Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Pasig City
Branch 167

AAA
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. R-PSG-18-00870 CV
For: “Recovery of Possession with
-versus-
Damages”

BBB
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------x

ANSWER1 AD CAUTELAM
WITH COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANTS BBB, through counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully state THAT:

ADMISSIONS/DENIALS

1. Defendants ADMIT the allegations contained in paragraph 1

of the Complaint insofar as the personal circumstances of the plaintiff
are concerned.

2. Defendants ADMIT the allegations contained in paragraph 2

of the Complaint insofar as the representations of Ms. Aleli S. Mero
are concerned.

3. Defendants ADMIT the allegations contained in paragraph 3

of the Complaint insofar as the personal circumstances of defendants
FERDINAND MATA, LOURDES ROSARIO, REGINALDO
1
On 24 May 2018, defendants, through Mr. Larry Arao, received a copy of the Summons and the
Complaint requiring herein defendants to file their answer within fifteen (15) days after service. Thus,
defendants had until June 08, 2018 to file their answer. On June 08, 2018, herein defendants filed an Urgent
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, praying for another fifteen (15) days, or until June 23, 2018,
within which to submit their Answer. However, considering that the services of the undersigned counsel
had just engaged by the herein defendants on June 18, 2018, the undersigned is constrained to file for a
Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer praying for another additional fifteen (15) days from
June 23, 2018, or until July 08, 2018, within which to submit the defendants’ answer.

1
JACINTO, WILFREDO OCTO, ELVIE PADILLA, TERESA JACINTO,
FELICISIMO NARTEA, LIWAYWAY PADRIQUE, HERMALYN
PAGAYON, MARYROSE JACINTO, GEMMA BELTRAN,
EDUARDO CALMA, PRISCILLA CALMA, ALVIN CALMA,
MARILYN CALMA, MYRA ZAPANTA, ROGER OCAYO AND
IRMA VIDAL are concerned. The rest of the allegations are being
denied for being ERRONEOUS, MERE SPECULATIONS and lack of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity
thereof. The correct name of the other defendants are MELANIE
ORONGAN, RICKY MONEDA, JOEL SACULO, MARY ANN
BALLATAN, GEORGE DELA PENA, LARINY ARAO, PETER JOHN
RICAFRENTE, ELIODORO BAUTISTA, MARK MARTELLE
JACINTO, JOSEFA MELGAR, JEOFFREY BAIGAS, GERRY CALMA
AND APOLINARIO BAYALAS.

4. Defendants’ DENIES paragraph 4 of the Complaint for lack

of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity
thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to the
plaintiff. The truth being that stated in the affirmative and special
defenses.

5. Defendants’ DENIES paragraph 5 of the Complaint for lack

of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity
thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to the
plaintiff. The truth being that stated in the affirmative and special
defences;

6. The allegations in paragraph 6 and 7 are denied as the same

is an erroneous conclusion made by the Plaintiff, the truth being that
stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

7. Defendants vehemently and categorically DENIES the

allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint insofar as it
states that defendants have remained in illegal possession of the real
property and, up to the present, still retain such possession thereof,
for being mere presumptions of law and for being utterly FALSE. The
truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defences;

8. Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of

the Complaint insofar as to the existence of the Declaration of Real
Property is concerned, subject however to the affirmative and special
defenses stated hereunder;

9. Defendant vehemently and categorically DENIES the

allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint for being

2
FALSE. The truth being that stated in the affirmative and special
defenses.

10.Defendants vehemently and specifically DENIES the

allegations contained in paragraph 11 and 12 of the Complaint for
being FALSE, the truth of the matter being that herein defendants did
NOT receive any demand letter from the plaintiff or its
agents/representatives;

11.The allegation in paragraph 13 is denied as the same is an

erroneous conclusion made by the Plaintiff. The rest of the allegations
are also DENIED subject to the defenses contained in the succeeding
paragraphs.

AFFIRMATIVE AND
SPECIAL DEFENSES

Defendants replead herein by reference all of the foregoing

allegations and by way of affirmative and special defenses, aver the
following:

12. The Complaint filed by the Plaintiff is nothing but a

malicious lawsuit calculated to harass the Defendants, not to mention
the procedural infirmities intentionally adopted by the plaintiff to
impress the Honorable Court and the inexistence of cause of action,
thereby rendering it dismissible outright;

At the outset, the condition

precedent for filing the claim was
not complied with by the plaintiff

13. The Local Government Code of 1991 expressly requires the

parties to undergo a conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman
or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing a complaint in court.
Section 412(a) of the Local Government Code states that:

“SECTION 412. Conciliation. (a) Pre-condition to

Filing of Complaint in Court. No complaint, petition, action,
or proceeding involving any matter within the authority
of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or
any other government office for adjudication, unless there
has been a confrontation between the parties before the
lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation
or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon

3
 or pangkat secretary and attested to by the lupon or
pangkat chairman.”

14. Under Section 1(j) of Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court

provides that the civil complaint may be dismissed if a condition
precedent to the filing of an action is not complied with. Thus, failure
to undergo the barangay conciliation proceedings is non-compliance
of a condition precedent;

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Royales vs IAC,2 held that a
case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay
Conciliation which is a pre-condition for formal adjudication may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendants, not for lack of jurisdiction
of the court but for insufficiency of the cause of action or
prematurity;

16. In this case, contrary to the allegations of the plaintiff, there

was no earnest effort to resolve the case before the Sangguniang
Barangay of Santolan. The Katibayan Upang Makadulog sa
Hukuman attached as ANNEX “F” by the plaintiff discloses that
ONLY defendant EDUARDO CALMA/PRISCILLA CALMA
allegedly called and attended for a conciliation at Barangay Santolan.
The list of names appended by the plaintiff as ANNEX “E” are self-
serving as there is no proof showing that these names are a
continuation of the Katibayan Upang Makadulog sa Hukuman that
was issued and signed by the authorized signatories. In fact, the list
of names offered by the plaintiff contained an inexistent persons not
to mention the erroneous names indicated therein. If indeed, these
named defendants attended the conciliation, their true and complete
names could have had been gathered and written correctly at the
Barangay Hall of Santolan;

17. Assuming arguendo that the list of names were attached as

a continuation of the Katibayan Upang Makadulog sa Hukuman, a
perusal of the names reveals that only defendant ROGER OCAYO,
GERRY CALMA, ELIODORO BAUTISTA, GEMMA BELTRAN,
MARILYN CALMA AND IRMA VIDAL appears to be the true and
correct names included therein;

18. Thus, even without delving into the merits of the case, the
Complaint must necessarily be dismissed pursuant to the above-cited
law and jurisprudence.

The averments in the Complaint

2
127 SCRA 470

4
presented a jurisdictional facts of
an unlawful detainer case

19. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law

which may be either the Constitution or a statute and determined by
the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement
of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s causes of action. The
nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction
over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the
complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claim asserted therein.
The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the
complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted therein.3

20. Here, a plain and simple reading of the Complaint averred

the following:

4. Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located at

197 M. de Leon St., (West), Santolan, Pasig City and more
particularly described as follows: xxx

6. Sometime in 2015, defendants EDUARDO

CALMA, PRISCILLA CALMA, ALVIN CALMA, JERRY
CALMA, ALFONSO CALMA, MARILYN CALMA,
CHRISTOPHER RICAFRENTE, PETER RICAFRENTE,
MYRA ZAPANTA, ROGER OCAYO, JOSIE
GAMBALANGA and APOLINARIO BAYALES, through
strategy and stealth deprived plaintiff from the
possession of the real property and constructed their
houses thereon without the consent of the owner.

7. In March 2016, another set of illegal occupants,

the defendants, MELANIE RAMONES, FERDINAND
MATA, RICKY MONENA, JACINTO MARTELLE,
LOURDES ROSARIO, REGINALDO JACINTO, JOEL
CAUYO, GIL BALLATAN, WILFREDO OCTO, ELVIE
PADILLA, JOSEFA MALGAR, LIWAYWAY APORRO,
TERESA JACINTO, FELICISIMO NARTEA, JUN
SORIANO, LIWAYWAY PADRIQUE, HERMALYN
PAGAYON, JORGE DELA PENA, JEOFFREY BALGAS,
MARYROSE JACINTO, RAMIL ALFARO, GEMMA
BELTRAN, ALEX BALLATAN, LARRY ARAO,
3
City of Dumaguete vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011

5
 FELICISIMO MARTIN, ELIDORO BAUTISTA, IRMA
VIDAL and RAMIL OLCAYAO, through strategy and
stealth unlawfully withheld from plaintiff the possession
of the real property and constructed their houses without
her consent;

11. On February 19, 2018, plaintiff, through counsel,

sent a FINAL DEMAND TO VACATE AND PAY to the
first set of illegal occupants, defendants EDUARDO
CALMA, PRISCILLA CALMA, ALVIN CALMA, JERRY
CALMA, ALFONSO CALMA, MARILYN CALMA,
CHRISTOPHER RICAFRENTE, PETER RICAFRENTE,
MYRA ZAPANTA, ROGER OCAYO, JOSIE
GAMBALANGA and APOLINARIO BAYALES. Despite
receipt of the demand letter, the defendants still refused
to vacate the property. xxx

12. On even date of February 19, 2018, plaintiff,

through counsel, sent a FINAL DEMAND TO VACATE
AND PAY to the second set of illegal occupants,
defendants MELANIE RAMONES, FERDINAND MATA,
RICKY MONENA, JACINTO MARTELLE, LOURDES
ROSARIO, REGINALDO JACINTO, JOEL CAUYO, GIL
BALLATAN, WILFREDO OCTO, ELVIE PADILLA,
JOSEFA MALGAR, LIWAYWAY APORRO, TERESA
JACINTO, FELICISIMO NARTEA, JUN SORIANO,
LIWAYWAY PADRIQUE, HERMALYN PAGAYON,
JORGE DELA PENA, JEOFFREY BALGAS, MARYROSE
JACINTO, RAMIL ALFARO, GEMMA BELTRAN, ALEX
BALLATAN, LARRY ARAO, FELICISIMO MARTIN,
ELIDORO BAUTISTA, IRMA VIDAL and RAMIL
OLCAYAO. Despite receipt of the demand letter, the
defendants still refused to vacate the property. xxx

21. After a painstaking review of the Complaint, it is apparent

from the above allegations that the Plaintiff was already the owner of
the parcel of land located at 197 M. de Leon St. (West), Santolan,
Pasig City when the defendants, through strategy and stealth
unlawfully withheld from plaintiff the possession of the real property
and constructed their houses on the disputed lot without her
permission or consent. That despite formal demand, defendants
refused to vacate the property;

22. It is likewise clear on the face of the Complaint that at the

time of the filing of this case on April 18, 2018, the defendants were in
possession of the premises. Therefore, when the plaintiff’s counsel
6
sent a written Final Demand and Pay on February 19, 2018, requiring
defendants to vacate the premises, the one (1) year period after the
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession has not yet set in
when this action was brought;

23. Undeniably, the averments in the plaintiff’s complaint

present a jurisdictional facts which do not illustrate plaintiff’s action
as either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria but that of forcible
entry or unlawful detainer. Hence, it is evident that this is an
ejectment case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Court;

24. The Supreme Court in the case of Bernabe vs Luna,4

explained the effect of a defective allegations in the complaint for
recovery of possession, which reads to wit:

“Consequently, the possession of private

respondent over the lot in question became illegal only on
November 14, 1980, when the formal demand to pay and
vacate the premises was sent to him. The case is clearly
one of illegal detainer which must be filed within one
year from the date of the last demand. When the
complaint against the private respondent was filed on
February 19, 1981, the one year period had not yet lapsed.
Such being the case the court a quo did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case and the proper action should
have been one of Unlawful Detainer which necessarily
falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
City Court.”

25. Thus, from the allegations of the complaint, the case is

squarely one of unlawful detainer, warranting its outright dismissal
in view of the fact that the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter.

The names indicated in the

Demand Letter contained an
erroneous and/or inexistent
person residing in the property
in dispute

26. The Demand Letter paraded by the plaintiff does not in any
manner support its claim that the same were properly received by the
persons listed therein. After perusing the Demand Letter, the glaring

4
G.R. No. L-57645, February 27, 1987

7
infirmities are very apparent to the extent that it even contained an
inexistent persons allegedly residing in the premises not to mention
the erroneous named appeared on the list;

27.The plaintiff impressed by her desire of complying with the

issuance of Demand Letter to the defendants, strongly offered that
the same was received by the persons named therein. However, it
appears from the record that Alfonso Calma, Christopher Ricafrente,
Josie Gambalanga, Jun Soriano, Ramil Alfaro, Alex Ballatan and
Liwayway Aporro received the Demand Letter personally, by tenant
or through posting at the door notwithstanding of their inexistence in
the said premises. How could the above-mentioned named
individuals receive the Demand Letter when they do not exist to be
residing on the property in dispute?

28. At the risk of being repetitive, if indeed, the alleged

conciliation proceedings had undertaken at the Barangay of Santolan,
the names of herein defendants could have had been gathered and
correctly appeared in the Demand Letter;

29. It boils down to a very simple conclusion that this Demand

Letter was a mere scrap of paper which cannot therefore be given
credence to support the plaintiff’s cause of action in view of the
foregoing irregularities and its fatal defects.
The plaintiff claims a parcel of
land contrary to the location
stated in the Declaration of
Real Property of the Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
0095

30. It can be surmised from the Complaint that the plaintiff

claims ownership over a parcel of land located at 197 M. de Leon St.
(West), Santolan, Pasig City. Paragraph 4 of her Complaint reads to
wit:

”4. Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located

at 197 M. de Leon St., (West), Santolan, Pasig City and
more particularly described as follows:

A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 1 of the Proposed

Subdivision Plan PSU-178057, L.R Case No. N-8609 L.R.C.
Record No. E. 16417), situated in the Barrio of Santolan,
Municipality (Now) City of Pasig, Metro Manila, Island of
Luzon.

8
 Bounded on the SE.; Along lines 1-2-3 by property of
Eufracia Pasco; On the SW.; along line 3-4 by Marikina
River, On the NW., along lines 4-5 by Lot 2 of the
Proposed Subdivision Plan and on the NE., along line 5-1
by Property of Primitivo Espiritu.

Beginning at a point marked “1” on Plan Being S 45-08’

W., 2,305.47 M. from BLLM No. 1, MP of Marikina;

THENCE:

S 75 – 27’W., 168.08 M. to Pt. -2

S 75 – 27’W., 17.00 M. to Pt. -3
N 11 – 16’W., 23.89 M. to Pt. -4
N 77 – 48’E., 186.77 M. to Pt. -5
N 4 – 23’E., 16.44 M. to Pt. of

Beginning; Containing an area of THREE THOUSAND

SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT (3,728) Sq. M. more
or less. All Boundary Corners are indicated on the ground
by Old PS Cyl. Conc. Mons 15 x 60 CM. Bearings True.;
Date of Original Survey, October 3, 1959.
31. However, the Declaration of Real Property5 of the Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0095 shows that the property allegedly
owned by the plaintiff was located at Int. Evangelista St., Santolan,
Pasig City, Metro Manila. Its location was demonstrated in the Plan
of Land As Surveyed for Olimpio Reyes & Doroteo De Leon 6 upon
which the OCT No. 0095 was adopted or transcribed, the Property
Identification Map7 approved by the Assessor’s Office of Pasig City
and the Google Map;8

32. The foregoing documentary evidences attested the patent

contradiction of the location of the property claimed by the plaintiff
in her Complaint. To enlighten the plaintiff, the 197 M. de Leon Street
claimed by her as the location of her property is distinct and separate
streets or direction from that of Evangelista Street specified in the
Declaration of Real Property;

33. At this juncture, assuming arguendo that the case filed by

the plaintiff is one for accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, the

5
A clear copy of the Declaration of Real Property attached as Annex “D” in the Plaintiff’s Complaint is
hereto attached as ANNEX “1”.
6
A copy of the Plan of Land as Surveyed for Olimpio Reyes & Doroteo De Leon is hereto attached as
ANNEX “2”.
7
A copy of the Property Identification Map is hereto attached as ANNEX “3”.
8
A copy of the Google Map is hereto attached as ANNEX “4”.

9
provisions of Article 434 of the New Civil Code expressly provides
that:

“Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must

be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength
of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s
claim”.

34. The Supreme Court in Hutchison vs Buscas,9 enunciated that

in an accion reivindicatoria, the person who claims that he has better
right to the property must first fix the identity of the land by
describing the location, area and boundaries thereof;

35. Nevertheless, the plaintiff in this case, presented evidence in

contravention with the location of the property alleged in her
complaint. She offers no collaborating evidence i.e. survey plan or
report or any proof to support her claim over the identity of the
property described in the allegations of her Complaint;

36.Thus, considering that the proof of identity of the contested

land was not in any manner align with the location alleged in the
plaintiff’s complaint, there exist no legal ground upon which to turn
over the possession of the property to her. Therefore, the plaintiff has
no cause of action against the defendants or at the very least, the
allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint stated no cause of action that
would warrant its outright dismissal.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants replead herein by reference all of the foregoing

allegations;

37. In filing this manifestly malicious, unfounded and baseless

suit, defendants experienced besmirched reputation for which the
plaintiff should be held liable to pay each of them moral damages in
the amount of at least FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00);

38. Plaintiff acted recklessly and malevolently when it

maliciously filed and prosecuted this clearly unfounded and baseless
suit against defendants for which, by way of example and correction
for the public good, plaintiff must be ordered to pay defendants
exemplary damages in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 30,000.00);

9
G.R. No. 158554, May 26, 2005

10
 39. Due to Plaintiff’s malicious filing and prosecution of this
unfounded and baseless suit, defendants was compelled to engage
the services of the undersigned counsel for a fee of at least ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00) plus a fee of
THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php3,000.00) per court appearance or
meeting and incurred expenses in the amount of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php20,000.00) for all of which Plaintiff must be
ordered to pay defendants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein defendants

respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that, after hearing,
judgment be rendered DISMISSING the Complaint and
ORDERING Plaintiff to pay defendants the following:

a) Moral damages in the amount of at least FIFTY THOUSAND

PESOS (Php 50,000.00) each;

b) Exemplary damages in the amount of at least THIRTY

THOUSAND PESOS (Php 30,000.00);

c) Attorney’s fees of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php

100,000.00) plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,000.00) per
court appearance and expenses of litigation in the amount of at
least TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20,000.00).

Defendants further pray for such other reliefs as the Honorable

Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Baggao, Cagayan for Pasig City; July 6, 2018.

By:

Copy Furnished:

EXPLANATION

11
 A copy of this pleading was served via registered mail, instead
of personal service, on the adverse counsel due to distance and lack
of messengerial personnel.

12