Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

Spouses A and B , plaintiffs

Civil Case

VS

For:

Spouses C and S , defendants

Specific performance and to fix period with damages

COMPLAINT

ANSWER

Cause of action: Alleged compromise


agreement between PLAINTIFFS and
DEFENDANTS in the Punong
Barangay; that plaintiffs will vacate
defendants real property registered in
defendant Cs name in consideration
of defendants giving them P50,000
financial assistance and a 10,000
square meters parcel of land.

ADMITTED only insofar as DEFENDANT C is


concerned. DEFENDANT S was not present at
the time and was unaware of the contents and
execution of the agreement.

REPLY

WITNESSES/ GIST OF
TESTIMONIES/PURPOSE OF THE
DOCUMENTS
WITNESS for the PLANTIFFS
WITNESS: A
GIST OF THE TESTIMONY
1. That he was a party to the
compromise agreement
entered into between the
plaintiffs and the defendants
before the Punong Barangay.
2. That they entered into such
compromise agreement
freely and voluntarily.
3. That they have left and
vacated the subject property.
4. That they received the
P50,000 financial assistance
from the defendants, but the
10,000 square meters parcel
of land was not conveyed
and transferred to them by
the defendants.
5. That despite repeated
demands by plaintiffs to the

defendants to convey and


transfer the subject property,
the defendants refused.
6. That there was no period fix
in the Agreement on when
will the subject property
should be conveyed and
transferred to them by the
defendants.
7. That the defendants failed to
repudiate the compromise
agreement within the
reglementary period.
8. That due to the noncompliance by the
defendants in their obligation
in the Agreement, they have
been constrained to take
legal actions and consult a
lawyer to which they promise
to pay P50,000 as attorneys
fees.
WITNESSES for the DEFENSE
WITNESS: C
GIST OF THE TESTIMONY
1. That he is the registered
owner of the parcel of land
over which the plaintiffs were
previously residing
2. That same is conjugal

Plaintiffs left and vacated said land


were paid a down payment initially of
P30,000 and later on fully paid.

DEFENDANTS admit the payment of P50,000


however, deny the allegation that plaintiffs left
and vacated their property

property with his wife S


3. That the previous occupation
thereof by the plaintiffs is by
mere tolerance of the
defendants
4. That the agreement was
reached before the barangay
regarding the said
occupation
5. That sometime after the
execution of the agreement,
plaintiffs returned to the
subject property and made
construction thereon;
6. That as a result thereof, the
defendant exerted force to
make the plaintiffs effectively
and permanently vacate the
subject property,
WITNESS: S
GIST OF TESTIMONY:
1. That the parcel of land
previously occupied by the
plaintiffs which was the
subject of the complaint filed
before the barangay is a
conjugal property with her
husband C
2. That the compromise
agreement regarding the
complaint filed by the
plaintiffs before the barangay
was without her consent as

Plaintiffs demanded for the


conveyance and transfer of the
10,000 square meters parcel of land,
but defendants refused.

DENIED for lack of material knowledge


sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
matter

Plaintiffs alleged that there is no


period fixed in the compromise
agreement as to when defendants will
convey and transfer the 10,000
square meters parcel of land, this
does not affect the validity of the
agreement.

DENY

her signature does not


appear thereon,
WITNESS: K
GIST OF TESTIMONY:
1. That he is a resident of the
parcel of land in front of the
parcel of land owned by the
defendants and previously
occupied by the plaintiffs;
2. That her personally know the
plaintiffs and defendants in
this case
3. That he witnessed the
plaintiffs removed their house
constructed over the
aforementioned parcel of
land
4. That, thereafter, he likewise
witnessed the plaintiffs return
to the said parcel of land and
make new constructions
thereon,
5. The he witnessed the
defendant C dismantle these
constructions
WITNESS K2:
GIST OF THE TESTIMONY:
1. That she is a resident of
Barangay SM,Puerto
Princesa City, particularly
residing near the parcel of
land owned by the
defendants;

2. That she personally knows


the plaintiffs and the
defendants in this case,
3. That she witnessed the
plaintiffs removed their house
constructed over the
aforementioned parcel of
land
4. That, thereafter, she likewise
witnessed the plaintiffs return
to the said parcel of land and
make new constructions
thereon.
The agreement was not repudiated by
the defendants in fact they have
partially complied by giving plaintiffs
the P50,000 financial assistance.

PARTLY ADMITTED with regards to the


payment of the amount of P50,000 while the
rest is denied. The agreement was repudiated
by the DEFENDANTS considering that the
plaintiffs did not effectively vacate their
property even after receiving the aforesaid
amount.

That on Nov 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed


before the Office of the Punong
Barangay, for compliance by the
defendants and to fix the period of
conveyance and transfer of the
10,000 square meters but the latter
disown said agreement.

DENY defendants are unaware of the action


filed before the Office of the Punong Barangay
and they were no personal confrontatiob
between them and plaintiffs.

DENIED. There was no


repudiation. Any party to the
dispute may within 10 days
from the date of the
settlement repudiate the
same by filing with the Lupon
Chariman a statement to that
effect sworn to before him,
where the consent is initiated
by fraud, violence or
intimidation. (Sec. 418, Local
Government Code)

That on Nov 10, 2014, the Office of


the Lupong Tagapamayapa issued a
Certification to File Action after
mediation failed.
By refusal of defendants to comply
with their obligation by virtue of a valid
and legal agreement, plaintiffs were
constrained to secure services of a
counsel for which they promise to pay
P50,000 as attorneys fee.
That plaintiffs ask for P50,000
exemplary damages for defendants
non-compliance of the terms and
conditions of the agreement which
they voluntarily and freely entered into
with the plaintiffs.
PRAYER, that defendants be ordered
to convey and transfer the 10,000
square meters and to fix a period as
to when the conveyance will be; that
defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs
P50,000 as exemplary damages and
P50,000 for attorneys fees and costs
and other equitable remedies.

DENY defendants are unaware of the action


filed before the Office of the Punong Barangay
and they were no personal confrontatiob
between them and plaintiffs.
DENY

DENY

AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS
1. That the case emanated from the
unlawful occupation of the plaintiffs of
a parcel of land registered in the
name of DEFENDANTS. As can be
gleaned from the complaint, the
plaintiff themselves acknowledge the

2.

3.

4.

5.

raison d etre of the agreement with


the DEFENDANTS
That the occupation of the plaintiffs of
the subject property is by mere
tolerance and generosity of the
DEFENDANTS. That for a long period
of time, the plaintiffs were allowed to
use and exploit the same free from
rentals and other fees. Sometime in
the year 2010, the DEFENDANTS
made known to the plaintiffs their
desire to utilize the subject property
thereby necessitating their evacuation
therefrom. However, the plaintiffs
refused to do so thus the
DEFENDANTS initiate the legal
process for eviction
When the matter was heard before
the barangay the same was not
signed by respondent S as she was
not present at that time.
In accordance with the agreement, C
gave the amount of P50,000 and
plaintiffs consequently removed their
house on the subject properties and
vacated the same. Regarding the
parcel of land in the same agreement,
C made an initial step for its
completion.
About a week after the plaintiffs
supposedly vacated the subject
property, respondents were surprise

when K, a resident of an adjacent


parcel of land of the property,
mentioned to them that the plaintiffs
are still in their property and have
even constructed a fence and a new
hut thereon.
6. On that same day, respondent C
together with his daughter and son-inlaw went to the subject property to
verify the statements of K. Upon
arrival, C saw B, together with several
persons inside the subject property.
He also saw the fence and the hut
indeed constructed therein.
7. A violent altercation subsequently took
place between the group of C and B.
The group of C made threats of legal
action but to no avail.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The respondents aver that plaintiffs
should not be allowed to enforce an
agreement which they, through their
own acts and declaration, have
expressly repudiated.
2. The plaintiffs never effectively vacated
the subject property. After the receipt
of the amount of P50,000 and pending
the transfer of parcel of land stated in
the agreement, they returned and
made structures on the subject
property.
3. Justice and equity dictates that the

plaintiffs should not be countenanced


by law by allowing the enforcement of
an agreement they themselves had
deliberately and maliciously failed to
comply with. The plaintiffs do not
deserve the compassion of our courts
of justice. As the proverbial saying
goes, (he who comes to court must
come with clean hands).
4. It is submitted that the enforcement of
the agreement should not be
sustained due to lack of consent of
respondents. A perusal of the said
agreement clearly shows the lack of
the same as her signature as glaringly
absent therein. The sole consent of C
is insufficient since entering into
compromise agreements require the
execution of a special power of
attorney which is not present at the
case at bar.
COUNTERCLAIMS
1. MORAL DAMAGES P50,000
2. ATTORNEYS FEES P30,000 and
COSTS.

DENIED. Defendants are not


entitled for a claim of moral
damages.
DENIED. Defendants are not
entitled to attorneys fees
and costs.