinand Clemente have not yet been executed .2

3. Defendants again is making a misleading and totally unacceptable claim.

Plaintiffs were never a party to the said ejectment case before MTC Taguig
and Plaintiffs had no timely notice nor knowledge of the case, let alone its
outcome.

4. Defendants, in harping that the finality of the Decision in the ejectment case
before MTC Taguig came before the date of the sale executed between
Ferdinand Clemente and Plaintiffs conveniently skirts and ignores that prior to
all of these, Plaintiff Sylvia Manosca Ocampo’s father, RICARTE MANOSCA,
himself had ceded and conveyed the property by way of a valid and regular
instrument titled Deed of Sale of A parcel of Land.

5. Elsewhere in their Heading of Admissions, Defendants made the following

preposterous claim and ascribing statements never made by the Plaintiffs.

6. The offensive and manifestly false statements which Defendants declare as

admission and attributing Plaintiffs as authors are the following:

“Defendants admit the allegations of the plaintiffs, in paragraph 13,

in so far as it states, that the defendants in the ejectment case,
and included therein are the persons claiming rights from them who
are herein plaintiffs…” 3

2
Paragraph I.3.b of the Answer
3
I.6. of the Answer
2|Page
 7. This is another attempt to confuse and obfuscate the clear statements of the
Plaintiffs in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint which merely states:

13. One of the said men introduced himself as SHERIFF of

defendant MTC-74-Taguig, and informed the plaintiffs that the
subject property was the subject of a Decision and thereafter, a Writ
of Execution, directing the Heirs of Maura Clemente and all who
claim rights under her, to vacate the subject property. Copies of the
Decision and the Writ of Execution issued by defendant MTC-74 are
herein attached as Annexes “H” and “H-1”.

8. Yet, Defendants made an abrupt and volte-face admission when they admit in
the immediately succeeding paragraph that Plaintiffs were not Party-
Defendants in the ejectment case:

“ Defendants admit the allegations of Plaintiffs in paragraph 14,

thereof, insofar as it reads, that the plaintiffs were not party
defendant in the case of unlawful detainer…” 4

9. Defendants then maintained that the judgment is still binding to the Plaintiffs
because at the time of the execution of the final judgment of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, they were claiming their right of possession of the disputed
prioperty from the heirs of Maura Clemente on account of a falsified Deed of
Sale.

10. Plaintiffs took issue of the above claims of Defendants. Firstly, Plaintiffs
cannot be bound with an action in personam and in the judgment rendered
therein when, as admitted by Defendants, Plaintiffs were never made Party-
Defendant. Secondly, Plaintiffs are not merely claiming rights of possession
but ownership of the property. The possession of the Plaintiffs is an incident
to their rights of ownership and based on a valid Deed of Sale which was
never falsified.

A REFUTATION OF DEFENDANTS’ DENIALS

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

By way of reply to the Defendants’ denials, Plaintiffs hereby re-plead

the foregoing statements in so far as they bear relevance and further allege
that:

4
I.7 of the Answer
3|Page
 11. The Defendants cannot just simply deny and casually brush aside that the
present case, an action for Recovery of Ownership and Possession, is the
appropriate remedy to vindicate and recover said property which is owned by
the herein plaintiffs, having purchased the same from Ferdinand P. Clemente,
in good faith and for value.

12. Plaintiffs are innocent purchasers and for substantial value amounting to
more than TEN MILLION PESOS duly paid to the heirs of Maura Clemente.

13. The title of the Plaintiffs does not hinge on the Rescinded Contract of
Condidtional Sale but on the Deed of Sale freely, knowingly and voluntarily
executed by Plaintiff’’s father. Neither is the present action barred by the
judgment made in the ejectment case.

14. As already discussed in the Complaint and further reiterated above, the
plaintiffs are the owners of the subject property, having purchased the same
in good faith and for value.

15. Plaintiffs are a purchaser in good faith and for value. Plaintiffs paid Ferdinand
Ten Million Pesos (Php 10,000,000.00) for the subject property.

16. Furthermore, she believed in good faith that the subject property is free from
all liens and encumbrances, as this was the representation of Ferdinand
before the sale/ conveyance to the plaintiffs.

17. Also, there is no reason to doubt the ownership of the Clemente clan over the
subject property prior to the same, as Ferdinand was able to submit proof that
it was the Clemente clan who had been paying the taxes due on the subject
property since Maura Clemente acquired the same.

18. Hence, the instant action to recover the ownership and possession of the
subject property is clearly impressed with merit and clearly well in order as the
proper remedy that will afford complete relief for the Plaintiffs.

19. Thus, in one instructive case5, it has been held:

“Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is, thus, an action

whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and
seeks recovery of its full possession.It is a suit to recover
possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership.The
judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property
and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner.It is
different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff
5
G.R. No. 210504, January 24, 2018 (HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TEODORO K. YUSINGCO, Petitioners, v. AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA
NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG AND LIXBERTO1 CASTRO, Respondents.)
4|Page
 merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of
title.”

20. On the basis of the above discussions, it is clear that the lower courts did not
err in ruling that the suits filed by petitioners are accion reivindicatoria, not
accion publiciana, as petitioners seek to recover possession of the subject
lots on the basis of their ownership thereof.

21. It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a

property to another is in personam. It is conclusive, not against the whole
world, but only "between the parties and their successors in interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action." 6 Any judgment therein is
binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED at Makati City for Taguig City, 04 November

2020.

ARIAS LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Room 201 MN Square Building
678 Shaw Blvd., Pasig City
Tel. No. 863 4478 / 0917 880 3939
marcelinoariaslawoffice@yahoo.com

By:

MARCELINO P. ARIAS
IBP OR NO. 114904 1\30\2020 Pasig City
PTR OR NO. 6584612 1\30\2020 Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000018 valid April 14, 2022
Roll of Attorneys No. 24201

ATTY. JORICO FAVOR BAYAUA

IBP Life Member Roll No. 09572/01-13-11
PTR No. 8116291/01-03-20 / Makati City
Roll No. 47842
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021401

6
Ibid
5|Page
 April 11, 2019

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION

WE, SPOUSES LOLITO L. LOVERANES and NERISSA C. LOVERANES, both

of legal age, Filipino citizens and both residents of _______________after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and state that:

1. We are the PLAINTIFFS in the above-captioned case;

2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the REPLY;
3. We have read and understood the allegations therein and that they are true
and correct of our own knowledge and that they are based on authentic
documents and records in our possession.

We are executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth and veracity of the foregoing
statements and for whatever ends this affidavit may legally serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this ______day of

November 2020 at Makati City, Philippines.

6|Page