Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City
Branch 76

SANSA STARK AND DAENERYS

STARK TARGARYEN
Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 0602

For: RECONVEYANCE AND
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF
ESTATE, SPECIAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY AND DEED OF ABSOLUTE
SALE AND DAMAGES

ARYA STARK AND AD

VENTURES,
Defendants.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
and
COUNTERCLAIMS

Answering defendant ARYA STARK, unto this Honorable Court, by counsel,

respectfully states:

I. ADMISSIONS and DENIALS

DEFENDANT, thru the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers that:
1. The allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint in so far as it
pertains to his personal circumstances are ADMITTED.

2. Paragraph 9 is partly admitted with the qualification that the sale is valid
and made in good faith.
 3. Paragraphs 5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13 and 14 are specifically DENIED the
averment being deceptive and untrue, the truth being that which is stated in
the affirmatives below.

II.SPECIAL and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First
Damages arising out of wrongful registration involve factual questions fit for
assignment to a court of general jurisdiction but said court cannot infringe upon
the exclusive domain of a court of special jurisdiction. More importantly, a suit in
personam cannot result in the cancellation of a registered title upon the excuse
that somewhere along the line, a fraud has occurred. Because, even if jurisdiction
is proper, Torrens title subsequently registered in the name of a second
transferee, for value and in good faith, renders the title impervious to attack.
(De Lara and Guzman vs Ayroso, 95 Phils. 185.)

The above doctrinalizes the codal mandate of Section 39 of Act No. 496
(now Section 44 of P.D. 1529). Every subsequent purchaser of registered land
who takes a certificate of title for value and in good faith is impervious attack,
collateral or otherwise.

In any case.

Plaintiffs cause of action is hobbled by the absence of the following

important requisites:

[1] the complaint must allege that defendants AD Ventures are holders
in bad faith. Absent such an allegation, the defendant is presumed to be an
innocent purchaser for value and in good faith. (Castillo bs Heirs of Vicente
Madrigal, 198 SCRA 556, 561, 563 (1991);

[2] more than one year has elapsed after the property had passed on to an
innocent purchaser for value and in good faith, and only the remedy of DAMAGES
is available to plaintiffs, a built-in protection in Sec. 32, P.D. No. 1529; [Pino vs.
Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 434, 446 (1991) ];

Second.

The complaint is stained by perjury.

1. Annex B of the Complaint, purportedly executed in is an intercalated

document fabricated by plaintiffs. The true document entitled EXTRA
JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF NED STARK and CATELYN
STARK WITH WAIVER OF RIGHTS herewith attached and marked as
Annex 1, was duly executed on the 5th of July 2007.

Notable from a comparison of Annex B of the Complaint and Annex 1

hereof is the fact that the document is not the Notary Public in the first is not
the Notary Public in the Second.
 Defendant Arya Stark is unaware of, and did not have a hand in, the
preparation of Annex B, or in the intercalation thereof.

2. Plaintiffs claim that their two (2) signatures in Annex B in the year 2009
were forged; curiously, they do not claim that the other signatures of their
other siblings were likewise forged, which strongly gives rise to the
inference---or admission---that they are genuine.

3. It has to be odd that, of the many real properties enumerated in the Extra
Judicial Settlement (Annex B and/or Annex 1), plaintiffs are only
interested in that area covered by TCT No. T-139201 registered in the name
of the defendant AD Ventures with an area of 438,938 square meters.

Plaintiffs, in their Complaint, showed no interest in the other titles because

some of them were already previously sold by plaintiffs while the other
properties were already been sold by their other siblings.

4. The attendant facts and circumstances surrounding the foregoing imbroglio

can best be appreciated by a relation of the following facts, to wit:

[a] Annex 1 herewith, was executed in 2007 at a time when

defendant Stark was still the incumbent Mayor of Quezon City; all heirs-
signatories executed a waiver of their rights for the simple reason that all of
them had already agreed to apportion unto themselves, equally and equitably,
all of the properties comprising the Joint Estate of their deceased parents;

[b] Plaintiffs and all other siblings obtained their proportionate share of
the properties, which are located in expensive urban areas; what was left for
defendant Arya---with his generous acquiescence---were the properties in
Fairview, Quezon City which were so low-priced in 2007 that they paled in
price comparison with the selected areas of his other siblings; as incumbent
Mayor of a highly urbanized Metro Manila city, defendant Arya was amply
solvent and accepted the lopsided partition without question;

[c] as stated earlier, defendant Aryas siblings lost no time in selling

and alienating their inherited shares, leaving the low-value Quezon property
as the only share of defendant Arya in their parents estates;

[d] when defendant Arya stepped down from public office, he decided
to start private life by consolidating his financial resources; in the course of an
inventory of his properties, discovered that the Owners Duplicate Titles of the
Quezon property apportioned to him were merely photocopies; whereupon he
made an assiduous search which ended in the discovery that all said
properties had previously been mortgaged by their late parents and had in
fact been long foreclosed; upon further inquiry, defendant discovered that
plaintiffs had long known said fact;
 [e] stunned by the foregoing discovery, but unwilling to confront
plaintiffs by reason of long-standing familial traditions of respect for elders
and compassion for younger siblings, defendant Arya opted to prioritize
redemption in lieu of remonstrance;

[f] eventually, defendant Arya redeemed the properties; the owners

duplicates were turned over to him.

CLEAR from the foregoing recitals is the fact that from the dates their parents
passed away, and at times material to this case, the ownership of the properties sued
upon were no longer disputable, having been acquired by defendant from a mortgagee
in a proper redemption.

[g] the foregoing demonstrates that defendant Arya.in fact

and in law---is the sole beneficial owner of the redeemed properties.

III. Counterclaims

1. For falsely claiming that certain documents are forged, and inspite of the
facts that they are the authors thereof;

2. For causing defendant to suffer deep anxieties, social embarrassments

and sleepless nights;

3. For perjury; and

4. For actual damages inflicted upon defendant ARYA STARK

PLAINTIFFS should be condemned to pay moral, exemplary and actual

damages in an amount not less than P2,000,000.00 ; and

5. Constrained to disburse funds to defend himself against improper,

unlawful and devious blackmail, plaintiffs should be ordered to reimburse
attorneys charges, namely: P200,000.00 as acceptance fee; P5,000.00
for each appearance of attorney until the termination hereof and
P150,000.00 for other legal costs and expenses.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:

1. The above-numbered case be dismissed;

2. Plaintiffs be ordered to pay defendant ARYA STARK punitive, moral and

compensatory and damages in the amount of P2,000,000.00;
 3. The court declare AD Ventures as the lawful owner of the land.

WHEREFORE, considering the precipitate filing of this case, defendant

respectfully moves for the dismissal of the complaint.
Defendant further prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises.

Makati City, 10 April 2017.

PETER BAELISH
Counsel for the Defendant/s
Roll of Attorneys No. 57359
IBP No. 810801/01-09 10/RSM
MCLE Compliance number (N/A)
Compliance period up to April 2017 per
MCLE Governing Board No. 1, s. 2016

VERIFICATION

I, ARYA STARK, after being sworn in accordance with law, depose and say: that I
am the defendant in the above-entitled case; that I have caused the above Answer to be
prepared and I have read and know the contents thereof and the allegation therein are
true of my personal knowledge

ARYA STARK

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me in Makati City, this 16 th day of April

2017 by ARYA STARK with HDMF Transaction Card No. 1040-0021-5864 issued at
Makati City on October 11, 2016.

Atty. Joseph Zamoras

Notary Public
My Commission Expires Dec.31,2019
Roll of Attorney No. 164502
IBP No. 56788/3-5-13/Manila
PTR No.82731/10-11-11/Manila

Copy Furnished:

JON SNOW
Counsel for the Plaintiff
913 Riosa St. Quezon City, Philippines