Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

10th Judicial Region
Branch 4, Butuan City

HO TURQUAINO DESIATA Civil Case no. 130698

Plaintiffs
For:
-versus-
“EJECTMENT, ETC.”

SONIA OLIVA, ET. AL.

Defendants
/--------------------------/

ANSWER
WITH SPECIAL AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND COUNTERCLAIMS

DEFENDANTS SPOUSES DANILO OLVIDA AND NORMA

OLVIDA by undersigned Counsel unto this Most
Honorable Court, most respectfully state–

1. This Complaint of Plaintiffs is perjurious,

ridiculous and very contemptuous.

2. The truth is –

a. The subject properties have been in the

open, continuous, exclusive, adverse and
notorious possession of Defendants’ family
for almost 40 years;

b. It was acquired by NESTOR OLIVA, the

late husband of Defendant SONIA OLIVA and
father of Defendants NELSON OLIVA, LOVELLA
OLIVA and EUNICE OLIVA, from the late
TURQUIANO DESIATA and the late CARLOS
DESIATA, for value, in all good faith and
with the full knowledge of Plaintiffs;
c. Regrettably, as said properties were
still part of the estate of LOPE DESIATA,
the father of TURQUIANO DESIATA and CARLOS
DESIATA, NESTOR OLIVA was told by the former
to await the formal execution of the Deed by
them and their siblings for the eventual
extra-judicial settlement of the estate of
their father;

d. Trusting both TURQUIANO DESIATA and

CARLOS DESIATA, NESTOR OLIVA did not insist
on the immediate execution of the Deed
evidencing his purchase of said properties,
especially so that both delivered the
properties that he bought from them, when
they and their respective families vacated
therefrom and placed him in possession
thereof.

e. The said purchase was with the full

knowledge of the respective families of
TURQUIANO DESIATA and CARLOS DESIATA, as
their houses thereon were even relocated
outside the boundaries of said properties,
by reason of said purchase;

f. For almost 40 years, OLIVA family have

been in peaceful possession of said
properties.

g. The coconut trees that the late NESTOR

OLIVA planted thereon have all matured and
the OLIVA family have been harvesting its
coconuts for the past 30 years.

h. Today, the said properties are being

looked after by defendant NELSON OLVIDA.

i. The properties of the OLIVA family

fenced and all the coconuts trees thereon
properly marked, in order to discourage
 thieves entering the property and stealing
the coconuts therefrom.

j. In 2014, defendant NELSON OLVIDA decided

to mortgage the coconut trees on said lands
as he could no longer personally work and
cultivate it because his deteriorating
health bought about by polio.

k. The real property taxes on said lands

are paid (although still tax declared in the
name of DESIATAs) by him.

l. His family’s possession and ownership of

said lands have always been respected by the
residents of the place and it was only
recently, when Plaintiff ALEXANDER DESIATA
returned to Taguibo, Butuan City and
probably, taking undue advantage of the fact
that the tax declarations of the properties
are still in the name of their father, that
the heirs of TURQUIANO DESIATA started
questioning their ownership thereon.

m. They then sold said lands to one JULIET

INTINO.

n. To erase all evidence of prior

possession and cultivation by the OLVIDA
family on said lands (which by law, makes
them owners thereof), Plaintiff ALEXANDER
DESIATA together with some personalities,
illegally entered said lands and without any
authority or permit, cut the coconut trees
thereon.

o. Not wanting to aggravate the conflict

and for health reasons, the OLVIDA family
has remained passive.
 All they did was report the illegal
activities of Plaintiffs to the proper
authorities and put “no trespassing”
signages on the property.

p. They are hopeful that this Honorable

Court will not allow Plaintiffs to continue
to trample on their rights.

They are optimistic that the Honorable Court

will not let this clearly frivolous and
perjurious complaint of Plaintiffs pass,
without any sanctions.

3. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants can

only admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

4. All other averments in the Complaint are

denied for being false and perjurious, for
lack of knowledge as to the truth thereof and
for being erroneous conclusions of the facts
and of the law.

SPECIAL
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. This instant Petition should be outrightly

DISMISSED by this Honorable Court on the
following grounds –

a. This is NOT a case for Forcible Entry.

i. A case for forcible entry requires

that it must be brought with 1 year
after the unlawful deprivation of
possession.

ii. In the case at bar, the OLVIDA

family have been in possession of
the property for more than 40 years.
iii. It is a “new world order” indeed,
because it should be the Defendants
who should file this instant case
against Plaintiff ALEXANDER DESIATA,
when he illegally entered the
property and cut the coconut trees
thereon.

iv. Also, prior actual possession is an

indispensable requisite in forcible
entry cases.

v. Plaintiffs knowingly lied under

OATH when they alleged that they
were in possession of the property
when in truth and in fact, they have
never set foot on said lands for
nearly 40 years.

vi. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint states

–

“To the prejudice of the Plaintiffs,

they discovered recently that
Defendants are not only occupying
lot no. 18 and lot no. 20, BUT ALSO
lot no. 17 and lot no. 19, which are
registered under Plaintiff’s name”

vii. Such averment proves THAT–

a. Plaintiffs are indeed not the

owners of the subject lands;

b. Plaintiffs were never in

possession of the subject lands.

viii. Such averments are even admissions

that Plaintiffs are absentee
claimants.

ix. How can Plaintiffs claim that they

were in possession of the subject
lands when they do not even know the
 metes of bounds of the property that
are allegedly claiming to be in
possession of?

x. How can Plaintiffs claim that they

are owners of the subject lands when
they do not even know the metes of
bounds of the property that they
allegedly own?

xi. Further, Plaintiffs, probably for

the purpose of making their
frivolous claim look legitimate,
even employed the services of
Geodetic Engineers, to locate the
metes and bounds of the lands they
claiming as their own.

xii. Said Geodetic Engineers do not

possess the authority to settle
issues involving ownership of
unregistered lands.

xiii. They are also incompetent with

regards to the determination whether
there was prior possession or
subsequent deprivation.

These matters are not determined by

surveys, as the sole purpose of the
latter is merely to accurately
reflect a particular portion of the
earth’s surface on a map.

xiv. The resort of Plaintiffs to the

employment of Geodetic Engineers is
not only preposterous (as no
Geodetic Engineer can conduct a
relocation survey based only on tax
declarations, which have no
technical descriptions), this is
also an admission that Plaintiffs
were not in possession of the
 subject land nor are they owners
thereof.

xv. To reiterate, as to untitled lands,

an owner or any possessor thereof,
must know the metes and bounds of
the land that he purportedly owns or
is in possession of.

If he does NOT then, in all

probability, he is not the owner or
a possessor thereof.

xvi. Clearly, with all these admissions,

there is no doubt that plaintiffs
were never in prior possession of
the subject lands and that they were
never unlawfully deprived thereof.

xvii. This is therefore NOT a case for

forcible entry.

b. Lack of Cause of Action

i. From the averments in the Complaint,

it appears that Plaintiffs are
praying that they be put in
possession of the subject lands, by
reason of their alleged ownership
thereof.

ii. Not only do Plaintiffs have no case

for forcible entry which requires
them to be in prior possession of
the subject lands, they have no
right at all to ask for the
possession of said lands.

iii. Plaintiffs, contrary to their claims

in their Complaint, are no longer
the owners of subject lands.

iv. They have no right to ask for the

possession of said lands since as
 early as November 2021 or 6 months
prior to the date of their
Complaint, the said lands are no
longer theirs.

v. Evidently, Plaintiffs have no cause

of action or the personality to file
the instant case against Defendants.

c. Perjurious and Contemptuous Verification

i. A reading of the Complaint clearly

shows that Plaintiffs intentionally
lied under oath with respect to very
material matters constituting their
alleged causes of action, when,
among others, they –

a. claim that they were in

possession of the disputed
properties and it was only
recently that they were
dispossessed thereof, allegedly
by Defendants, but the truth is,
they have never set foot on said
properties for nearly 40 years.

b. claim that all defendants are in

possession of the property, when
they are not, as it is only
defendant NELSON OLIVA who has
been cultivating and working on
said lands.

Defendant SONIA OLIVA has not

been to said properties for the
last five years because of her
failing health.

Defendants LOVELLA and EUNICE

OLIVA, have also not visited said
lands for almost three years now
as they are busy with their
motherhood duties.
 The fact that the whole OLIVA
family (who are not even
residents of the place where the
lands are situated) are impleaded
in this case, proves that this is
not a case that arose from a
recent dispossession but a case
for recovery of possession based
on an alleged claim of ownership
(which clearly Plaintiffs do not
have as they are no longer the
owners thereof and by reason of
prescription).

c. claim that they are registered

owners of the subject lands when
they filed the instant case, when
they have sold it six months
before such declaration.

Further, said lands are untitled

and not registered.

ii. Undoubtedly, Plaintiffs knowingly

lied under oath in their averments
in the Complaint.

iii. Such is contemptuous and violative

of the Rules. The immediate
dismissal of this case is proper.

EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS

6. Sworn declaration of Defendant NELSON OLIVA

declaring and proving the fact that his late
father and then him have been cultivating and
working on subject properties for nearly 40
years and other allied matters– EXHIBIT “1”.

7. Sworn declaration of Defendant SONIA OLIVA

declaring and proving the fact that she and
his late husband bought the subject properties
from the DESIATAs and that his husband and
now his son NELSON OLIVA have been cultivating
 and working on subject properties for nearly
40 years . She will also deny that she
disposed Plaintiffs therefrom– EXHIBIT “2”.

8. Sworn declaration of Defendants LOVELLA and

EUNICE OLIVA declaring and proving their
family thru their father and then their
brother, been cultivating and working on
subject properties for nearly 40 years . They
will also deny that they disposed Plaintiffs
therefrom– EXHIBIT “3”.

9. Joint Sworn Declaration of Disinterested

Residents declaring and proving that the OLIVA
family been cultivating and working on the
subject properties for nearly 40 years. This
Declaration will also prove other allied and
material matters in this Answer- EXHIBIT “4”.

10. Certification from the Barangay Captain

which will negate the claims of Plaintiffs of
prior actual possession of, and recent
dispossession from, the subject properties-
EXHIBIT “5”.

11. Receipts of actual real property tax

payments by Defendants which will negate the
Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership and possession
of the subject properties – collectively
marked as EXHIBIT “6”.

12. PCA issued documents relative to the cutting

of the coconut trees of the OLIVA family by
ALEXANDER DESIATA which proves that it was the
DESIATAs who tried to dispossess NELSO DESIATA
of the subject lands and which also proves
that this instant complaint is baseless,
fabricated and imagined – EXHIBIT “7”

13. Pictures of the coconut trees illegally cut

by ALEXANDER DESIATA which corroborates
defendant’s claim that it was the DESIATAs who
 tried to dispossess NELSO DESIATA of the
subject lands and which also proves that this
instant complaint is baseless, fabricated and
imagined – EXHIBIT “8”

14. Deed of sale of the subject lands executed

by Plaintiffs in favor of JULIET INTINO which
proves that Plaintiffs as early as November
2020 have sold said lands to said vendee and
that at the time of the filing of the
Complaint , Plaintiffs no longer have any
interest in said lands – EXHIBIT “9”

15. Tax Declarations of the subject lands in the

name of JULIET INTINO which proves that
Plaintiffs are no longer “registered” owners
of said lands and have no right whatsoever to
ask for its possession or to make demands
therefor – EXHIBIT “10”.

16. Defendants respectfully ask, by way of

reservation, the chance to present additional
evidence, documentary or otherwise.

COUNTER-CLAIMS

17. Defendants hereby re-plead and incorporate

all the foregoing allegations.

18. For filing a malicious, perjurious,

contemptuous and reckless complaint thereby
causing defendants public embarrassment,
anxiety and severe humiliation, Plaintiff
must be condemned to pay answering defendants
the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php.
200s,000.00) as moral damages;

19. By way of example to deter the public from

making filing malicious baseless and reckless
suits in the future, Plaintiff ought to be
condemned to indemnify answering Defendants
for exemplary damages in the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php. 200,000.00).
 20. Defendant was compelled to engage the
services of Counsel for FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php. 50,000.00) plus Php. 3,000.00 per court
appearance, which amount, Plaintiffs must
indemnify herein Defendants;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Most Honorable Court to –

A. DISMISSS the instant case;

B. DIRECT Plaintiffs to pay answering

Defendants FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php.
200,000.00) as moral damages, FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php. 200,000.00) as exemplary damages,
Attorney’s fees of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php.
50,000.00) plus Php. 3,000.00 per court
appearance;

C. SANCTION Plaintiffs for filing a patently

baseless and perjurious complaint.

D. Other just and equitable reliefs likewise

prayed for.

Most respectfully submitted.

_____________________, Butuan City,

Philippines.

THE LAW FIRM OF

SALISE & SULLANO
RGCS Bldg., Narra Road cor. Molave Street
(Near DOH 13 Regional Office)
8600 Butuan City
For Defendants

By:
 ATTY. ROLANDO G.C. SALISE
Roll No. 48977
MCLE Compliance VI-0013913
issued on September 29, 2018
IBP no. (awaiting OR) PTR No. 2015222 1/4/2021
TIN No. 908-310-719
e-mail add: boboysalise@yahoo.com
Cellphone no. 09485939047

VERIFICATION

WE, SONIA OLIVA, NELSO OLIVA, LOVELLA OLIVA and

EUNICE OLIVA, of legal age, Filipinos, and
residents of Ampayon, Butuan City, Philippines,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby, depose and say:

We are the Defendants in this case and we have

caused this ANSWER With SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS to be prepared; that we
read and understood its contents which are true and
correct of our own personal knowledge and/or based
on authentic records; It is not being presented for
any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation; The claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or
jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument
for extending, modifying, or reversing existing
jurisprudence; The factual contentions have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support
after availment of the modes of discovery under
these rules; and The denials of factual
contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or a lack of information.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our

hands this _____________________________ in Butuan
City, Philippines.
 SONIA OLIVA
ID___________________

NELSO OLIVA
ID ___________________

LOVELLA OLIVA
ID ____________________

EUNICE OLIVA
ID _____________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me hand this

_________________________ in Butuan City,
Philippines.

CC:

Atty. Yvette Hipolito Samper

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
4th street Ext. , Guingona Subd.,
Butuan City