1

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
7th Judicial Region
San Fernanado, Cebu

JOSEFINA R. HERMOSA
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No: R-58027

FOR: EJECTMENT

Sps. Edgardo and Josephine Geollina

Marivic Lariosa; Angela Casa;
Maria Luisa Lazaga; Susan Catalan
Lando Mariao; Sps. Junjun and Edna Villafuerte
And Sps. Felix and Evelin Lopez Cataytay
Defendant,
x-------------------------------------------//

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants, Sps. Felix and Evelin Lopez Cataytay, through the

undersigned counsel, most respectfully states that:

1. Defendant received the copy of this complaint together with the summon of
this Honorable Court on July 23, 2019 and has until August 2, 2019 within
which to submit his ANSWER of this case.

2. Paragraph 1 is denied for lack of knowledge as to the personal circumstances

of the plaintiff;

3. Paragraphs 2 is hereby admitted insofar as the adress of the herein

defendant is concerned;

4. Insofar as paragraph 3 is concerned, the best evidence that the plaintiff is

the declared owner of the lot is the Tax Declaration itself. Defendant
therefore admits the existence of the Tax Declaration as it is a public
document, however, plaintiff is only a declared owner thereof as stated in the
tax declaration and is limited only to ½ of the area of Lot 14548 (formerly
9037). The details of Lot 14548 are stated in the affirmative and special
defenses hereunder;

5. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint for lack of

knowledge. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale presented to by the
plaintiff would show that her ownership is only to the extent of ½ Lot
14548. The Deed of Sale of the plaintiff is the best evidence that the area of
her ownership is only half of the subject lot;
 2

6. The herein defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 5 the

complaint with regards to the fact that he occupied the property of the
plaintiff. The house of the herein defendant is situated and located in his lot
known as Lot No. 14549 that is adjacent to Lot 14548;

7. The allegations in paragraphs 6-12 are hereby denied for lack of knowledge
or information that is sufficient to prove the truthfulness thereof. The herein
defendant reiterates that his house is located in Lot 14549 and not in Lot
14548;

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

8. All allegations above are hereby re-pleaded and incorporated so long

as they are relevant;

9. Plaintiff claims that he owns Lot 1548 as stated in the Tax Declaration
declared in his name with an area of 3,204 square meters. However, in the
Deed of Absolute Sale that is attached in her complaint, her ownership is
limited only to ½ of Lot 14548;

10. In the same manner, the herein defendant is the owner of Lot 14549
where his house is located. He has a tax declaration of the lot where his
house is located and is declared under the name of his wife under Tax
Declaration No. 16322 with an area of 1,081 square meters. A copy of the
tax Declaration No. 16322 is hereby attached as Annex “1” and made an
integral part hereof;

11. Likewise, the herein defendant had made a relocation survey in his
lot through the Geodetic Engineer in the person of Atty. Reuel Pintor. The
relocation survey shows that the house of the herein defendant is located
inside his lot and not the lot of the plaintiff. A copy of the said sketch plan is
hereby attached as Annex “2”;

12. Moreover, the wife of the herein defendant had applied for a Free
Patent Application on his lot under FPA No. 072241-1975 and had been
granted with a free patent by the DENR-CENRO with Patent No. 3379323
under the name of his wife Evelyn Lopez. A copy from the Certification
from DENR-CENRO of Argao, Cebu is hereby attached as Annex “3” and
made an integral part hereof;

13. That the herein defendant also submitted a letter to DENR-CENRO

informing the latter to hold any transaction by plaintiff on the subject lot
because there is conflict between her lot and the defendant’s lot. A copy of
the Letter is hereby attached as Annex “4”;

14. That even assuming that the herein defendant occupied the portion
 3

of the lot of the plaintiff, still plaintiff could not eject or hold him and his
family to vacate their house because defendant is a builder in “GOOD
FAITH” and is guaranteed by the civil code of his right as a builder in good
faith particularly Art. 448 that states that:

“Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own
the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for
in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the
price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the
builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall
pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate
the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms
thereof. (361a)”

15) There is a need to have lot be resurveyed again inorder to determine

whether Plaintiff has a cause of action against the herein defendant.
Defendant believes that the lot that the defendant is occupying is outside the
lot of the plaintiff.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

16) DEFENDANT repleads and incorporates herein all allegations insofar

as they are material and relevant herewith;

17) By reason of the filing of this malicious and unfounded Complaint by

the plaintiff, defendant suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety, and
wounded feelings, and are therefore entitled to recover moral damages in the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50, 000.00);

18) . As an example to the public and to serve as a deterrent to other

persons who are prone to abuse the judicial process as in this case, plaintiffs
should be condemned to pay exemplary damages in the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50, 000.00);

19. As a result of being forcibly dragged into this case, DEFENDANTS

are compelled to litigate and hire the services of counsel for an agreed fee of
TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php 30, 000.00);

PRAY E R

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court,

that after due hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of DEFENDANT:
 4

1. DISMISSING the instant complaint ;

2. ORDERING plaintiff to pay DEFENDANTS the following:

a. the amount of P 50, 000.00 as moral damages;

b. the amount of P 50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
c. the amount of P 30, 000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees;
and
d. costs of litigation;

Such other relief and remedies as are just and equitable under the
circumstances.

Cebu City, August 01, 2019

SUSUSCO LAW OFFICE

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
Central Poblacion, City of Naga, Cebu.
Besides UCP Bank
Tel. No. (032) 3475324

ATTY. GIOVANNI D. SUSUSCO

IBP NO. AR55344831/12/13/2018/ 0Cebu City
PTR No. 3297652/ 01-03-2019/ Talisay City
Roll of Attorneys No. 53097
Admitted to the Bar on April 26, 2007
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0008256

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. MARK PHILIP OPADA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
MONTECLAR SIBI and TRINIDAD LAW OFFICES
G/F Eastern Shipping Lines, Bldg.,
6000, Cebu City

EXPLANATION:

A copy of this ANSWER was furnished to plaintiff through counsel by mail

due to distance constraint and lack of personnel.

Atty. Giovanni Sususco