Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
BRANCH 5
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

ROBERTO LASAM, Civil Case No. 9152

Petitioner

- Versus -

ATTY. NOEL MORA,

COL. PEDRO S. CUNTAPAY (Ret.),
MAJ. VINCENTE B. BLANCAD (Ret.),
ENGR. EMILIO MATANGUIHAN,
Public- Respondents.

-VERSUS –

SALVACION CAMMAYO AND

JOHN DOE CAMMAYO,
Third-Party Respondent,
x----------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER/COMMENT
WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
WITH THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
PUBLIC RESPONDENTS, through counsels and unto this Honorable
Court, by way of Answer to the Petition, most respectfully state:
Prefatory Statement

“Absolute ownership of real property is not exclusive

because property serves a social function”

1. That public respondents admit paragraphs 1 and 2 of the petition as

far as the personal circumstances and the official capacities of
respondents.

2. That respondents admit paragraph 3 of the petition on the

Memorandum dated February 15, 2021 issued by Tuguegarao City
Mayor Atty. Jefferson P. Soriano through the City Administrator
Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib ordering public respondents Col. Pedro S.
Cuntapay (Ret.), Maj. Vicente Blancad (Ret.), and Engr. Emilio
Matanguihan, to effect the demolition/removal of the commercial
stall considered as road nuisance erected by Mrs. Salvacion
 Cammayo in the middle of Rajah Soliman Street, San Gabriel,
Tuguegarao City.
3. That respondents deny paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition for lack of
knowledge as to the truth thereof. The truth is that the demolition
pertains to the removal of the structures erected without any building
permit and stall used for business without any business permit on the
portion of Rajah Soliman Street, San Gabriel.

4. That respondent admit paragraph 6 but deny that a member of a

demolition team shouted to Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo and her
husband. The truth is that a member of the team politely presented
the Memorandum to Ms. Cammayo and tried to explain the contents
thereof to her. Instead, she and her husband arrogantly shouted on top
of their voices and threatened the group to bring the matter to a
certain “Tulfo”.

5. That respondent vehemently and vigorously deny paragraph 7 of the

petition for lack of factual and legal basis. The truth of the matter is
that the commercial stall illegally erected in the middle of Rajah
Soliman Street beside LTO Regional Office by Ms. Salvacion
Cammayo is considered as nuisance posting obstruction to the free
access, ingress and egress of vehicles and residents passing along
Rajah Soliman Street going to Main Avenue, San Gabriel Village
Tuguegaro City Cagayan and in other major roads.

6. That public respondents vehemently and vigorously deny paragraph

8 and all its subparagraphs for lack of knowledge as to the truth
thereof. The truth of the matter are the following:

6.1. In the consolidation and subdivision plan PCS-5497 of Lots

4136 and 4148 all surveyed for Cirilo P. Lasam conducted
on January 08 to 09, 1964, Lot No. 34 was designated as
Road Lot1.

6.2. The consolidation and subdivision plan was approved by the

Bureau of Lands in 1964 indicating Lot No. 34 as Road Lot
for all the subdivision owners and other transferees.

6.3. The Road Lot No. 34 are now named Main Avenue and
Extension, Rajah Soliman St., Lakandula St., Sultan

1
Annex “1”Copy of the consolidation and subdivision plan PCS-5497
 Kudarat, Mayon St. and Extension all of San Gabriel
Village, Tuguegarao City.

6.4. These Streets and Avenue are listed in the inventory of roads
in the City Planning and Zoning Office2.

6.5. On the east of the portion of Rajah Soliman Street is Lot No.
4135-F owned by Provincial Government of Cagayan
covered with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-75020. Mrs.
Salvacion Cammayo occupied and constructed her
commercial stall on the western wall of Land Transportation
Office on the portion of Lot 4135-F owned by and registered
in the name of the Provincial Government of Cagayan. Mrs.
Cammayo was leasing said portion from the Provincial
Government of Cagayan which contact of lease has long
lapsed. She was ordered to vacate the premises and to
dismantle her stall erected on the property of the Provincial
Government3.

6.6. Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo voluntarily demolished her stall

attached to the wall of Land Transportation Office erected
on the portion of property of Provincial Government of
Cagayan.

But she constructed sometime on October 2020 the

questioned stall in the middle of Rajah Soliman Street
portion of Lot No. 34 designated as Road Lot4.

6.7. Mrs. Cammayo was prevented by the residence who are

directly and adversely affected to introduce any structure on
the middle of Rajah Soliman Street, but despite their plea,
Mrs. Cammayo arrogantly proceeded with her illegal act of
constructing the questioned stall.

6.8. Residents along Rajah Soliman St. who are adversely

affected by the illegal structure brought the matter to the
Barangay Lupon of San Gabriel and despite meetings and

2
Annex “2”- Certification issued by Enp. Gilbert Z. Quinan, City Zoning Officer
3
Annex “3”- Copy of the demand letter sent by Atty. Rogelio Taliping, Provincial Legal Officer of Cagayan.

4
Annex “4”- Copies of Photographs
 confrontations, Mrs. Cammayo continued the introduction of
improvement in the middle of Rajah Soliman Street5.

6.9. Acting on the request for assistance of Punong Barangay

Marcelo Narag of San Gabriel, the Office of the City Mayor
through the City Administrator Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib
issued Cease and Desist Order (CDO)6 to Mrs. Salvacion
Cammayo for the closure of her business because there is no
business permit.

6.10. In her Memorandum7, Engr. Maria Ines S. Bunagan, BPLO

Head, reported that she served the CDO and ordered the
business of Ms. Cammayo as “Closed”

6.11. On November 11, 2020, the residents and tenants of Rajah

Soliman St, San Gabriel filed their formal complaint 8 to City
Mayor Atty. Jefferson P. Soriano through their Punong
Barangay Marcelo C. Narag regarding the introduction of
fence at the center of Rajah Soliman St.

6.12. Despite the cease and desist order, Mrs. Cammayo and her
husband defiantly disregarded the order and persisted in the
construction of the commercial stall, operation of their
business9 and fencing.

6.13. On November 23, 2020 the City Administrator Atty. Romeo

I. Calubaquib endorsed10 the Letter Request of Punong
Barangay Marcelo C. Narag and Atty. Ronald L. Brillantes,
Legal Counsel of petitioner Roberto Lasam to the City Legal
Office.

6.14. In the meantime, on December 29 and 30, 2020, residents of

Rajah Soliman St., Engr. Maria Ines Bunagan, Engr.
Matanguihan, Atty. Ronald Brillantes, other Barangay
Officials and Punong Barangay Marcelo Narag had meetings
and confrontation11 with Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo and the
herein Petitioner Mr. Roberto “Bong” Lasam.
5
Annexes “5” and “5-a”- Minutes and attendance of the meetings before Punong Barangay Marcelo Narag
6
Annex “6”- Copy of Cease and Desist Order
7
Annex “7”- Memorandum dated December 26, 2020
8
Annex “8”- Formal Complaint of Residents and Tenants of Rajah Solaiman
9
Annexes “9” and series
10
Annex “10”- Letter Endorsement
11
Annexes “11” – Photographs of Confrontation
 6.15. On January 07, 2021, another meeting and dialogue with
petitioner Roberto Lasam, his counsel Atty. Ronald L.
Brillantes, Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo, residents of Rajah
Soliman St., Barangay Officials and other City Officials
which was initiated by Atty. Noel Mora, City Legal Officer
wherein it was explained to petitioner Roberto Lasam and
Mrs. Cammayo that her business has no business license and
the construction of the structure is illegal because there is no
building permit issued by Tuguegarao City Government.

6.16. Despite the dialogue and meetings, Mrs. Cammayo allegedly

upon the advise of her counsel and instigation from
petitioner Lasam, she persisted in expanding the
construction of her stall on the middle of Rajah Soliman St.
6.17. On February 15, 2021, Tuguegarao City Mayor Atty.
Jefferson P. Soriano, through City Administrator Atty.
Romeo I. Calubaquib issued the Memorandum to public
respondents Col. Pedro S. Cuntapay (Ret), Major Vincent B.
Blancad (Ret) and Engr. Emilio Matanguihan for them to
demolish and remove the commercial stall without building
permit and business license erected by Mrs. Salvacion
Cammayo in the middle of Rajah Soliman Street San
Gabriel Village Tuguegarao City Cagayan.

6.18. On March 04, 2021, said public respondents served copy of

Notice of Demolition and the Memorandum dated February
15, 2021 to Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo who deliberately
refused to acknowledge receipt and prevented the team of
the public respondents to demolish and remove the structure
illegally constructed in the middle of Rajah Soliman Street.

7. That respondents vehemently and vigorously deny paragraphs 9, 10,

and 11 of the petition for lack of knowledge as to the truth thereof.
The truth of the of the matter is that the structure sought to be
demolished or removed is erected in the middle of Rajah Soliman
Street without the requisite building permit and business license.
Rajah Soliman Street forms part of Lot No. 34 established in 1964 as
Road Lot or for more than 57 years now. The road lot is intended as
road and was never the intention of the original owner Cirilo P.
Lasam to bequeath any portion thereof to any individual person for
the latter’s personal and exclusive use as recognition of any act
 loyalty and good deed allegedly done by Mrs. Cammayo to the
original owner.

8. That respondents vehemently and vigorously deny paragraph 12 of

the petition as the cited jurisprudence does not find it’s parallel
application in the instant case.

9. That respondent vehemently and vigorously denied paragraphs 13,

14, 15, 16 of the petition for lack of factual and legal basis.

10.That public respondent vehemently and vigorously deny paragraphs

17 and 18 of the petition. The truth of the matter are those earlier
discussed and those will be discussed below as affirmative defenses.

11.Public Respondents vehemently and vigorously deny paragraphs 19

and 20 of the petition of lack of factual and legal basis.

BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

12. Respondents further re-plead and adopt the foregoing statements and
allegations and further state:

13.That the Petition states no cause of action

13.1. A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts

that give rise to a remedial right. It must contain a concise
statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the
petitioner’s cause of action.

13.2. The petitioner must show that (1) he has a right by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2)
Obligation on the part of the named respondents to respect or
not to violate such right; and (3) Act or omission on the part of
such respondents in violation of the right of the petitioner or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the respondents to the
petitioner for which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
 13.3. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon petitioner to present a clear
legal right materially and substantially breached from a prima
facie evaluation of the evidence of the petitioner. Even if this is
present, the trial court must satisfy itself that the injury to be
suffered is irreparable12.

13.4. A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to: Preserve the status

quo ante, upon the applicant's showing of two important
requisite conditions, namely: (1) the right to be protected
exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are
violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation
sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

13.5. Spouses Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank then discussed the

requisites and the proof required for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction:

The plaintiff praying for a writ of preliminary injunction must

further establish that he or she has a present and unmistakable
right to be protected; that the facts against which injunction is
directed violate such right; and there is a special and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages. In the
absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the
plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction will be nullified. Thus, where the plaintiff's right is
doubtful or disputed, a preliminary injunction is not
proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of
an actual existing right is not a ground for a preliminary
injunction.

13.6. Here, the petitioner seeks to restrain public respondents from

implementing the Memorandum dated 15 February 2021 of
Tuguegarao City Mayor Atty. Jefferson P. Soriano through the
City Administrator Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib regarding the
demolition/removal of the commercial stall erected by Mrs.
Salvacion Cammayo without the requisite building permit and
business license in the middle of Rajah Soliman St., San
Gabriel Village, Tuguegarao City considered as road
obstruction and nuisance.

13.7. As already mentioned, there is nothing in the petition herein

which states specific overt acts to show that public respondents
acted in disregard of the petitioner’s rights. Nowhere in the
petition was it alleged that public respondents have committed
or about to commit an overt act amounting to a wrong or in
12
Department of Public Works and Highways v. City Advertising Ventures Corp.
 violation of an established right of the petitioner. Petitioner
should have at least specified the details of his cause of action
against respondents.

13.8. There is no specific allegation that petitioner Lasam will suffer

grave or irreparable damage by the implementation of the said
Memorandum.

14.That petitioner has no valid cause of action against the public

respondents.

14.1. As earlier discussed, the Memorandum issued by City Mayor

Atty. Jefferson P. Soriano through the City Administrator Atty.
Romeo I. Calubaquib is addressed to the public respondents Col.
Cuntapay, Maj. Blancad and Engr. Matanguihan for them to remove
and demolish the commercial stall illegally erected sometime in the
month of October 2020 by Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo in the middle of
Rajah Soliman St., San Gabriel.

The Memorandum is not addressed to the petitioner but directed to

the named respondents to be served to Mrs. Cammayo.

The illegal structure of Mrs. Cammayo is erected on the portion of

Lot No.34 registered as Road Lot. Petitioner has no right to
deviate, alter and modify the purpose for which the lot is intended.
All the more, petitioner has no right to bequeath to Ms. Salvacion
Cammayo out of gratitude for the latter’s personal, individual and
exclusive use of the lot to the deprivation of those to whom the
property has been allocated.

There is no document showing that the portion was bequeathed by

petitioner’s father Cirilo Lasam to Mrs. Salvacion Cammayo.

At most, petitioner only thought of such scheme when Mrs.

Cammayo was ordered to remove her stall from the property of the
Provincial Government of Cagayan that he instigated Cammayo to
transfer and erect her stall in the middle of Rajah Soliman St.

15.That petitioner is guilty of estoppel

 15.1. As defined by the Supreme Court, “laches is failure or neglect, for
an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which,
by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
thereto either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.13

15.2. In this case, the consolidation and subdivision plan PCS 5497 was
approved on January 19, 1964. Lot 34 in the Plan was delineated as
Road Lot. The Consolidation and Subdivision Plan PCS -5497 was
prepared at the instance of the late Judge Cirilo Lasam. He was
still alive when Lot 34 was named as Rajah Solaiman, Lakandula,
Sultan Kudarat, Mayon Streets and Main Avenue and Extension all
of Barangay San Gabriel. He did not execute any document
bequeathing any portion of the Road Lot to Cammayo for the
latter’s recognition of generous service to him.

15.3. During the lifetime of Cirilo Lasam, the commercial stall was
originally erected at the portion of Lot 4134-F which Mrs.
Cammayo leased from the Provincial Government of Cagayan
while the road lot named as Rajah Solaiman with the width of six
(6) meters remained open as road for those residents along the
streets and has long been used by the public.

15.4. Road Lot No. 34 has been used by the subdivision owners and the
public for more than Fifty (50) years now and has been formally
named as barangay streets of San Gabriel Village for so long a
period already. Most of the portions of Lot 34 have been concreted
using government funds and used by the public.

15.5. Thus, when late Judge Cirilo Lasam failed to speak or refrains
from doing so despite the surrounding circumstances, and thereby
leads the public to believe in the existence of a state of facts in
reliance on which he acts to his prejudice. His silence may support
an estoppel whether the failure to speak is intentional or negligent.

An estoppel may arise from silence as well as from

words. ‘Estoppel by silence’ arises where a person, who by

13
Cristobal v. Melchor, 78 SCRA 175
 force of circumstances is under a duty to another to speak,
refrains from doing so and thereby leads the other to believe in
the existence of a state of facts in reliance on which he acts to
his prejudice. Silence may support an estoppel whether the failure
to speak is intentional or negligent.

15.6. The ‘bequeathment’ of portion of Lot No. 34 by the petitioner to

Mrs. Cammayo for the latter’s personal and exclusive use cannot
be permitted since the right to assert right over the lot has already
lapsed for unreasonable and unexplained length of time.

15.7. Additionally, Article 1347 of the Civil Code provides that all
things which are not outside the commerce of men may be the
object of a contract. Accordingly, a contract whose objects
is outside the commerce of men is inexistent and void from the
beginning (Civil Code, Article 1409).

15.8. Consequently, while Lot 34 was originally intended for the

subdivision lot owners, with its present use, it has the nature of
quasi- public road and has been for public use for considerable
length of time already. Therefore, the road lot is outside the
commerce of man, and may not be the subject of contracts like the
bequeathment of the petitioner to Mrs. Cammayo.

THIRD PARTY PETITION

16. That Salvacion Cammayo and her husband John Doe Cammayo both
of legal age, Filipinos and may be served with summons, notices and
court processes at their stall along Rajah Soliman St., San Gabriel
Village, Tuguegarao City;

17. That Salvacion Cammayo and her husband John Doe Cammayo are
impleaded as Third Party Respondents for complete relief as they are
the persons referred to in the Memorandum of City Mayor Soriano
through City Administrator Atty. Calubaquib;

18. That these Third-Party Respondents were the ones who illegally
constructed a commercial stall in the middle of Rajah Soliman St., San
Gabriel without any building permit and business permit to construct
 any structure and operate a business, respectively, in the portion of a
road lot;

19. That the Third-Party Respondents should be ordered to remove and/or

demolish this illegally constructed commercial stall in the middle of
Rajah Soliman St., San Gabriel which is considered as nuisance or road
obstruction.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

20. To deter persons and parties similarly inclined like and to serve as
lesson to the petitioner who instituted this frivolous and unfounded
petition which in effect abetting the illegal acts of herein Third Party
Respondents of illegally introducing nuisance in the middle of a road
lot and causing inconvenience to the residents and the public, an
exemplary damages should be assessed against petitioner and Third-
Party Respondents for them to pay jointly and severally such amount
within the sound discretion of the Honorable Court.

21. Petitioner and Third-Party Respondents should likewise be ordered to

pay the costs of the suit.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, public respondents and
petitioner in Third- Party Petitioners, most respectfully pray unto this
HONORABLE Court that after due hearing and consideration, an Order be
issued in favor of the public respondents/Third-Party Petitioners and
against the petitioner and Third-Party Respondents:

1. By dismissing/denying outright the petition for utter lack of

merit;

2. By issuing Status Quo Ante Order and restraining order and/or

writ of mandatory injunction enjoining petitioner to maintain the
status and use of Lot 34 particularly Rajah Soliman St, San
Gabriel Village, Tuguegarao City as “ROAD LOT”
3. By enjoining petitioner Roberto Lasam and Third Party
Respondents Spouses Cammayo from further committing
 dominical acts to the prejudice of the residents and the public for
their free and unobstructed passage to and from their places using
Rajah Soliman St, San Gabriel;

4. By ordering the petitioner Third-Party Respondents and all those

acting on their behalves to remove whatever improvements or
structures unlawfully introduced and constructed in the middle of
Rajah Soliman St and vacate premises so that there will be no
more nuisance or road obstruction;

5. By ordering petitioner and Third-Party Respondents to pay the

damages and costs of the suit stated in paragraphs 20 and 21 of
this Answer/Comment/Third Party Petition; and

6. By granting unto the public respondents/ Third-Party Petitioners

other just and equitable reliefs under the premises.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, March 23, 2021.

Tuguegarao City Legal Office

Counsel for the plaintiff Namabbalan Sur
3rd Floor City Hall Building,
Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City

BY:

MARC ARMAND B. MARUZZO

Counsel for Public Respondents
IBP OR NO. 121290, 01-04-2021
PTR OR NO. 2911873, 01-05-2021
MCLE (Newly admitted on July 22, 2020)
Roll No. 75196
Email address: armandmaruzzo@gmail.com
Cellular Phone No. 09750062838

NOEL A. MORA
City Legal Officer
IBP OR NO. 122239 -01-04-2021
PTR OR NO. 2909196 -01-04-2021
MCLE Compliance No.VI-0018601-02-27-2019
Roll No. 42605
Email address: noelmora19@yahoo.com
Cellular Phone No. 09175370555
 NOTIFICATION

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Second Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court- Branch 05
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Answer with Affirmative Defense with

Third Party Complaint of Public Respondents for the kind consideration of
the Honorable Court.

Thank you.

MARC ARMAND B. MARUZZO

NOEL A. MORA

Copy furnished:

ATTY. NICHOLO RUDOLF A. SUPNET

Counsel for Petitioner
College Avenue, Tuguegarao City

VERIFICATION
AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
WE, NOEL A. MORA PEDRO S. CUNTAPAY, VICENTE B.
BLANCAD AND EMILIO L. MATANGAGUIHAN, all of legal age, and
Officials of Tuguegarao City Government, after being sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby deposed and say:
 1. That we are Public Respondent and Third-Party Petitioners in the
above-entitled petitions;
2. That we caused the preparation and filing of the Answer/Comment
and Third Party Petition;

3. That we read the Answer/Comment/Third Party petition and the

allegations therein are true and correct based on our personal
knowledge and authentic documents;

4. That this petition is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or

needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

5. That the factual allegations in the answer/comment and third party

petition has evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity for
discovery (Sec.4, Rule 7); and

6. That we hereby certify that we have not commenced any action or

proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals or any tribunal or agency. To the best of our own
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in any court,
tribunal or agency and should I thereafter learn that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending in any tribunal or
agency, I will undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid court and
such other tribunal or agency of that fact within five (5) days
therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this ____
day of March 2021 at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

NOEL A. MORA PEDRO S. CUNTAPAY

Affiant Affiant
IBP Roll No. 42605 Driver’s License No. __________
Valid until _______________

VICENTE B. BLANCAD EMILIO L. MATANGAGUIHAN

Affiant Affiant
Driver’s License No. B13-20-002179 PRC License No. 0027714
Valid until September 19, 2024 Valid until November 23, 2021

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ________ day

of March 2021 at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

Doc No. _____;

Page No._____;
Book No.____ :
Series of 2021.