Republic of the Philippines

Eleventh Judicial Region

2ND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
OF MALUNGON-ALABEL
Alabel, Sarangani Province

ANNABELLE T. ORTEGA, CIVIL CASE NO. 17-120

Plaintiff,
-for-
-versus-
FORCIBLE ENTRY, DAMAGES,
PACIFICO M. LICERA and ATTORNEY’S FEES WITH PRAYER
REY LICERA alias TOTO, FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
Defendants. MANDATORY AND WRIT OF PRE-
LIMINARY MANDATORY AND PRO-
HIBITORY INJUNCTION
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

AMENDED ANSWER

COME NOW Defendants Pacifico M. Licera and Rey Licera,

through counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office, and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully state that:

1. Defendants received the Order on March 23, 2018 requiring them

to file their Amended Answer to the Amended Complaint;

2. Defendant Pacifico M. Licera is of legal age, married (hereinafter

referred to as Pacifico for brevity) while defendant Rey Licera is also
of legal age, married (hereinafter referred to as Rey for brevity),
both are residents of Kityan Gamay, Malungon, Sarangani Province
where they can be served with summons and other judicial
processes;

3. Defendants deny paragraph 1 of the complaint for want of

knowledge as to the personal circumstances of the plaintiff;

-Page 1 of 8-
 Cont/answer/licera…..Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Defendants admit paragraph 2 of the complaint;

5. Defendants deny paragraph 3 of the complaint as the truth is that

they did not enter the land in an unlawful manner;

6. Defendants admit paragraph 4 of the complaint;

7. Defendants deny paragraph 5 of the complaint as the truth is that

they did not obtain an additional loan of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) but said amount reflected in the
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was the total amount of loan obtained
by Pacifico;

8. Defendants deny paragraph 6 of the complaint as the truth is that

Pacifico does not own 3 hectares of land but only 1.5 hectares;

9. Defendants further deny the remaining paragraphs of the complaint

for being false;

By way of special and affirmative defenses, defendants

aver that:

10. Pacifico is among the beneficiaries of Department of Agrarian

Reform (DAR) and was awarded a parcel of agricultural land
situated in Poblacion, Malungon, Sarangani Province containing an
area of 1.5 hectares, more or less, as his share. Attached is a
machine copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2144 marked
as Annex “1” to “1-E” and Subdivision Plan of Lot 679 Pls-219 as
Surveyed for Roberto V. Ricoperto, et. al. as Annex “2” and made
an integral part of this pleading;

11. On June 26, 2006 Pacifico mortgaged one (1) hectare of the

-Page 2 of 8-
 Cont/answer/licera…..Page 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

above-mentioned 1.5 hectares property to Anabelle Ortega

(hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) as security for a loan in the
amount of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) to be paid after five
years or on June 26, 2011;

12. On January 14, 2011, while the loan was not yet paid, Pacifico
asked for an additional loan in the amount of Seventy Thousand
Pesos (P70, 000.00) with the remaining .5 hectares as security.
Hence, the total amount of loan was One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P150,000.00) with the 1.5 hectares of land used as security;

13. On April 05, 2011 Pacifico and plaintiff agreed that the whole
amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (150,000.00) will be
embodied in one document so that the terms of the contract state
that the mortgage has a period of five years or from April 05, 2011
(not January 14, 2011, the date Pacifico received the amount of
P70,000.00 additional loan from plaintiff) to April 05, 2016. The
two (2) loans previously obtained by Pacifico on June 26,
2006 and January 14, 2011 executed in two (2) separate
instruments were merely consolidated in one (1)
instrument on April 05, 2011. (Emphasis supplied) All of these
instruments were executed in the presence of Barangay Officials
who also corroborated that the defendants only obtained One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150, 000.00) and 1.5 hectare land
as a security. Attached herein is the Certification issued by the Office
of the Punong Barangay as Annex “3”;

14. On May 03, 2016 Rey went to the house of plaintiff in order to
pay the loaned money in the total amount of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) but Rey was surprised upon being
told by plaintiff that the total amount of loan was Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) and not One Hundred Fifty
(P150,000.00);

-Page 3 of 8-
 Cont/answer/licera…..Page 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Due to plaintiff’s baseless insistence that the total loan was Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos, Pacifico and Rey lodged the matter
before the barangay office. At the said office, plaintiff insisted that
the additional P150,000.00 is covered by security of the upgrade
portion of the land already mortgaged to her to which Pacifico
denied as the truth is that he has no other land except the 1.5
hectares awarded by the DAR which was already used as security
for the P80,000.00 and P70,000.00 or a total of P150,000.00 loan;

16. Defendants tendered the amount of P150,000.00 to plaintiff but

the latter would not accept the same so that defendants decided to
deposit the money with the barangay but the latter refused to
accept it;

“In contracts of loan, the debtor is expected to deliver

the sum of money due the creditor. These provisions must
be read in relation with the other rules on payment under
the Civil Code, which rules impliedly require acceptance by
the creditor of the payment in order to extinguish an
obligation.” (MANUEL GO CINCO and ARACELI S. GO CINCO vs
COURT OF APPEALS, ESTER SERVACIO and MAASIN TRADERS
LENDING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 151903, October 9, 2009)
(Emphasis Supplied)

17. Defendants’ act of depositing the money with the Barangay is an

indication of their good faith and honest intention to settle the loan
with the plaintiff. But the creditor has the correlative duty to accept
the payment. Clearly, the plaintiff acted with bad faith and ill-motive
for unjustly refusing to accept the money and to execute the release
of the security. The plaintiff’s justifications for refusing the payment
were flimsy excuses so she could fraudulently made up that the loan
obtained by Pacifico was more than the amount due to him and so

-Page 4 of 6-
 Cont/answer/licera…..Page 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the plaintiff would not release the security.

18. Defendants sought the help of the Office of the Punong Barangay
regarding the conflict as they already want to till their own land but
to no avail because the plaintiff did not want to accept the money.
Since the Barangay Officials knew the fact that Pacifico’s loan was
in truth and in fact P150, 000.00 and not P300, 000, the Barangay
Captain, Ernesto Brillantes Alegario, and Barangay Kagawad,
Ernesto Loreno Alegario, Sr., decided to allow the defendants to till
the land. Attached herein is the Certification issued by the Office of
the Punong Barangay as Annex “4”.

19. Defendants as contrary to the allegations of the plaintiff, did not

and never unlawfully nor feloniously cut down, stole, and harvested
the sugarcane belonging to the plaintiff. Sometime on July 2016
when the defendants and his family tilled their own land, as
evidenced by the Complaint made by Norley G. Ortega before the
Office of Lupong Tagapamayapa as Annex “5”, there were no
more sugarcane planted on the land as they were already harvested
by the plaintiff. It should be noted that the harvest period for
sugarcane is every May of the year. That very period is the time
when herein defendants tender the money but herein plaintiff
unjustifiably refused to accept the same. In other words, the
allegations of herein plaintiff that the defendants stole and
harvested their sugarcane was all fabricated and only a product of
their wild-imagination.

20. It should also be taken to account that the said sugarcane were
all cut down and harvested by the plaintiff and can no longer be
regrown as it was already ten (10) years when it was last planted
sometime in the year 2006. If, assuming without admitting, that the
sugarcane were allowed by the plaintiffs to regrow, the plaintiff will
experience a huge experience a huge deficit as it would no longer
-Page 5 of 6-
 Cont/answer/licera…..Page 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

produce good sugarcanes in which all sugarcane farmers knew and

in which every sugarcane farmer would not put into consideration.

21. While it is true that plaintiff has prior physical possession

over the subject land but the plaintiff’s right ceased when
Pacifico tender the money for the payment of his loan but
failed only because the plaintiff unjustly refused to accept
such. In fact, upon depositing the money to the Office of
the Punong Barangay, the debtor (Pacifico) was released
from responsibility of the sum due. (Emphasis Supplied)

By way of counterclaim, defendants allege:

22. As a result of the baseless complaint filed by the plaintiff herein

defendants experienced sleepless nights, mental anguish and
serious anxiety to which they must be awarded the amount of
P50,000.00 as moral damages;

23. By way of example or correction for public good, plaintiff must

be made to pay defendants the amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages;

24. Fare and other litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.00.;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the complaint be dismissed and that plaintiff be ordered to pay defendants
the following:
1. The amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages;
2. The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

-Page 6 of 8-
 Cont/answer/licera…..Page 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The amount of P10,000.00 for fare and other litigation expenses.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Alabel, Sarangani Province, March 26, 2018.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Department of Justice
Sarangani District Office
Alabel, Sarangani Province

BY:

BAI ALEFHA HANNAH M. MUSA-ABUBACAR

Public Attorney I
Roll of Attorney No. 67366
MCLE Compliance New Lawyer
IBP OR No.
Email Add: paosarangani@gmail.com
09090154295
PTR Exempt

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

WE, PACIFICO M. LICERA AND REY LICERA, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That we have caused the preparation and filing of this Amended

Answer; have read and understood the same contents therein are
true and correct of our own knowledge and belief;
 -Page 7 of 8-
Cont/answer/licera…..Page 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. That we have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any

claim involving the same issue in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and, to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein;

3. That if we should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or

claim has been filed or pending, we shall report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 26th

day of March 2018 at Alabel, Sarangani Province.

PACIFICO M. LICERA REY LICERA

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of March

2018 at Alabel, Sarangani Province.

BAI ALEFHA HANNAH M. MUSA-ABUBACAR

EXPLANATION: Service of the foregoing Amended Answer to the

Counsel for the Plaintiff was made through registered mail due to distance,
manpower and time constraint.

BAI ALEFHA HANNAH M. MUSA-ABUBACAR

Cc:
Atty. Miguel D. Escobar
Block 5 Extension, Dadiangas Heights Subdivision
Brgy. City Heights,
General Santos City
-Page 8 of 8-