Republic of the Philippines Second Judicial Region MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES City of Cauayan, Isabela Republic of the

Philippines JUAN CRUZ, Plaintiff, -versusPEDRO SANTOS Defendant. x----------------------------x

Civil Case No. ____ For: Accion Publiciana

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS COMES NOW the Defendant Pedro Santos, represented by theundersigned counsels, before the Honorable Court, most respectfullysubmits this Answer with Counterclaims, averring that: ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS 1. The allegation in paragraph 1 of the Complaint for AccionPublicia na as to the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff Juan Cruz is ADMITTED but the alleged residence of the latter in so far as it does not reflect consistency and veracity as stated in paragraph 1of the complaint to wit: Plaintiff Richard Chan, is of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Eroreco Brgy. Mandalagan, Bacolod City. xxx in contrary to the first paragraph of the Verification and Certification ofNon-Forum Shopping which provides I, Richard Chan, of legal age,Filipino and a resident of Brgy Villamonte Bacolod City xxx ishereby DENIED;2. The allegation in paragraph 2 of the Complaint for Accio nPublicciana is ADMITTED. 3. The allegations in paragraph 3, as regards the ownershipof the Plaintiff on the subject parcel of land situated in Eroreco,Bacolod City is

ADMITTED.4. However, the Transfer Certificate of Title attached as A nnex A in the complaint for Accion Publiciana is specifically DENIEDfor want of genuineness and authenticity. The alleged TCT attachedas Annex A in the complaint for Accion Publiciana, is on its facetainted with irregularity; the Heading of the Title provides REGISTRY of DEEDS for PROVINCE of NEGROS OCCIDENTAL where, as alleged in paragraph 3 of the complaint for AccionPubliciana provides, Plaintiff is the tru e and registered owner of acertain parcel of land situated in Eroreco, Bacolod City identified asLot A and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12345 of the Registry of Deeds of Bacolod City . . Truth of the matter being, that when the property is located in Bacolod City, the Register ofDeeds of Bacolod City has the sole authority to issue deeds coveredwithin its territorial jurisdiction.5. The allegations in paragraph 4 and 5 of the complain t for Accion Publiciana are ADMITTED;6. The allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint for AccionPubliciana averring that Plaintiff had the property bought surveyedsometime around December 2006 and it was discovered that thedefendant knowingly and unlawfully occupied the portion of the lotowned by the plaintiff, thus depriving the Plaintiff of his right of possession over the property is DENIED. Around December 2006,the Plaintiff was not even the lawful owner of the subject propertysince as stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint, the deed of sale wasonly executed on December 18, 2008, therefore Plaintiff began histitle to the property On December 18, 2008. He was not the ownerand not a lawful possessor of the subject property on December2006. He was not deprived his right of possession as there was NOright to speak of at that time. And even granting arguendo that theproperty was bought and surveyed on Decemeber 2006, thedefendant Jack Pasaway would still be the lawful possessor of

thesubject property where the kitchen is located, the truth of the matter being that a Lease Contract was entered into by Angel Lopez and theDefendant Jack Pasaway on January 5, 2006 covering 2x3 squaremeters of lot where the kitchen of Jack Pasaway was situated. Theduration of the lease is for 50 years at one (1) peso per annum. Thefull amount of which was paid in cash by Jack Pasaway on the daythe lease contract was executed. Furthermore, such lease contractwas annotated at the back of the title, which served as a notice to theworld that an encumbrance is attached to the subject property. Attached herewith as ANNEX A is the lease contract between Angel Lopez and Jack Pasaway and ANNEX B the Transfer Certificate Title which shows the annotations at the back of the Title.7. Further, the averment that Defendants kitchen area composed of light materials occupying approximately two-by-3 (2x3)square meters is situ ated within Plainitiffs property. Such structure had been in existence at the time plaintiff acquired the property and defendant had full knowledge that said structure is on plaintiffsproperty is ADMITTED for in fact, the ownership of the Plaintiff overthe property, the reckoning point of which is at the time of theexecution of the deed of sale on December 18, 2008, is not disputed.8. The allegations in paragraph 7 of the complaint for Accio nPubliciana insofar as the averment which read Plaintiff , throughundersigned counsel demanded that defendant vacate and return the possession of said parcel of land to herein plaintiff and The last and final demand letter to vacate was received by the wife of thedefendant on March 23, 2013 as it was personally served at their residence by John Javier, Law office Staff. are

ADMITTED.9. However allegation that Defendant has remained in illegal possession of said land and up to the present , still retains such possession is DENIED. Defendant did not submit to thedemands of the Plaintiff, precisely because the subject portion of land where the Defendants kitchen is situated is under a Lease Contract lawfully executed between Angel Lopez and the herein defendant. And by virtue of the Lease Contract, Jack Pasaway is ther efore thelawful possessor of the subject property and not as what the Plaintiffpurports it to be. 10. The allegation in paragraph 8 of the complaint for AccionPubliciana is ADMITTED.11. The allegation in paragraph 9 of the complaint for AccionPubliciana is DENIED. There was no unjust refusal on the part of theDefendant, since in the eyes of the law, Jack Pasaway is the lawfulpossessor of the subject land where his kitchen is situated by virtueof the Lease Contract executed as between Angel Lopez and thedefendant. The lease contract being attached as an encumbrance tothe title over the property.12. The foregoing are subject to the special and affirmativedefenses hereunder presented. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Defendant replead and incorporate by way of reference theallegations from paragraphs 1-11 and further state as follows:1. The Honorable Court, with all due respect, FAILED TO ACQUIREJURISDICTION over the subject matter of the case; the complaintfailed to allege jurisdictional facts required by law to wit: Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the plenary actionof accion publician a must be brought before the regional trial courts. Withthe modifications introduced by Republic Act No. 769 in 1994, the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts was limited to real actions where theassessed value exceeds P20,000.00, and P50,000.00 where the action isfiled in Metro Manila, thus:SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shallexercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x x x x(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the

a s s e s s e d v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y involved exceeds Twentythousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in MetroManila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawfuldetainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which isconferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal TrialCourts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Accordingly, the jurisdictional element is the assessed value ofthe property. Assessed value is understood to be the w orth or value ofproperty established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rateis applied. Commonly, however, it does not represent the true or marketvalue of the property .1 Under the law as modified, jurisdiction is determined by the assessedvalue of the property. A reading of the complaint shows that respondentsfailed to state the assessed value of the property.1. NARS, JES, Im constrained not to put the issue of docketfees, ky kahapos langgid katama eh rebut, lets not give them chance to make good of their case Read bla SunInsurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion wherein the Courtdecreed that where the initiatory pleading is notaccompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the courtmay allow payment of the fee within a reasonable period oftime, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive orreglementary period . OR WE CAN STILL PUT THEDEFENSE HERE IF YOU GUYS WANT, WHAT YA THINK?2. The Plaintiff has NO CAUSE OF ACTION against thedefendant;By virtue of the Lease Contract entered into between AngelLopez and the defendant Jack Pasaway on January 5, 2006 covering 2x3square meters of lot, were the kitchen of Jack Pasaway is situated, JackPasaway has therefore a paramount right of possession over the subject lot 1 G.R. No. 174346 Vda. De Barrera vs Heirs of Legaspi in question insofar as the land where the kitchen of the defendant issituated . The Lease Contract was to last for 50 years from the date of itsexecution, at 1 peso ( Php. 1) per annum, the amount of which having

beenpaid in full by Jack Pasaway on the same date that the Lease Contract was executed, attached herewith as ANNEX A and ANNEX B the Transfer Certificate Title which shows the annotations at the back of the Title. Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as:Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. A cause of action isthe act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in favor ofthe plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or iscreated; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect ornot to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of suchdefendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach ofthe obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter maymaintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The right of possession over the subject property has alwaysremained with the herein Defendant, even before the Plaintiff acquired suchproperty from Angel Lopez. The Lease Contract served as anencumbrance over the property regardless of its subsequent alienation tothe Plaintiff. If there is anyone who has a cause of action, it would be thedefendant Jack Pasaway, for the latter has all the right to be respected ofhis possession over the property. Stated otherwise, if there is anyone whois at fault here, it would be the defendant for not respecting suchencumbrance attached in the property. Plaintiff was well aware of theencumbrance from the time of his previous demands to the defendantincluding during the Barangay Conciliation proceedings, yet he maliciouslycaused the filing of the instant case.Even, granting for the sake of argument that he was not aware ofthe encumbrance, still under the law he is deemed to be constructivelynotified ( I dont kn ow if this is the correct term)of such encumbrance annotated at the back of the title( insert pertinent law or jurisprudence hereguys).3. The Title attached as Annex A in

the complaint for AccionPubliciana shows signs which cast doubt on the genuinessof the Title.While we do not dispute the ownership of one Richard Chan inthe subject property, the title submitted as Annex A of the complaintshowed signs of irregularity and anomalous circumstances to wit:a. As above mentioned, the Transfer Certificate Title presented as ANNEX A shows on its heading that the Registry of Deeds ofNegros Occidental issued said TCT. However, the subject property islocated inside Bacolod City. Common practice dictates that if theproperty is located within Bacolod City, the Register of Deeds ofBacolod City is the one authorized to issue Titles within its territorial jurisdiction and not the Register of Deeds of the Province of NegrosOccidental.b. The Plaintiff did not include in the TCT No.12345 the back portionwhich will show the list of liens and encumbrances attached to theproperty. One of which is the encumbrance of the lease contractexecuted by Angle Lopez and Jack Pasaway.4. The Plaintiffs complaint for Accion Publiciana is not properlyverified. Rule 7, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by A.M No.00-210, provides: S e c t i o n 4 . Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required bylaw or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied byaffidavit . A pleading is verified by an a f f i d a v i t t h a t t h e a f f i a n t h a s r e a d t h e p l e a d i n g a n d t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s t h e r e i n a r e t r u e a n d c o r r e c t o f h i s k n o w l e d g e a n d b e l i e f . A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on"information and belief", or upon "knowledge, information and belief", orl a c k s a p r o p e r v e r i f i c a t i o n , s h a l l b e t r e a t e d a s a n u n s i g n e d p l e a d i n g .

A perusal of the VERIFICATION/ CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING of the complaint for Accion Publiciana which theaffiantcomplainant Richard Chan signed will show that he is a resident ofBrgy. Villamonte, Bacolod City, however, as above mentioned, a closer look at the complaint under paragraph 1, the complainants alleged residence is Eroroeco, Brgy. Mandalagan, Bacolod City.Had the affiantcomplainant Richard Chan read the verificationand attested to the allegations as true and correct to the best of hispersonal knowledge and/or based on authentic records, Richard Chanwould have corrected or at the least noticed the inconsistency as betweenhis Verification and the complaint.In addition, albeit the jurat states that RICHARD CHANpresented his Passport with ID No. EB-0123456, the validity or expirationdate was omitted. It cannot therefore be determined if the same is a validcompetent evidence of identity, hence, bogus. As stated above, a complaint is deemed verified when theaffia nt executes an affidavit that he has read the pleading and theallegations contained thereat. However, the mere fact that the affiant failedto even notice an inconsistency of his own residence in his complaint andverification, cannot be considered as proper verification. Lack of proper verification shall be deemed as an unsigned pleading. Being anunsigned pleading, it is a mere scrap of paper. With the foregoing premises, the defendants respectfully submit thatthe Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the grounds citedabove. COUNTERCLAIMS In the rare event that the Honorable Court shall resolve to proceed with thetrial of the case despite the above special and affirmative defenses, theDefendant submit the following compulsory counterclaims and for thispurpose, hereby restate and repleads all the allegations in the precedingparagraphs by way of reference and incorporation:1. Due to the plaintiffs willful and patent disregard of the defendants rights, the defendants suffered inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation thereby causing themmental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings andsocial humiliation, resulting in moral damages for which theplaintiff should be held liable in the

amount of One HundredFifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency;2. To deter others from following after the plaintiffs wanton acts and evident bad faith, she should be held liable to pay theplaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty ThousandPesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency, by way of exampleor correction for the public good; PRAYERWHEREFORE , PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfullyprayed that 1. The Special and Affirmative Defenses shall be immediately setfor preliminary hearing;2. After the said preliminary hearing, to issue an Order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint for Accion Publiciana, with prejudice;3. In the remote event that the Honorable Court shall proce ed withthe trial, the defendant pray for a judgment denying the reliefs prayed for bythe plaintiff for lack of merit;4. On the compulsory counterclaimsto order the plaintiff to paythe defendants a. Moral damages in the amount of One Hundred FiftyThousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency;b. Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty ThousandPesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency;c. Attorney's fees in the amount of Five Hundred ThousandPesos (P500,000.00), Philippine currency;d. Appearance fee of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00),Philippine currency, per court appearance;e. Other litigation expenses as may be proved during trial.Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewiseprayed for.Bacolod City, Philippines this --- day of --- 2013.COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENDANT VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPINGI, JACK PASAWAY , Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident ofBacolod City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, under oath, depose and saythat:1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer withCounterclaims;3. I read all the allegations thereof and that the same are true andcorrect based on my own personal knowledge and authenticrecords;4. I have not heretofore

commenced any other action or proceedinginvolving the same issue in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,or any other tribunal or agency;5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding ispending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any othertribunal or agency.6. If I should hereafter learn that of any other similar action orproceeding has been filed or is pending before the SupremeCourt, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, Iundertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to theHonorable Court. SIGNED this ____________ at Bacolod City, Philippines. Jack Pasaway Republic of the Philippines)CITY OF BACOLOD )s.s.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -xSUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on _________________at Bacolod City by Jack Pasaway who is personally known to me, hence,no need to present a competent evidence of identity.Doc. No._____;Page No._____;Book No._____;Series of 2012.Copy furnished to: ATTY. NOVE C. ABANADO Counsel for the Plaintiff1 st Lacson St., Bacolod City