3.

Private defendants admit the Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Civil mentioned in paragraph 4 of the
Complaint, BUT SPECIFICALLY DENY the rest of its allegation, as plaintiffs cannot file the instant
complaint pursuant to the said rule, as will be discussed below.

4. Private defendants SPECIFICALLY DENY the allegations in paragraphs 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5. 3, 5.4, 5.5, and 6 of
the Complaint, the truth of the matter being that private defendants, being the only surviving heirs of
the late Tomas J. Castro (the registered owner of subject parcel of land with improvements), are now the
owners of subject parcel of land with improvements pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil Code.

5. Private defendants SPECIFICALLY DENY the allegations in paragraphs 7 and 7.1 of the Complaint, the
truth of the matter being that plaintiffs have no right to demand the partition of subject parcel of land
with improvements considering that private defendants are now the full owner of the same, and the
sending of such baseless demand for partition cannot be interpreted as full compliance with the
requirements of Article 151 of the Civil Code.

6. Private defendants SPECIFICALLY DENY the allegations in paragraph 8 and 10 of the complaint, the
truth of the matter being as stated in the Special and Affirmative Defenses below.

7. Private defendants admit the allegation in paragraph 9 of the Complaint that the subject property is
under litigation for a case of quieting of title filed by private defendants against plaintiffs before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, which was docketed as Civil Case No. CT19-1463,
BUT SPECIFICALLY DENY the rest of its allegations, the truth of the matter being as stated in the Special
and Affirmative Defenses below.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

8. In filing this case, despite the pendency of the quieting of title case filed by therein original plaintiff
Tomas J. Castro (substituted by herein private defendants) against plaintiffs and the Register of Deeds,
before the RTC, Br. 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, plaintiffs have illegally engaged in forum shopping, and there
is litis pendencia, and these are grounds for the dismissal of this case.

It must be pointed out that on June 4, 2019, therein original plaintiff Tomas J. Castro, during his lifetime,
filed a complaint for quieting of title involving the subject property against therein defendants (now
plaintiffs in this case) and the Register of Deeds for Province of Tarlac, before the Regional Trial Court,
which was finally assigned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, and was docketed
as Civil Case No. CT19-1463, a copy of which is hereto attached as ANNEX 1, praying that:

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgement BE RENDERED in favor of plaintiff, and against
defendants, by: a) declaring Entry No. -19-7490 in plaintiffs TCT No. 51785 and the alleged deed of
absolute sale mentioned therein as clouds of doubt on said plaintiff's title which must be removed or
dissipated; and b) ordering defendant Register of Deeds for the Province of Tarlac to cancel Entry No. -
19-7490 in plaintiffs TCT No. 51785.

It is further prayed that plaintiff be granted such other relief which are just and equitable under the
premises.
In that case, only therein defendants Teresita J. Castro-Padilla, represented by her daughter Angelica
Munoz, and Heirs of Felicisima C. Rodriguez, namelt, Maria Cristina Rayos and Susan R. Quiambao, filed
their Answer With Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim, a copy of which is hereto attached as ANNEX
2, praying, among others, that therein original plaintiff Tomas

I. Castro be directed to turn over the title for the eventual partition of the subject property, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered favourably to the
Answering Defendants by:

1) DISMISSING the case for utter lack of merit and due to prescription;

2) DIRECTING the Plaintiff to turn over the title again for the eventual partition of the property;

3) TO PAY the damages for such as:

a) Moral Damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the Answering Defendant;

b) Attorney's Fee of P50,000.00 and appearance fee of

P3,000.00 for every day of hearing; and

c) Litigation expenses in the amount of P30,000.00.

Further pray for other remedy just and equitable.

(Underscoring Supplied)

In that case, the therein other defendants were declared in default due to their failure to file their
answer. Due to the death of original plaintiff Tomas ].

Castro, herein private defendants were substituted as plaintiffs in that case.

However, due to the fault and negligence of counsel for answering defendants to file their pre-trial brief
on time, and to appear during the scheduled pre-trial settings, private defendants were allowed to
present their evidence ex-parte. The filing of this case before this Honorable Court is a ploy to cover up
the negligence of plaintiffs' former counsel in his handling of the said quieting of title case.

On April 26, 2023, the RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, rendered a Decision, a copy of Deech of
hereto attached as ANNEX 3, among others, declaring the subject Deed of Absolute Sale as invalid or
inoperative, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case against the defendants is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the
Register of Deeds of the Province of Tarlac is hereby ordered to cancel and invalidate the annotation
appearing in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51785 under Entry No. 19-7490 since the Deed of Sale
mentioned therein appears to be invalid or

inoperative.

On October 9, 2023, the RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, issued a Resolution denying therein
answering defendants' motion for reconsideration, and ruling among others, that since original plaintiff
Tomas J. Castro did not sign the alleged deed of absolute sale, it is simulated, a copy of which is hereto
attached as ANNEX 4.

It was ruled that to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most
important factor is whether the elements of litis pendencia are present, or whether a final judgment in
one case will amount to res judicat in another; otherwise stated, the test of determining forum shopping
is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and
reliefs sought; hence, forum shopping can be committed in several ways: (1) filing of multiple cases
based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved
yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendencia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause
of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for
dismissal is res judicata; and

(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes
of action), where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendencia or res judicata); these tests
notwithstanding, what is pivotal is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who
asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same
reliefs and, in the process, creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different
fora upon same issues; and, forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of both initiatory
pleadings without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned,
and this is a punitive measure to those who trifle with the orderly administration of justice. The Heirs of
Inocentes Mampo and Raymundo A. Mampo, etc. v. Josefina Morada, G. R. No. 214526, November 3,
2020).

All the elements of litis pendencia are present in this case, and in the quieting of title case.

First. The parties in this case and in the quieting of title case are identical.

There is identity of rights or causes of action, and reliefs, in this

case, and in the quieting of title case. In this case, the basis of the prayed for partition is the is Transfer
CerAbsolute Sale dated May 24, 1979 inscribed on fomas ). Castro's Transe Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
51785, which is the very same cloud of doubt on said TCT which has been ordered to be removed by the
RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac. Without that deed of absolute sale, plaintiffs cannot demand
partition in this case. Moreover, plaintiffs* in the Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim
they filed in the quieting of title case that therein original plaintiff Tomas J. Castro be directed to turn
over the title for the eventual partition of the subject property, will clearly prove that they have already
brought the issue of partition in the quieting of title case, which is the very same complaint they filed in
this case.

In the quieting of title case, the RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, had initially ruled that the very
same alleged Deed of Absolute Sale is invalid or inoperative. Considering that the very same alleged
Deed of Absolute Sale which is the basis of the prayed for partition in this case by plaintiffs, vexation had
been brought upon the courts and the private defendants by plaintiffs who is now asking this Honorable
Court to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and, in
the process, creates the possibility of conflicting decisions to be rendered by this Honorable Court, and
that which had already been rendered by the RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, upon same issues.
Clearly, forum shopping and litis pendencia are present in this case and in the quieting of title case.

Such being the case, this case must be dismissed outright so as to prevent plaintiffs in their attempt to
trifle with the orderly administration of justice.

9. Plaintiffs have no cause of action for partition against private defendants.

To repeat, plaintiffs are praying for the partition of subject property which was registered in the name of
the late Tomas J. Castro, on the basis of the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 24, 1979 allegedly
executed by the late Tomas J. Castro. In the quieting of title case, the RIC, Branch 113, Concepcion,
Tarlac, already ruled that said alleged deed of absolute sale is invalid or inoperative, and that Tomas J.
Castro has not executed the same. It is respectfully submitted that such ruling of RTC, Branch 113,
Concepcion, Tarlac, cannot be overturned, much less, modified, to serve the interest of plaintiffs, by this
Honorable Court, a co-equal court, pursuant to the doctrine of non-interference Mercedes Tolentino
Soliman, et al. v. Heirs of Ramon Tolentino, etc., G. R. Nos. 229164 & 229186, September 2, 2019).

Moreover, plaintiffs are not the surviving heirs of the late Tomas J. Castro. Private defendants are the
only surviving heirs of the late Tomas J. Castro.

Such being the case, plaintiffs cannot legally demand the partition of the subject property in the name of
the late Tomas J. Castro.

Clearly, plaintiffs' filing of this case before this Honorable Court is baseless and unfo, ranch 13,
Concepain, Tatally overtum or defeat the rulings of the RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

10. The filing of this baseless and unfounded complaint has caused private defendants, represented by
defendant Lilia Micaller Castro who is residing at Daraga, Albay, and in her twilight years (81 years old
already), to suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded (astie 207,
Civil Code, the humiliation, continue o moral damna

P1,000,000.00.

11. For filing this baseless and unfounded complaint, plaintiffs must be assessed exemplary damages, the
amount of which must not be less than P100,000.00, by way of example or correction for the public good
(Article 2229, Civil Code).

12. For filing this baseless and unfounded complaint, private defendants, especially their representative,
defendant Lilia Micaller Castro, who is residing at Daraga, Albay, and in her twilight years, have been
constrained to retain the legal services of the undersigned counsel, and in so doing, she has been
constrained to pay the undersigned counsel P100,000.00 as acceptance fee, and P8,000.00 per his court
appearance, and expenses of litigation, which could have been avoided had plaintiffs been fair in their
dealings with private defendants.

13. In order to prove the above facts, private defendants will present defendant Lilia Micaller Castro as
their witness. Her original Judicial Affidavit is hereto attached as ANNEX 5. Private defendants need at
least one setting for this purpose.
If needed, private defendants will cause the issuance of a subpoena duces recum ad testificandum for
the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac or his/her representative, to appear and
produce to this Honorable Court the pertinent records of the quieting of title case.

Private defendants reserve their right to present additional witnesses as the circumstances of the case
may require.

14. Private defendants will present the following documentary evidence to prove the above facts:

a) EXHIBIT 1 (Complaint for Quieting of Title) - To prove that on June 4, 2019, therein one Reinal TraJ.
Castro had filed a complaint for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court which was finally
assigned to the RTC,

Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, against plaintiffs and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Tarlac,
which was docketed as Civil Case No. CT19-1463, and the issues raised and decided by said court are
identical or very much related to the issues raised by plaintiffs in this case.

b) EXHIBIT 2 (Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim of plaintiffs) - To prove that plaintiffs
filed their answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims in the quieting of title case, wherein they
also prayed for the partition of the subject property, the very same issue that is being raised by plaintiffs
in this case.

c) EXHIBITS 3 (Decision dated April 26, 2023) and 4 (Resolution dated October 9, 2023) of RTC, Branch
113, Concepcion, Tarlac - To prove that the RTC, Branch 113, Concepcion, Tarlac, a co-equal court, had
already ruled that the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale, which is the sole basis of plaintiffs in asking for the
partition of the subject property in this case, is inoperative or invalid, and that Tomas J. Castro has not
executed the same, and thus, plaintiffs have no cause of action to demand the partition of the subject
property.

Copies of the above exhibits are attached to the Judicial Affidavit of defendant Lilia Micaller Castro.

Private defendants reserve their right to present additional documentary evidence as the circumstances
of the case may require.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due hearing: 1) this case BE DISMISSED; and 2) plaintiffs
BE ORDERED to pay private defendants moral damages in the amount of not less than P1,000,000.00,
exemplary damages in the amount of not less than P100,000.00, and attorney's fees in the amount of
P100,000.00 as acceptance fee, per court appearance fee of P8,000.00, and expenses of litigation.

General relief is likewise prayed for.

November 15, 2023; City of San Pedro, Laguna, for Capas, Tarlac.