Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch 01
Pagadian City

SPOUSES FRANCISCO E.
CABRERA, JR. and PERLA
A. CABRERA,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE No. 2622

- Versus - - For -

MRS. VILLAFANNE G. BALLADARES UNLAWFUL DETAINER

and CHILDREN, namely, RONNIE AND DAMAGES
GABUAN BALLADARES and ROY
GABUAN BALLADARES,
Defendants.
x-------------------------/

ANSW ER
(In re: Summons, Received on
January 7, 2019)

The DEFENDANTS MRS. VILLAFANNE G. BALLADARES and children, namely,

RONNIE GABUAN BALLADARES and ROY GABUAN BALLADARES by counsel, unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully state:

I. ANSWER

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint are admitted.

2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Complaint are specifically denied for lack of

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 2 -
x==========/

thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to, and are within the
control only, of the plaintiffs.

3. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Complaint are also specifically denied, the

truth being those alleged in the special and affirmative defenses herein below set
forth.

4. Paragraphs double 8 (there is in the plaintiffs’ complaint two numbers 8),

9 and 10, respectively, of the Complaint are specifically denied for lack of basis,
both in law and in fact, the truth being those alleged in the special and affirmative
defenses herein below set forth.

5. Paragraph 11 of the complaint is admitted, insofar as the plaintiffs

referred the matter of the present controversy to the Punong Barangay of
Barangay Balangasan, Pagadian City, however, as to the rest of the allegations in
the same paragraph, the same are specifically denied, the truth being those
alleged in the special and affirmative defenses herein below set forth.

6. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the complaint are likewise specifically denied for

lack of basis, both in law and in fact, the truth being those alleged in the special
and affirmative defenses herein below set forth.

7. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the complaint are also specifically denied

for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity
or falsity of the alleged amounts of attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and per
court appearance agreed upon between the plaintiffs and their lawyer. The said
paragraph is likewise denied insofar as it alleges that the plaintiffs are entitled to
the alleged amount of exemplary damages, and that a case of unlawful detainer
exists against the defendants herein, the truth being those alleged in the special
and affirmative defenses herein below set forth.
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 3 -
x==========/

II. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

8. The late Roberto F. Cabrera, grandfather of herein plaintiff FRANCISCO E.

CABRERA, JR., during his lifetime, filed a cadastral answer over Lot No. 2311-PLS-
119, which was subsequently adjudicated to him on October 24, 1969. A machine
copy of the Certification to this effect, having been issued by Atty. Beverly O.
Travero, Clerk of Court V, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Ninth
Judicial Region, Multi-Sala Station, Pagadian City, is hereto attached and marked
as Annex “1”, to form as an integral part of this Answer.

A. Thereupon, Roberto F. Cabrera caused the survey of Lot No. 2311-

A, Pls-119, containing an area of 365 Square Meters, more or less, which was
adjudicated to him. The same was divided into two (2) lots, viz., Lot 2311-A-1 and
Lot 2311-A-2. A machine copy of a piece of document evidencing the same is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “2”, to form as an integral part of this
Answer.

B. This Lot 2311-A-1 was sold by Roberto F. Cabrera to a certain Ernesto R.

Nuevarez, as evidenced by the aforementioned Annex “2” hereof, and a machine
copy of a Receipt dated March 5, 1983 with further agreement on the execution
of the Absolute Deed of Sale (Portion), showing payments made by the buyer
Ernesto R. Nuevarez to the co-vendor Roberto F. Cabrera, being likewise hereto
attached and marked as Annex “3”, to form as an integral part hereof.

C. Lot 2311-A-2 remained with Roberto F. Cabrera, being then the owner
thereof, as may be shown by the aforementioned Annex “2” hereof. However, on
November 22, 1978, ROBERTO F. CABRERA and BABIER O. BALLADARES, husband
of defendant VILLAFANNE G. BALLADARES, and father of defendants RONNIE
GABUAN BALLADARES and ROY GABUAN BALLADARES, executed a contract
denominated as “LOT RENTAL OF A PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT”, renting and
occupying only an approximate area of 80 Square Meters, more or less, of a
portion of this Lot 2311-A-2, for a duration or term of two years renewable for
another term upon the expiration of the said contract, as evidenced by a machine
copy of LOT RENTAL OF A PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT, hereto attached and
marked as Annex “4”, to form as an integral part hereof, together with a machine
copy of a Letter dated March 4, 1983, which was made an integral part of said
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 4 -
x==========/

LOT RENTAL OF A PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT, being likewise hereto attached

and marked as Annex “4-A”, to form as an integral part of this Answer.

D. Under the said contract of lease (Annex “4” hereof), it was expressly
stipulated that the LESSEE shall construct his residential building on the leased
premises. Also in the same vein as embodied in the Letter dated March 4, 1983
(Annex “4-A” hereof), which was made an integral part of said LOT RENTAL OF A
PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT (Annex “4” hereof), it was duly noted therein that
“if the Lessee BABIER P. (sic.) BALLADARES is willing to buy at reasonable price the
portion subject of rental agreement xxxx, the lot Owner is also willing for
whatever legal intents or purposes that may serve in their favor without prejudice
to both parties.”

E. While said LESSEE religiously and continuously paid the corresponding

rentals every month over the leased premises, and in accordance with the terms
and condition of the said lease agreement (Annex “4” hereof), on November 25,
1978, the lessee began the construction of his residential building, pursuant to a
Proposed Residential Building of Babier O. Balladares, Assessment of Building with
recommendation for approval, covered by Building Permit No. 321 under
Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 7867816 X, machine copies of which are hereto
attached and marked as Annexes “5”, “5-A”, “6” and “6-A” to form as integral
parts hereof. The residential building was finally and actually completed on
December 20, 1978, as may be shown by a photocopy of a Certificate of
Completion, hereto attached and marked as Annex “7”, to form as an integral part
of this Answer. Other requirements, having been complied with, relative to the
construction and completion of the said building are likewise hereto attached and
marked, to form integral parts hereof, as follows:

1). A machine copy of the Certificate of Occupancy and Certificate of Final

Inspection dated June 30, 1980 under Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 7867815 X, as
Annexes “8” and “8-A;

2). A machine copy of the Completion of Construction under Official Receipt

(O.R.) No. 7273120 X, as Annexes “9” and “9-A;

3). A machine copy of the Fire Safety Inspection Certificate dated July 2,
1980, as Annex “10”;
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 5 -
x==========/

4). A machine copy of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance under Official

Receipt (O.R.) Nos. 3419086 V and 7273121 X, as Annexes “11”, “11-A and “11-B”;
and

5). A machine copy of the Application of Babier O. Balladares with the

Pagadian City Water District for water service connection to his said residential
building, dated December 4, 1978, under Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 1087-1088
therein indicated, as Annexes “12” and “12-A”.

9. The spouses BABIER O. BALLADARES and VILLAFANNE GABUAN-

BALLADARES, together with their children RONNIE GABUAN BALLADARES and ROY
GABUAN BALLADARES live in this Residential Building where defendant ROY
GABUAN BALLADARES was born on August 1, 1980 and grew up, and even as he
later got married, he continues to live in the same residential building with his
wife Lelibeth Pantorilla-Balladares and his mother, herein defendant VILLAFANNE
GABUAN-BALLADARES up to the present. BABIER O. BALLADARES continued to
live in same house until he died on March 10, 2018. Defendant RONNIE GABUAN
BALLADARES is no longer living at present in the said residential building as he has
already his own separate house where he lives with his wife now, his house being
just adjacent to said residential building and located in the same leased premises
which the plaintiffs claimed as a road right of way that caused them prejudice and
damage allegedly in their complaint. The truth of the matter is that, it is just a
proposed road right of way and no declaration to that effect has, as yet, been
made by our local government in Pagadian City through the City Engineering
Office.

10. With the demise of ROBERTO F. CABRERA and his wife Casilda V. Bucog-
Cabrera, they were survived by their children, namely, Francisco B. Cabrera
(father of herein plaintiff FRANCISCO E. CABRERA, JR.), Felix B. Cabrera, Celso B.
Cabrera, Carmen B. Cabrera and LUISA B. CABRERA who has been continuously
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 6 -
x==========/

receiving personally from the LESSEE BABIER O. BALLADARES payments of

monthly rental over the leased premises (subject matter of the case) under the
said lease agreement (Annex “4” hereof) and the said Letter dated March 4, 1983
(Annex “4-A” hereof).

11. By operation of law, as compulsory heirs, all the aforementioned

legitimate children of the late spouses ROBERTO F. CABRERA and his wife Casilda
V. Bucog-Cabrera, inherited the aforementioned Lot 2311-A-2, portion of which is
the 80-Square-Meter-area covered by the lease agreement denominated as LOT
RENTAL OF A PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT (Annex “4” hereof), and the Letter
dated March 4, 1983 (Annex “4-A” hereof), which was made an integral part of, or
incorporated to, said LOT RENTAL OF A PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT.

12. During this time or on or about the year 1990 or thereabouts, while the
lease agreement aforementioned continue to subsist, exist, survive and keep
going by the continuous payments of monthly rental by the lessee BABIER O.
BALLADARES, receipt of which were always expressly acknowledged by the co-
heir LUISA B. CABRERA, over the leased premises (subject matter of the case), a
co-heir FRANCISCO B. CABRERA, together with his wife Juanita P. Edullantes
went to the residential house of BABIER O. BALLADARES, purposely to transact
regarding the sale of Lot 2311-A-2 to the latter. While it may be a recognition on
the part of co-heir FRANCISCO B. CABRERA of the lessee’s right to exercise his pre-
emptive right to purchase the subject property, as embodied in the
aforementioned Letter dated March 4, 1983 (Annex “4-A” hereof), nevertheless,
as BABIER O. BALLADARES then was very much willing to buy the property, he
required the said spouses to produce the title to the property and that they
should also mutually agree on the price of the property subject matter of the
case. At that juncture, the said spouses promised to produce the title to the
property offered for sale and to return and confirm anew with BABIER O.
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 7 -
x==========/

BALLADARES with the price mutually agreeable to both of them. Unfortunately,

however, since then up to the demise of BABIER O. BALLADARES, the said spouses
never showed up. This particular transaction can be testified to and confirmed by
Jose O. Balladares (younger brother of the late BABIER O. BALLADARES) who,
being then present, was able to witness and observe the conversation between
said spouses and Babier O. Balladares. With his Sworn Judicial Affidavit to be
marked, among others, at the appropriate time in connection to this case, Jose O.
Balladares will be presented as one of the witnesses for all defendants herein.

13. Said compulsory heirs, as now common owners, caused the entire Lot
2311-A-2 to be transferred to them and thus obtained title thereto under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-10,096 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of
Pagadian, duly registered in their names, and containing an area of NINETY EIGHT
(98) SQUARE METERS. A machine copy of said Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. T-10,096 is hereto attached and marked as Annex “13” for the first page and
Annex “13-A” for the second page, to form as integral parts of this Answer.

14. Despite the foregoing, however, co-heir LUISA B. CABRERA continuously

and regularly received personally from the LESSEE BABIER O. BALLADARES
payments of monthly rental over the leased premises (subject matter of the case)
under the said lease agreement (Annex “4” hereof) and the said Letter dated
March 4, 1983 (Annex “4-A” hereof), since the year 2001 up to 2009, as evidenced
by entries in the notepads showing her receipt of the corresponding rental
amounts for each month with her signature as appearing thereon, machine copies
of which are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “14”, “14-A”, “14-B”, “14-
C”, “14-D”, “14-E”, “14-F”, “14-G” to “14-I” to form as integral parts hereof.

15. In spite of her receipts of the foregoing payments of rental amounts, as

set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, and her recognition of the
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 8 -
x==========/

rights of BABIER O. BALLADARES, as lessee, surprisingly, on February 1, 2006,

being only recently discovered by the defendants herein, and even as the alleged
grantors may have possibly been dead, a dubious document purportedly
denominated as “JOINT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING TO SALE”
was executed in favor of LUISA B. CABRERA who, in her capacity as Attorney-In-
Fact, was authorized and empowered to negotiate, canvass for any prospective
purchaser or buyer, for the sale of Lot No. 2311-A-2, Psd-09-016930, under the
said title, TCT No. T-10,096 (Annexes “13” and “13-A” hereof). It is dubious and of
doubtful veracity because of the striking dissimilarity of the signature of the co-
heir FRANCISCO B. CABRERA (father of herein plaintiff Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr) as
appearing thereon compared to his signature as appearing on the said Letter
dated March 4, 1983 (Annex “4-A” hereof), in his capacity as witness therein.
Defendants herein believe that some of the principal grantors were already dead
at the time of the alleged execution of the said “JOINT SPECIAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING TO SALE”, a machine copy of which is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “15” and Annex “15-A on the acknowledgment portion.
Another glaring, flagrant, shocking, malicious and deliberate act in connection to
this transaction is the participation of CELSO B. CABRERA, a co-heir who died a
long time ago, that was on July 17, 1986. A machine copy of the death certificate
of the deceased CELSO B. CABRERA is hereto attached and marked as Annex “15-
B”. How could then on February 1, 2006, the already deceased CELSO B. CABRERA
have signed the aforementioned “Joint Special Power of Attorney Authorizing to
Sale” (Annexes “15” and “15-A” hereof)? For this purpose, defendants herein
with the help of the other heirs of BABIER O. BALLADARES shall cause the further
investigation of this anomalous transaction by proper government investigative
agencies and question document experts, and to bring to the bar of justice for
those who are responsible therefor.
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 9 -
x==========/

16. On the basis of, and full reliance upon, said dubious and
counterfeit JOINT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING TO SALE
(Annexes “15” and “15-A” hereof), and in wanton disregard of the rights of the
lessee and defendants herein to exercise their pre-emptive right over the
property subject matter of the case, on February 15, 2006, LUISA B. CABRERA sold
Lot No. 2311-A-2, Psd-09-016930, under the said title, TCT No. T-10,096
(Annexes “13” & “13-A” hereof), to include the leased premises subject matter
of the case, to plaintiff PERLA A. CABRERA for the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY
ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P171,000.00), Philippine currency, to the great damage
and prejudice of herein defendants, considering that the latter never waived their
right to exercise their pre-emptive right, even as the subject lot was eventually
sold to herein plaintiffs; a machine copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale, executed
by LUISA B. CABRERA and PERLA A. CABRERA, in their capacity as Attorney-In-
Fact and Vendee, respectively, is hereto attached and marked as Annexes “16”
and “16-A”, to form as integral parts of this Answer.

A. By reason, and as a consequence, of such sale of the subject property,

plaintiff-spouses caused the cancellation of TCT No. T-10,096 (Annexes “13” and
”13-A” hereof) with the Register of Deeds for Pagadian City, which consequently
on February 17, 2006, issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30,588, Lot
2311-A-2, Psd-09-106930 (Annex “A” and “A-1 of the plaintiffs’ complaint) in the
name of PERLA A. CABRERA, covering the subject property, containing an area of
NINETY EIGHT (98) SQUARE METERS.

17. While the lessor and his succeeding heirs has the right to sell or
mortgage the property leased, he and his heirs nonetheless has the obligation,
still, to so inform the lessee and the latter’s heirs of the plan to sell the property
and to require the purchaser or mortgagee to respect the terms of the lease
contract.
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 10 -
x==========/

A. As a simple matter of convenience and practicality, LUISA B. CABRERA

should have informed the spouses BABIER P. BALLADARES (now deceased) and
VILLAFANNE GABUAN-BALLADARES that she (Luisa) was selling the subject
property, as they were the ones most likely to buy the property at that time,
considering that the said spouses were then leasing the same under a lease
contract that was still subsisting, valid and binding with an expressed proviso
on their pre-emptive right over the subject leased property.

B. Still, as a simple matter of convenience and practicality, prior to the sale

of the subject lot by the previous common owners, as represented by LUISA B.
CABRERA, to herein plaintiff-spouses FRANCISCO E. CABRERA, JR. and PERLA A.
CABRERA., said LUISA B. CABRERA, in her capacity as recognizing LESSOR, who
personally received regular payments of monthly rental from the lessee, as
heretofore elucidated, should have sent a notice to defendants herein informing
them that the property is for sale giving thus the defendants (especially on the
part of the spouses Babier O. Balladares and Villafanne Gabuan-Balladares) the
opportunity to exercise their pre-emptive right, and for LUISA B. CABRERA to
require the purchasers, herein plaintiff-spouses FRANCISCO E. CABRERA, JR. and
PERLA A. CABRERA to respect the terms of the lease contract.

18. It must be noted that, after the spouses-plaintiffs FRANCISCO E.

CABRERA, JR. and PERLA A. CABRERA acquired the subject property by purchase
from LUISA B. CABRERA, and have the subject property titled in the name of
PERLA A. CABRERA with such indecent haste without the knowledge of
defendants herein, as the latter only discovered the same recently, sometime in
the month of June, 2008, while Nena O. Balladares-Claveria, younger sister of
Babier O. Balladares, was inside the house of the latter at Purok Sampaloc A,
Balangasan District, Pagadian City, Luisa B. Cabrera, Angelina de Leon-Cabrera
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 11 -
x==========/

(wife of Felix B. Cabrera, now deceased) and Luzminda Azucena-Cabrera (wife of

Celso B. Cabrera, now deceased) altogether arrived thereat to see Babier O.
Balladares, purposely to transact and negotiate the sale of the subject property to
said Babier O. Balladares. At that juncture, Nena O. Balladares-Claveria heard her
brother Babier O. Balladares said by asking his visitors to produce and show to
him the title of the subject property, so he could buy the land covered in said title
at an agreed price. Since no title was ever shown to her brother Babier O.
Baladeras, Nena O. Balladares-Claveria saw the said visitors left the house and did
not return anymore. Subsequently, sometime in the morning of January, 2018,
while she was inside her house at Purok Kawayan, Balangasan District, Pagadian
City, Nena O. Balladares-Claveria received a call through the mobile phone
from her brother Babier O. Baladeras wherein the latter requested her to go to
her brother Babier’s house at Purok Sampaloc A, Balangasan District, Pagadian
City, in order for her to witness a transaction because at that time the spouses
Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr. and Perla A. Cabrera, plaintiffs herein, went to the house
of her brother Babier O. Baladeras, offering the sale of the subject property to the
latter. Nena O. Balladares-Claveria, however, arrived at the house of her brother
Babier only in the afternoon of even date but upon her arrival thereat, the
spouses Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr. and Perla A. Cabrera were no longer at her
brother’s house. Instead, she was only told by her brother Babier O. Balladares
that the transaction did not materialize because the said spouses offered to him
the sale of the subject property for 1.4 million pesos. With respect to this
particular fact, Nena O. Balladares is willing to testify and to substantiate the
same in court, together with her Sworn Judicial Affidavit, to be marked, among
others, as exhibit at the appropriate time in connection to the instant case.

19. From the foregoing perspective, it would seem to imply that said
spouses respect the terms of the lease contract, short of their recognition of the
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 12 -
x==========/

lessee’s right to exercise his right of pre-emption, as the said spouses were moved
by an ulterior motive to sell the subject property to the lessee Babier O.
Balladares at gargantuan amount of 1.4 million pesos.

20. Having miserably failed in their manoeuvre, plan and trick or deception
employed against the said lessee, and at the time that the lessee Babier O.
Balladares was already six feet below the ground by his untimely demise, the
herein plaintiff-spouses, in a given owner context, would want now to effect the
immediate eviction of the defendants herein from the subject premises by a
baseless, overbearing and oppressive demand letter (Annex “C” of the
Complaint).

21. Owing to the fact that defendants herein were unduly deprived of their
pre-emptive rights to purchase the subject property at a reasonable price, they
opted not to succumb nor accede to such tyrannical plaintiffs’ demand to vacate.

22. Plaintiff-spouses then brought the matter to the attention of the

Punong Barangay of Barangay Balangasan, Pagadian City, wherein the parties had
their first confrontation thereat on June 14, 2018, on a Thursday, at 2:00 P.M., per
Summons dated June 13, 2018, issued by Punong Barangay Arienel J. Lim, a
machine copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “17”, to form as
an integral part hereof. In that first confrontation, however, no settlement was
reached, despite insistence of defendants to exercise their pre-emptive right to
purchase the subject property at a reasonable price, and that the defendants
herein could not yet decide on plaintiffs’ demand to vacate the subject premises;
thus, a second confrontation was scheduled, per summons issued on June 14,
2018 where plaintiff-spouses were also required to appear, as well as herein
defendants. On this second confrontation supposedly, however, the defendants
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 13 -
x==========/

learned that the said spouses were no longer in Pagadian City, as they already left
for Doha, State of Qater. So, the defendants did not bother themselves to
proceed to the office of the punong barangay aforementioned.

23. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, another summons was issued

on June 25, 2018, requiring the parties herein to appear before the Lupon for the

last time on June 26, 2018. A machine copy of a summons dated June 25, 2018, is
hereto attached and marked as Annex ”18”, to form an integral part hereof.

24. Thus, in compliance therewith and in obedience to the said summons,

defendant Roy Gabuan Balladares, together with his wife Lelibeth Pantorilla-
Balladares appeared before the said Lupon. Only Juanita Cabrera (mother of
herein plaintiff Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr.), together with a certain Cresencia Tejano,
Jr. appeared therein without the appearance of the plaintiff-spouses who, as
earlier mentioned, were already gone abroad to Doha, State of Qatar, in spite
of the fact that this is their own personal case. Be that as it may, though Juanita
Cabrera was willing to accept and quite acquiescent to, the stance of herein
defendants’ proposition to the exercise of their pre-emptive rights to purchase
the subject property at an affordable and reasonable price prevailing in the
current market value, Juanita Cabrera forthwith, through a mobile phone, called
her son Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr. whom her said mother auspiciously endorsed
defendants’ proposal. Unfortunately, however, Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr. strongly
scolded his said mother by telling her not to abide by defendants wish and,
thereupon Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr. requested to have a talk through the mobile
phone with the Lupon official, because Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr. wanted that a
certificate to file action in court be issued at once. In the course of their casual
talk through the mobile phone, exchange of words ensued between them
because it would seem to appear that the Lupon official concerned expressed
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 14 -
x==========/

annoyance by reason of the arrogance of Francisco E. Cabrera, Jr.

25. The issuance of the Certification to File Action dated July 17, 2018
(Annex “E” of the plaintiffs’ complaint) was error. Our Katarungan Pambarangay
Law and existing jurisprudence is clear to the effect that the complaint may be
dismissed when complainant, after due notices, refuses or willfully fails to appear
without justifiable reason on the date set for mediation, conciliation or
arbitration. Such dismissal ordered by the Punong Barangay/pangkat chairman
after giving the complainant an opportunity to explain his non-appearance shall
be certified to by the lupon or pangkat secretary as the case may be, and shall bar
the complainant from seeking judicial recourse for the same cause of action as
that dismissed. (see also Sec. 515, LGC)

III. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

26. By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiffs and by

reason of the instant precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendants were
constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to defend their rights and interests
for a professional fee of P60,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per court appearance;

27. Similarly, the plaintiffs’ unfounded suit has caused the defendants
mental anguish and suffering and public humiliation and embarrassment, for
which the defendants claim moral damages of P200,000.00.

IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

parties be given ample time to reach an amicable settlement before this
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 15 -
x==========/

Honorable Court, pursuant to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) in the absence of

the application of the Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM); and that in case of a
failure thereof, and after trial, the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and
the defendants’ compulsory counterclaim be granted, i.e.. Attorney’s fees of
P60,000.00 plus moral damages of P200,000.00, plus costs of suit, and to direct
herein plaintiff-spouses FRANCISCO E. CABRERA, JR. and PERLA A. CABRERA to
respect the terms of the lease contract on the subject real property and/or allow
the defendants herein to exercise their right of pre-emption to buy the leased lot
or real property subject matter of the case at a reasonable price and within a
reasonable time, as this Honorable Court may fix in accordance with the majesty
of the law.

The defendants respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Pagadian City, Philippines, January 12, 2019.

LUCIO ORIO TAN, JR.

Counsel for Defendants
IBP Lifetime Member No. 01571
PTR No. 1640193 / 12-06-2018/ Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys No. 44656
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000019 dated 04/20/16
Contact No. 0945-4276776 (Globe)
Phase I, Purok Mahigugmaon
Vettalea High Land Homes Subdivision
Barangay Bulatok, Pagadian City and/or c/o:
The School President
Yllana Bay View College
Enerio Street, Balangasan District
Pagadian City
Email Address: luciooriotan65@yahoo.com
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 16 -
x==========/

VERIFICATION AND ANTI-FORUM

SHOPPING CERTIFICATION

WE, MRS. VILLAFANNE G. BALLADARES, RONNIE GABUAN BALLADARES and

ROY GABUAN BALLADARES, all of legal age, married, except Mrs. Villafanne G.
Balladares who is now a widow, Filipino citizens, and with postal address c/o:
Purok Sampaloc A, Balangasan District, Pagadian City, under oath, hereby depose:

We are the defendants in the foregoing case; that we caused the

preparation of the foregoing Answer; that we have read its contents; and that the
same are true and correct of our own direct, personal knowledge or based on
authentic records.

Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and existing
Supreme Court circulars, we hereby certify that we have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the
best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and that if we should
hereafter learn that other similar or related actions or proceedings has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, we undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court.

Pagadian City, Philippines, January 12, 2019.

MRS. VILLAFANNE G. BALLADARES

Affiant/Defendant
Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. __________
Issued on ________________, 2019, at Pagadian City
ANSWER, ETC.
CIVIL CASE No. 2622 - Page 17 -
x==========/

RONNIE GABUAN BALLADARES

Affiant/Defendant
Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. __________
Issued on ________________, 2019, at Pagadian City

ROY GABUAN BALLADARES

Affiant/Defendant
Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. __________
Issued on ________________, 2019, at Pagadian City

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this ____ day of January, 2019, in the
City of Pagadian, the affiants personally appeared before the undersigned and
exhibited their respective Community Tax Certificate (CTC) for the current year, as
stated above, being competent proof of their identities.

Doc. No. ____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2019.

Cc :
Atty. MARIA THERESA LLAGAS-OH
Counsel for Plaintiffs
2nd Floor, Pastoriza Bldg.
Datoc Street, Gatas District
Pagadian City
By Personal Service
Received Copy this ____________2019.
By the counsel herself or through
________________________________
 THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS TO BE INVOKED
IN MY POSITION PAPER TO BE FILED:

Thus, the Supreme Court, in the instructive case of REBECCA FULLIDO v. GINO GRILLI,
G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016, is confronted with the issue of whether a
contract could be declared void in a summary action of unlawful detainer. (markings
supplied for emphasis). In this particular case, the Supreme Court succinctly ruled, as
follows:

“Under the circumstances of the case, the Court answers in the affirmative.
“A void contract cannot be the source of any right; it cannot be utilized in an
ejectment suit. A void or inexistent contract may be defined as one which lacks,
absolutely either in fact or in law, one or some of the elements which are essential
for its validity. [Jurado, Comments and Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts,
2010 ed., p. 574, citing Manresa, 5th Ed., Bk. 2, p. 608];

“It is one which has no force and effect from the very beginning, as if it had
never been entered into; it produces no effect whatsoever either against or in favor
of anyone. [The Manila Banking Corp. v. Silverio, 504 Phil. 17, 30 (2005)]. Quod
nullum est nullum producit effectum. Article 1409 of the New Civil Code explicitly
states that void contracts also cannot be ratified; neither can the right to set up the
defense of illegality be waived. [Article 1409, New Civil Code]. Accordingly, there is
no need for an action to set aside a void or inexistent contract. [Spouses Rongavilla v.
Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 721, 739 (1998)].

“A review of the relevant jurisprudence reveals that the Court did not hesitate
to set aside a void contract even in an action for unlawful detainer. In Spouses
Alcantara v. Nido, 632 Phil. 343(2010), which involves an action for unlawful
detainer, the petitioners therein raised a defense that the subject land was already
sold to them by the agent of the owner. The Court rejected their defense and held
that the contract of sale was void because the agent did not have the written
authority of the owner to sell the subject land.

“Similarly, in Roberts v. Papio, 544 Phil. 280 (2007), a case of unlawful

detainer, the Court declared that the defense of ownership by the respondent
therein was untenable. The contract of sale invoked by the latter was void because
the agent did not have the written authority of the owner. A void contract produces
no effect either against or in favor of anyone.

“In Ballesteros v. Abion, 517 Phil 253 (2006), which also involves an action for
unlawful detainer, the Court disallowed the defense of ownership of the respondent
therein because the seller in their contract of sale was not the owner of the subject
property. For lacking an object, the said contract of sale was void ab initio.
“Clearly, contracts may be declared void even in a summary action for unlawful
detainer because, precisely, void contracts do not produce legal effect and cannot be
the source of any rights. To emphasize, void contracts may not be invoked as a valid
action or defense in any court proceeding, including an ejectment suit.

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 31, 2013 Decision of the
Court of Appeals and its September 24, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 06946
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by Gino Grilli before the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dauis-Panglao, Dauis, Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No.
244, is DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.” [ bold or italics supplied for emphasis]

The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land
described therein, and other matters which can be litigated and decided in land
registration proceedings. [Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 582, 594 (1997)]. Tax
declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title which is an
incontrovertible proof of ownership. [Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of
Appeals, 351 Phil. 815, 823 (1998)]. An original certificate of title issued by the
Register of Deeds under an administrative proceeding is as indefeasible as a
certificate of title issued under judicial proceedings. [Ybaez v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 68291, March 6, 1991, 194 SCRA 743, 749]. However, by way of
exception, the Supreme Court has ruled that indefeasibility of title does not attach
to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. [Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. Nos.
170375, 170505 & 173355-56, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 360, 489, citing Republic v.
Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., 441 Phil. 656, 674 (2002); Meneses v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 & 83059, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 162][cited in SAMPACO v.
LANTUD, G.R. No. 163551, July 18, 2011, THIRD DIVISION].

In this case, plaintiffs’ title, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30,588, Lot 2311-
A-2, Psd-09-106930 (Annex “A” and “A-1 of the plaintiffs’ complaint) and registered
in the name of PERLA A. CABRERA, was secured in violation of the law and through
fraud, deception and misrepresentation, because the subject residential lot was
purchased by the plaintiffs herein by virtue of the aforementioned joint special
power of attorney authorizing to sale (Annexes “15” and “15-A”), which is rendered
NULL and VOID ab initio and INEFFECTIVE for lack of consent due to forgery in the
signature of FRANCISCO B. CABRERA, and that a co-heir, CELSO B. CABRERA, had
already died long time ago, that was on July 17, 1986, as appearing on the death
certificate of the deceased CELSO B. CABRERA [Annex “15-B” in our Answer to
plaintiffs’ Complaint], prior to the execution of the said “joint special power of
attorney authorizing to sale” in favor of LUISA B. CABRERA on February 1, 2006.
Here, the demand letter to vacate (Annex “C” in the plaintiffs’ Complaint) sent to the
defendants herein was based on plaintiffs’ Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
30,588, which is tainted with fraud and irregularities and is, therefore, spurious;
hence, it is null and void, and without any probative value to support plaintiffs’ claim
that a case of unlawful detainer against defendants herein exists.

The fact that a person was able to secure a title in his name did not operate to vest
ownership upon him of the subject land. Registration of a piece of land under the
Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring
ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the
particular property described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from
the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither
does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor
of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be
co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust
for another person by the registered owner. [Naval v. Court of Appeals, 518 Phil. 271,
282-283 (2006]