A N S W E R A N S W E R DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers:, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers: II
Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are admitted; Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are admitted;
II II Paragraph 2 is denied
Paragraph 2 is denied for lack of knowlfor lack of knowledge sufficient to form a edge sufficient to form a belief thereof. belief thereof. The allegationsThe allegations are purely baseless.
are purely baseless. Defendant is made to vacate a property covered by TCT No. 12023 issDefendant is made to vacate a property covered by TCT No. 12023 issued in herued in her name on January 5, 2013 by the Catarman Register of Deeds, therefore she is denying liability based on name on January 5, 2013 by the Catarman Register of Deeds, therefore she is denying liability based on the complaint, the truth being as
the complaint, the truth being as stated in the Affirmative defenses.stated in the Affirmative defenses.
III III
AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEFENDANTS REPLEAD AND INCORPORATE THE AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEFENDANTS REPLEAD AND INCORPORATE THE FOREGOING AVERMENTS AND FURTHER ALLEGE:
FOREGOING AVERMENTS AND FURTHER ALLEGE:
THE CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED THE CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH;
WITH;
All disputes are subject to barangay conciliation pursuant to Revised Katarungang All disputes are subject to barangay conciliation pursuant to Revised Katarungang Pambaranggay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Sections 399-422, Chapter VII, Pambaranggay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Sections 399-422, Chapter VII, Title 1, Book III, and Section 515, Title 1, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Title 1, Book III, and Section 515, Title 1, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991) and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any Code of 1991) and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government agency
government agency(Par. 1, Supreme Court Administrative Circular 14-93).(Par. 1, Supreme Court Administrative Circular 14-93).
A careful perusal of the complaint and its evidence would show that Plaintiffs failed to comply A careful perusal of the complaint and its evidence would show that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the conciliation proceedings.
Katarungang Pambaranggay, or an explanation that referral thereto is excepted under the given Katarungang Pambaranggay, or an explanation that referral thereto is excepted under the given circumstance.
circumstance.
In the words of the Supreme Court: In the words of the Supreme Court:
“The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D. “The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D. 1508 (now Local Government Code of 1991, S
1508 (now Local Government Code of 1991, S ec. 412) where applicable is much the sameec. 412) where applicable is much the same effect produced by
effect produced by
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies; the complaint exhaustion of administrative remedies; the complaint
becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity, the controversy there alleged is not ripe becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity, the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination.”
for judicial determination.” (Garces v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 504)(Garces v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 504)..
In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in dismissing an ejectment case for failure to In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in dismissing an ejectment case for failure to comply with the conciliation proceedings, the Supreme Court
comply with the conciliation proceedings, the Supreme Court said:said:
“Referral to the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat should be made prior to the “Referral to the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat should be made prior to the filing of
filing of the the ejectment ejectment case case under under PD PD 1508. 1508. Legal Legal action for action for ejectment ejectment is is barred wbarred whenhen there is non-recourse to barangay court. The Complaint for unlawful detainer, docketed there is non-recourse to barangay court. The Complaint for unlawful detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 2137, should have been coursed first to the barangay court.” (Heirs of as Civil Case No. 2137, should have been coursed first to the barangay court.” (Heirs of Fernando Vinzons v. Court of Ap
Fernando Vinzons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111915. peals, G.R. No. 111915. September 30, 1999)September 30, 1999).. By reason thereof, the c
By reason thereof, the case should be dismissed for pre-maturity.ase should be dismissed for pre-maturity. COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION;
COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION;
As alleged in the complaint, petitioner has the right to possess the property in question because As alleged in the complaint, petitioner has the right to possess the property in question because
he inherited it from his father as indicated in the latter’s last will and testa
he inherited it from his father as indicated in the latter’s last will and testament, and thus, defendantment, and thus, defendant has no right to possess the said property.
has no right to possess the said property.
On December 25, 2010, Don Facundo, father of the plaintiff, executed his last will and testament On December 25, 2010, Don Facundo, father of the plaintiff, executed his last will and testament bequeathing his property located in Brgy. Dalakit, Catarman,
bequeathing his property located in Brgy. Dalakit, Catarman, Northern Samar to his only son, Ronil.Northern Samar to his only son, Ronil. On January 2, 2013, Don Facundo approached the defendant and sold her the aforementioned On January 2, 2013, Don Facundo approached the defendant and sold her the aforementioned property.
property. After delivery of said property, defendanAfter delivery of said property, defendant immediately occupied it ant immediately occupied it and caused its registrationd caused its registration in the Register of D
in the Register of D eeds of Catarman on which she was issued TCT No. 12023eeds of Catarman on which she was issued TCT No. 12023 , dated January 5, 2013., dated January 5, 2013. On January 6, 2013, D
On January 6, 2013, Don Facundo died withon Facundo died without the will hout the will having probated. aving probated. The following day,The following day,
Plaintiff, relying on his deceased father’s last will and testament, went to the d
Plaintiff, relying on his deceased father’s last will and testament, went to the defendant, ordering her toefendant, ordering her to vacate the property, asserting that he is now
vacate the property, asserting that he is now the lawful owner of the property bthe lawful owner of the property by succession. y succession. DefendantDefendant did not oblige despite repeated demands to vacate, believing that she is the lawful owner of said did not oblige despite repeated demands to vacate, believing that she is the lawful owner of said property by virtue of the Torrens Title.
in a mere action for unlawful detainer.
in a mere action for unlawful detainer. In this particular action where petitioner’sIn this particular action where petitioner’s alleged ownership cannot be established, coupled with the presumption that alleged ownership cannot be established, coupled with the presumption that respondents’ title to the property
respondents’ title to the property is legal, then the lower courts are correct in rulingis legal, then the lower courts are correct in ruling that respondents are the ones entitled to possession of the subject premises that respondents are the ones entitled to possession of the subject premises.” .”
(emphasis ours) (emphasis ours)
As regards to plaintiff’s right to the property by succession, it is well settled that a last will and As regards to plaintiff’s right to the property by succession, it is well settled that a last will and
testament which was not probated has no effect, hence, no right can be claimed therein. testament which was not probated has no effect, hence, no right can be claimed therein.
Unless it is proven that the defendant has no right and is not entitled to possess the questioned Unless it is proven that the defendant has no right and is not entitled to possess the questioned property, there would be no c
property, there would be no cause of action to be considered.ause of action to be considered. Defendant
Defendant’s Counterclaim:’s Counterclaim:
By reason of Plaintiff’s unfounded and malicious suit against the Defendant, the latter suffered By reason of Plaintiff’s unfounded and malicious suit against the Defendant, the latter suffered
serious anxiety, mental anguish, social humiliation, and sleepless nights for which they ought to be serious anxiety, mental anguish, social humiliation, and sleepless nights for which they ought to be compensated in an amount of no less t
compensated in an amount of no less t han Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00).han Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00). As
As an an example example for for public public good, good, Plaintiff Plaintiff is is ought ought to bto be pe penalized enalized by by way way of of ExemplaryExemplary Damages in an amount of no less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to deter those who similarly Damages in an amount of no less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to deter those who similarly inclined to wantonly disrespect the rights of others
inclined to wantonly disrespect the rights of others and maliciously drag them to litigation.and maliciously drag them to litigation.
Defendant was constrained to engage the services of a counsel, for which she paid Twenty Five Defendant was constrained to engage the services of a counsel, for which she paid Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as acceptance fee and is bound to pay Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as acceptance fee and is bound to pay Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00)
per counsel’s appearance. per counsel’s appearance.
P R A Y E R P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be
judgment be rendered, rendered, dismissing the dismissing the complaint, and complaint, and ordering the ordering the Plaintiff to Plaintiff to pay to pay to the Defendant the Defendant SixSix Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral Damages, Fifty Thousand Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral Damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as
Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as and by way of and by way of Exemplary Damages, and Exemplary Damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Twenty Five Thousand PesosPesos
(P25,000.00) or more, as and by w
(P25,000.00) or more, as and by way of attorney’s fees.ay of attorney’s fees.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.circumstances are likewise prayed for. Catarman, Northern Samar, September 19, 2013.
Catarman, Northern Samar, September 19, 2013.
KEENA
KEENA D. D. CAIMOLCAIMOL
Counsel for the Defendant Counsel for the Defendant Roll. No. 12345
PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing MOTION has been served on Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan, counsel for I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing MOTION has been served on Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan, counsel for the Plaintiff, at his address in Rosario, Northern Samar, by registered mail for lack of office personnel to the Plaintiff, at his address in Rosario, Northern Samar, by registered mail for lack of office personnel to effect personal service.
effect personal service.
KEENA D. CAIMOL KEENA D. CAIMOL Copy furnished:
Copy furnished:
Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan Rosario, Northern Samar Rosario, Northern Samar
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION REPUBLIC
REPUBLIC OF OF THE THE PHILIPPINES PHILIPPINES )) PROVINCE OF NORTHERN SAMAR) S.S. PROVINCE OF NORTHERN SAMAR) S.S. MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPALITY OF OF CATARMAN CATARMAN ))
I,
I, MS. LYKA MAE RANDAMS. LYKA MAE RANDA, of legal age, Filipino, and resident of Brgy. Rizal, Catarman, Northern, of legal age, Filipino, and resident of Brgy. Rizal, Catarman, Northern Samar, after having been duly sworn
Samar, after having been duly sworn in accordance to law, depose and say:in accordance to law, depose and say: 1.
1. I am the Defendant in the I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;above-entitled case; 2.
2. I have caused the preparation and the filing of this verified Answer, and I have read andI have caused the preparation and the filing of this verified Answer, and I have read and understood the allegations contained therein, and that the same are true and correct based on my understood the allegations contained therein, and that the same are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and authentic records;
personal knowledge and authentic records;
3.
3. I further certify that I have not commenced any other action involving the same issuesI further certify that I have not commenced any other action involving the same issues before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in any other Tribunal or Quasi-judicial bodies, and before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in any other Tribunal or Quasi-judicial bodies, and should there be any other action o
should there be any other action o r proceeding involving the same issues, I shall undertake to r proceeding involving the same issues, I shall undertake to inform theinform the Honorable Court within five (5) days from notice thereof.
Honorable Court within five (5) days from notice thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this 21, I have hereunto set my hand, this 21stst day of September 2013, atday of September 2013, at Catarman, Northern Samar.
Catarman, Northern Samar.
MS. LYKA MAE RANDA MS. LYKA MAE RANDA
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21to before me this 21 day of September 2013, at Catarman, Northernday of September 2013, at Catarman, Northern Samar, affiant showing to me her Passport
Samar, affiant showing to me her Passport No. 123456 and known to me to be No. 123456 and known to me to be the same persons whothe same persons who executed the foregoing Verification/Certification.
executed the foregoing Verification/Certification.
ATTY. ROBERT C. CURATA ATTY. ROBERT C. CURATA Notary Public
