Municipal Trial Court

6th Judicial Region

Maayon, Capiz

ROMEO D. DACLES, Joined

by his wife, PERLA M. DACLES
Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 01-01-2020

FOR: Recovery of Possession
with Damages

SPOUSES FEDERICO D. VALLERIANO,

HILDA D. VALLERIANO, and ARCADIO
D. DACLES
Defendants.

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

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

COMES NOW, DEFENDANT SPOUSES FEDERICO D.

VALLERIANO AND HILDA D. VALLERIANO , through the undersigned
Counsels de Oficio , most respectfully file their answer in response to the
Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff and interpose as well as his
counterclaim against the latter, to wit:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Spouses Defendant Valleriano admits Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the

Amended Complaint;

2. The averment in Paragraph 3 is denied. The truth of the matter is that

their Co-Defendant Arcadio D. Dacles is a resident of Jebacca,
Maayon, Capiz, Philippines since the time of the beginning of the
verbal Lease Agreement they executed up to the present.

To their knowledge, Arcadio D. Dacles is temporarily residing at his

child’s house in Barangay Milibili, Roxas City because he is
undergoing medical treatment in Roxas City. They also know that he
is a member of the Lupon of Barangay Jebaca. Copy of Barangay
Certificate of Residency is hereto attached and marked as “Annex 1”
and copy of the Defendant’s Oath of Office as member of the Lupon
is hereto attached as “Annex 2”;
3. Paragraph 4 is denied. The plaintiff, Spouses defendant and co-
defendant are residents of the same municipality, hence, a Barangay
conciliation process is a condition precedent for the filing of the
complaint in court pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991;

4. The averments in Paragraphs 5,6,7,8, 9, 10 and 13 are denied since the

Defendant Spouses are without any knowledge or information
sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to the veracity or falsity
thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to and are
within the control only of the plaintiff;

5. Paragraph 11 is denied insofar it alleges that the Spouses Defendant

has no basis or justification to occupy the subject property. The truth
being is that Sometime in 2007, they executed a verbal Lease
Agreement with Arcadio Dacles, the administrator of Lot 3 which is
part of the estate of Igmedio Dacles. Contrary to the claim of the
plaintiff which involves Lot 4;

6. The allegations in Paragraph 12 are specifically denied. The truth of

which is that Spouses Defendant peacefully entered Lot 3 of the
estate in the name of Igmedio Dacles by virtue of the verbal Lease
Agreement they contracted with its administrator, Arcadio D. Dacles.

They entered the property in honest belief that it was part of the estate
of Igmedio Dacles and that no force, intimidation, threats, strategy
and stealth were instituted against the plaintiff whom they have not
known or met when they leased and entered Lot 3 on 2007;

7. The averments in Paragraphs 14 and 15 are specifically denied. There

is no truth that the plaintiff talked to the Spouses Defendant in 2014.
Spouses Defendan have no idea of the plaintiff’s existence until their
meeting on 2018.

During that time, there was no demand to vacate from the plaintiff,
however, he demanded them to pay the rentals to him instead of the
defendant Arcadio D. Dacles;

8. Paragraph 16 is admitted except that the leased property is not owned

by the plaintiff but rather part of the estate of the late Igmedio Dacles
and the Spouses Defendant have an honest belief that Arcadio Dacles
is the administrator of the said estate;
9. Paragraph 17 is admitted. Spouses Defendant believes that the
property subject of the plaintiff’s claim is not the same property being
leased to the Spouses Valleriano;

10. The allegations in Paragraph 18 and 19 are specifically denied.

Defendant Spouses alleges that they planted crops on Lot 3 which is
part of the estate of Igmedio Dacles and not the plaintiff’s property
which was allegedly Lot 4. They planted the crops after executing a
verbal Lease Agreement with Arcadio Dacles and when they first
entered the property, the same was grassy, uncultivated and no banana
trees or any tree were planted in the area. Defendant Spouses did not
destroy any banana tree in the area since the same was bare and
uncultivated at the time of their entry to the property ;

11. The Spouses Defendant specifically each and every material

allegation in paragraphs 20 and 21. The truth of which is that Joel
Betorin tricked the Spouses Defendant and took advantage of their
low educational attainment. Spouses defendant were made to sign the
demand letter without knowing and understanding its contents since
the same was written in English. Joel Betorin assured the Spouses
Defendant that the letter will not cause them harm and did not explain
the contents thereof. During the previous years, there was no demand
from the plaintiff to vacate. It was only during 2018 when plaintiff
demanded them to pay the rentals to him instead of his brother
Arcadio Dacles;

12.Paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25 are specifically denied for lack of

knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to
the truth or veracity of the averments since the allegations therein are
matters known only and are within the control of the plaintiff.
Defendants in good faith executed a lease agreement and Spouses
defendant occupied Lot 3 in honest belief that it is part of the estate of
Igmedio Dacles.

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

13. The Complaint filed by the Plaintiff is nothing but a malicious

lawsuit calculated to harass the Defendants. The complaint is
premature due to absence of barangay conciliation and certificate to
file action which are condition precedent before instituting an action
in court for cases cognizable by Katarungang Pambarangay ;
 14.The plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of possession and damages
since his claim pertains to Lot 4 and not Lot 3 which was leased to the
Spouses Defendant sometime in 2007 by their Co-Defendant Arcadio
Dacles The plaintiff is clearly not deprived of his possession of Lot 4;

15. The plaintiff failed to show evidences of his possession of Lot 3;

16. The plaintiff failed to show evidences that the Lot occupied by the
Spouses Defendant is Lot 4 and not Lot 3;

17. The plaintiff failed to show evidences and site specific instances that
Spouses Defendant took possession of Lot 4 through force,
intimidation, strategy and stealth;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

18. By reason of the unfounded suit, the Spouses Defendant were

constrained to travel from Jebaca, Maayon, Capiz to Roxas City back
and forth to consult with the lawyers assigned by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. The Defendant spent a total of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (Php 20,000.00 )for transportation;

19. Similarly, the plaintiff’s unfounded suit has caused the defendants
mental anguish and sleepless nights for which the defendants claim
for moral damages in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php 200,000.00);

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

complaint be dismissed for prematurity and lack of merit and the defendants’
compulsory counterclaim be granted.

The defendants respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Roxas City for Maayon, Capiz, July 25, 2020.

The dpefendant herself will testify in court to prove the following:

a. That the plaintiff erroneously claims the possession of Lot 3
and not Lot 4;
b. That Lot 3 is the lot subject of the verbal lease agreement
with the Spouses Federico Villariano and Hilda Valleriano
and not Lot 4;
c. That Spouses Defendant entered Lot 3 peacefully by virtue
of the Lease Agreement they executed and no force,
 intimidation,strategy,threat and stealth employed to the
plaintiff when the Spouses Defendant entered the property;
d. That no demand to vacate was made by Romeo Dacles on
2018 and the prior years;
e. That Lot 3 was a grassy and uncultivated lot when the
Spouses Valleriano entered the property and no banana trees
were destroyed by them;

The Defendant Arcadio Dacles will testify in court to prove the

following:
a. That he is a resident of Jebaca, Maayon, Capiz;
b. That a Barangay Conciliation and Certificate to file action is
necessary before the filing of their case in court;
c. That the plaintiff, Romeo Dacles, had been a resident of Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates for a long time;
d. That the plaintiff erroneously claims the possession of Lot 3
and not Lot 4;
e. That Lot 3 is the lot subject of the verbal lease agreement
with the Spouses Federico Villariano and Hilda Valleriano
and not Lot 4;
f. That Lot 3 is part of the estate of their late father Igmedio
Dacles;
g. That Spouses Defendant entered Lot 3 peacefully by virtue
of the Lease Agreement they executed and no force,
intimidation,strategy,threat and stealth employed to the
plaintiff when the Spouses Defendant entered the property;
h. That no demand to vacate was made by Romeo Dacles on
2018 and the prior years;
i. That Lot 3 was a grassy and uncultivated lot when the
Spouses Valleriano entered the property and no banana trees
were destroyed;

Witness Efren Borbon will testify in court to prove the following:

a. His knowledge on the location of Lot 3 and its status prior to

the entry of Spouses Valleriano ;
b. That Spouses Federico and Hilda Valleriano rents and
cultivates Lot 3;

Witness Dionisio Delgado will testify in court to prove the following:

a. His knowledge on the location of Lot 3 which is cultivated

by the Spouses Valleriano ;
b. That Lot 3 is different from Lot 4 which is erroneously
claimed by the plaintiff;
 MA. JUNA V. DIETA
Counsel de Officio for the Defendants
Fortune St. Banica, Roxas City
Roll No. 72208
IBP No. 107720/1-10- 2020/Capiz
PTR No. 8842132/1-2020/Capiz
MCLE Compliance No. #VII-
0000998,April 14, 2025

MARY ZEN P. DIVA

Counsel de Officio for the Defendants
Fortune St. Banica, Roxas City
Roll No. 72219
IBP No. 107718/1-10-2020/Capiz
PTR No. 8752488/1-15-2020/Capiz
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0000999,
April 14,2025

Copy Furnished by Personal Service

JAN PHILIPPE B. YAP

Counsel for the Plaintiff

CLERK OF COURT
Municipal Trial court
Maayon, Capiz