Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Catarman, Northern Samar

Mr. Ronil O. Litan, Plaintiff, -versusMs. Lyka Mae Randa Defendant, -----------------------------------/

Civil Case No. 1234 Unlawful Detainer

ANSWER DEFENDANT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers: I Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are admitted; II Paragraph 2 is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief thereof. The allegations are purely baseless. Defendant is made to vacate a property covered by TCT No. 12023 issued in her name on January 5, 2013 by the Catarman Register of Deeds, therefore she is denying liability based on the complaint, the truth being as stated in the Affirmative defenses.


THE CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH; All disputes are subject to barangay conciliation pursuant to Revised Katarungang Pambaranggay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Sections 399-422, Chapter VII, Title 1, Book III, and Section 515, Title 1, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government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 government agency (Par. 1, Supreme Court Administrative Circular 14-93). A careful perusal of the complaint and its evidence would show that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the conciliation proceedings. There is no allegation in the complaint that referral was made to the

Katarungang Pambaranggay, or an explanation that referral thereto is excepted under the given circumstance. In the words of the Supreme Court: The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D. 1508 (now Local Government Code of 1991, Sec. 412) where applicable is much the same effect produced by nonexhaustion of administrative remedies; the complaint

becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity, the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. (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 comply with the conciliation proceedings, the Supreme Court said: Referral to the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat should be made prior to the filing of the ejectment case under PD 1508. Legal action for ejectment is barred when 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 Fernando Vinzons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111915. September 30, 1999). By reason thereof, the case should be dismissed for pre-maturity. COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION; 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 latters last will and testament, and thus, defendant has no right to possess the said property. On December 25, 2010, Don Facundo, father of the plaintiff, executed his last will and testament bequeathing his property located in Brgy. Dalakit, Catarman, Northern Samar to his only son, Ronil. On January 2, 2013, Don Facundo approached the defendant and sold her the aforementioned property. After delivery of said property, defendant immediately occupied it and caused its registration in the Register of Deeds of Catarman on which she was issued TCT No. 12023, dated January 5, 2013. On January 6, 2013, Don Facundo died without the will having probated. The following day, Plaintiff, relying on his deceased fathers last will and testament, went to the defendant, ordering her to vacate the property, asserting that he is now the lawful owner of the property by succession. Defendant 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 Heirs of Jose Maligaso, Sr. v. Sps. Encinas, G. R. No. 182716, The Supreme Court, in upholding the holder of a Torrens Title, said: when *a+ property is registered under the Torrens system, the registered owners title to the property is presumed and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially

in a mere action for unlawful detainer. In this particular action where petitioners alleged ownership cannot be established, coupled with the presumption that respondents title to the property is legal, then the lower courts are correct in ruling that respondents are the ones entitled to possession of the subject premises . (emphasis ours) As regards to plaintiffs 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. Unless it is proven that the defendant has no right and is not entitled to possess the questioned property, there would be no cause of action to be considered. Defendants Counterclaim: By reason of Plaintiffs 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 compensated in an amount of no less than Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00). As an example for public good, Plaintiff is ought to be penalized by way of Exemplary 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 and maliciously drag them to litigation. 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) per counsels appearance.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered, dismissing the complaint, and ordering the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral Damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as and by way of Exemplary Damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) or more, as and by way of attorneys fees. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. Catarman, Northern Samar, September 19, 2013.

KEENA D. CAIMOL Counsel for the Defendant Roll. No. 12345 IBP No. 6789 PTR No. 0123 Laoang, Northern Samar MCLE Compliance No. I-4567 MCLE Compliance No. II-890

PROOF OF SERVICE 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 effect personal service.

KEENA D. CAIMOL Copy furnished: Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan Rosario, Northern Samar


I, MS. LYKA MAE RANDA, of legal age, Filipino, and resident of Brgy. Rizal, Catarman, Northern Samar, after having been duly sworn in accordance to law, depose and say: 1. I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I 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 personal knowledge and authentic records; 3. I 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 should there be any other action or proceeding involving the same issues, I shall undertake to inform the Honorable Court within five (5) days from notice thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this 21st day of September 2013, at Catarman, Northern Samar.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of September 2013, at Catarman, Northern Samar, affiant showing to me her Passport No. 123456 and known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Verification/Certification.