Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
Pinukpuk, Kalinga

NOEL LINGGAYO, CIVIL CASE NO. 108-2022

Plaintiff,
FOR
-versus- FORCIBLE ENTRY WITH
PRAYER FOR WRIT OF
JOVITA ADDATU MANGLIWAN, PRELIMINARY MANDATORY
MARCOS, ADDATU, INJUNCTION AND
ROSENDA ADDATU, DAMAGES
CLARITA DALIRE, and all other
Persons claiming interest under them.
Defendants.
X---------------------------------------------------X
ANSWER
COME NOW the defendants, through the undersigned
counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
aver;
1. That we admit the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the
complaint;

2. That we admit in part the allegations in paragraph 8 of

the complaint particularly lot 304, pls-108 being a
portion of the land covered by the title, but we deny that
said lot was sold to one of the residents of Magaogao, the
truth of the matter being that said lot was illegally offered
or given as penalty(multa) for the crime of homicide
committed by Manuel Gatan. The latter, uncle of plaintiff,
killed Leopoldo Labbutan. Attach hereto is the copy of the
Amicable Settlement(or Judaff of the wife of Leopoldo
whichever is available) between the Gatans and the
Labbutans, marked as Annex “1” of this Answer

3. That we admit in part the allegations in paragraph 9 of

the complaint particularly lot 302 being a portion of the
land covered by the title, but deny that the spouses
Lammawen and Locas were the only owners and
possessors of the land, the truth of the matter being that
Lammawen, also known as Lammawen Layugan Alugan
is the brother of Addatu, also known as Addatu Layugan
Alugan. They are the co-owners and possessors of the
land they being the only siblings. Addatu also built his
house thereat where his children, namely Ana, Leon and
 Nicasio were born. Furthermore Addatu and his children
were the ones who cultivated the riceland portion of the
lot 302, since the spouses Lammawen and Locas were
childless;

4. That we admit in part the allegations in paragraphs 10,

11 and 12 of the complaint, particularly the ownership
and possession of Lammawen over lot 304, but deny that
the latter is the only owner and possessor, the truth of
the matter being that Addatu is a co-owner and
possessor of the lot as mentioned in the foregoing
paragraph, particularly par. 3 hereof;

5. That we admit in part the allegation in par. 13 of the

complaint that Lammawen and Locas were not blessed
with a child, but deny the allegations that Gatan is the
youngest brother of Lammawen, the truth of the matter
being that Addatu and Lammawen were the only siblings,
they have no other brothers or sisters. Addatu is the
older brother of Lammawen, while Gatan is from Limos
who only came to Magaogao having married Cambali
thereat.

6. That we deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of the

complaint, the truth of the matter being that Lammawen
died in 1946 just after World War II, about 2 years after
the death of Addatu in 1944 during the war. Lammawen
could not have taken under his custody Roberto Gatan in
the late 1950’s, because the former was already several
years deceased in the late 1950s. The subject title was
awarded by the Bureau of Lands on June 28, 1955 under
the name of “Heirs of Lammawen”, meaning before June
28, 1955, Lammawen was already dead.

7. That we deny the allegations in paragraph 15 of the

complaint, such being a blatant lie, Lammawen could not
have arranged the marriage of Roberto Gatan to Ballinan
Siagan years after the late 1950s(years after the late
1950s referring to the 1960s), because Lammawen
already died in 1946;

8. That we deny the allegations in par. 16 of the complaint,

the truth of the matter being that Roberto and Balinan
never stayed or occupied a portion of the land, it was
their daugther, Glory Gatan and her husband Juanito
Linggayo, who went to stay with the widow Locas, upon
order of Roberto Gatan;
9. That we admit the allegations in par. 17 of the complaint;

10. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 18 and

19 of the complaint, same being false and untrue, the
truth of the matter being that Lammawen was already
several years deceased when Glory was born;

11. That we admit in part the allegations in par. 20 of

the complaint, particularly Glory getting married to
Juanito Linggayo, but deny that they established their
residence thereat, they merely stayed in the house of
Lammawen with his widow, Locas, furthermore they
never ever cultivated the land since the heirs of Addatu,
respondents herein together with their other cousins
have been cultivating the land alternately or on a rotation
basis;

12. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 21 and

22 of the complaint, the truth of the matter being that
Glory could not have taken care of Lammawen, because
the latter died several years before Glory was born. In a
complete turn around, plaintiff alleged that Lammawen
died in 1939, how could Glory have taken care of
Lammawen when she was born much much later in the
1950s;

13. That we deny the allegations in paragraph 23 of the

complaint. Lokas never became the sole owner of the
property after the death of Lammawen. Locas was merely
the representative of the heirs of Lammawen. The real
owners of the land are the heirs of Addatu, sole brother of
Lammawen, because Lammawen died without issue,
following the rules of succession under the New Civil
Code of the Philippines as amended. The heirs of
Lammawen then as mentioned in the title are the
respondents herein and their other cousins who are also
grandchildren of Addatu. They are the nearest of kin of
Lammawen. The fact is, Locas could not have donated
the land to Glory, much less in a verbal manner, because
he was not one of the heirs of Lammawen and verbal
donation, if ever it actually happened, is never allowed
when the subject of the alleged donation is a titled
property;

14. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 24, 25

and 27 of the complaint for lack of sufficient knowledge
to form a belief as to the truth of the foregoing;
15. That we deny the allegations in paragraph 26 of the
complaint, the truth of the matter being that they only
occupied the house of Lammawen, but it was the
respondents and their other cousins who are tilling the
land;

16. That we deny the allegations in par. 28 of the

complaint, the truth of the matter being that the children
never took possession of the whole land, as mentioned in
the foregoing paragraphs they merely occupied the house
of Lammawen including the immediate surroundings of
the house, but it was defendants and their other cousins
who had been tilling the agricultural land and taking care
of the small portion planted with coffee and fruit bearing
trees;

17. That we admit the allegations in paragraph 29 of

the complaint;

18. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 30 and

31 of the complaint for lack of sufficient knowledge to
form a belief as to the truth of the foregoing;

19. That we deny the allegations in paragraph 32 of the

complaint, the truth of the matter being that we already
own the property and are actually tilling and occupying a
large portion of the land to the exclusion of the plaintiff
ever since our parents died;

20. That we admit the allegations in paragraph 33 of

the complaint, we are heirs of Lammawen being named in
the title, the alleged verbal donation to Glory Gatan
Linggayo, if ever it took place, is patently illegal and void
ab initio, because the alleged donor, Locas, is not the
owner of the property, much less one of the Heirs of
Lammawen, furthermore verbal donation involving titled
properties is not allowed under the law;

21. That we admit the allegations in paragraph 34 of

the complaint;

22. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 35 and

36 of the complaint, the testimony of the witnesses are all
heresy and should not be given credence, if ever the
alleged verbal donation ever took place, the same is
illegal and void ab initio and has no legal effect
whatsoever as explained in the foregoing paragraphs
particularly paragraphs 13 and 20 hereof, and contrary
 to their allegations everybody in Magaogao knows that
the land belongs to the heirs of Addatu;

23. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 37 and

38 of the complaint, we were misled into believing that
plaintiff owns the property, upon further verification we
discovered that said property is one of the untitled
properties of our grandfather Addatu which they were
able to secure title lately, thus we never ever took
possession of said property, furthermore only three heirs
of Addatu signed the agreement, whereas all the other
cousins, heirs of Addatu who did not sign the agreement
and rejected the same;

24. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 39 to 42

of the complaint, the truth of the matter being that we
have been tilling the riceland portion of the land since the
death of our parents in. We never abandoned the land
ever since as it is one of the source of our livelihood. We
kept tilling the land alternately or on a rotation basis
among us heirs of Addatu. We never ever disturb the
possession of plaintiff and his family who are still staying
at the house of Lammawen including its immediate yards
or surroundings. We were just fencing the portion we are
tilling and occupying inorder to protect our plants from
astray animals when plaintiff arrived in a very
threatening manner and accosted us and tried to destroy
our fence, we of course tried to prevent him from
destroying our fence;

25. That we deny the allegations in paragraph 43 and

44 of the complaint, the truth of the matter being that
plaintiff arrived where were working fencing our land as
mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, he threatened us
and shouted to us ordering us to stop putting up our
fence, my companions were alarmed by the action of the
plaintiff, some went away while we stayed and to reason
with him explaining that we are just fencing our own
property;

26. That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 45, 46,

47 and 48 of the complaint, the truth of the matter being

XXX That we deny the allegations in paragraphs 53 and 54 of

the complaint. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief being
sought for as he was never in prior possession of the land.,
While he and his predecessors-in-interest were occupying a
portion of the land, particularly the house of Lammawen and
its immediate yards or surroundings, defendants have been
occupying the occupying and tilling the Riceland portion for
several decades already, furthermore plaintiff was never
deprived of the possession of the house or its immediate
surroundings. As mentioned and discussed in the preceeding
paragraph, the elements of Forcible Entry are: a) Prior
possession by plaintiff and b) unlawful deprivation of it by the
defendant by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threat or
stealth C) Filing within one year period from the time of
deprivation.(sumolong vs.CA; Quizon vs. Juan;
Xxx That we deny the allegations in paragraph 55 and 56 of
the complaint, the truth of the matter being plaintiff never
fully established his right or title over the property, as
mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the alleged verbal
donation, if ever it occurred, is void ab initio since the alleged
donor, Locas was not the owner of the property, furthermore
verbal donation involving titled properties are not allowed
under the law. Donations of immovable properties should be
made in a public instrument.(search art. In civil code)
XXX That we deny the allegations of paragraph 57 of the
complaint, possession of the plaintiff over the house of
lammawen and its immediate yards or surroundings is merely
under the tolerance by the defendants. Plaintiff is a possessor
in bad faith knowing fully well that there exists a flaw which
invalidates his mode of acquisition.(Art. 526 Civil Code)
XXX That defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 58,
59 and 61 of the complaint. The truth of the matter being that
defendants never took the law into their own hands as they
were within their right to fence the Riceland which they have
been tilling for several decades. There was no injury obtain by
the plaintiff as he was never deprived of the possession of the
house of Lammawen and its immediate yards which they have
been occupying, albeit without legal right;
Xxx That defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 62 of
the complaint, since it has no basis in fact and in law;
XXX. That due to the filing of the instant case, defendants
have experienced harassment and suffered sleepless nights.
Plaintiff should be made liable to pay moral damages in the
amount of Php50,000;
XXX That in instituting this unwarranted and clearly
unfounded suit against the defendants, plaintiff had acted in a
wanton , fraudulent, reckless and malevolent manner and by
way of example or correction for the public good, plaintiff
should be made liable to pay defendant exemplary damages in
the amount of Php100,000.00;
Xxx That as a further consequence of the malicious and
wrongful filing of the instant case, defendant was constrained
to hire the services of a counsel for a fee of Php30,000.00 plus
Php3,000.00 per court appearance and other litigation
expenses which plaintiff should be made to pay;