Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
RTC Branch No. ______
Cebu City

JUAN SAN JOSE represented by D

PEDRO SAN JOSE,
Petitioner, CIVIL CASE NO.___________
FOR: Annulment of Title,
versus Reconveyance of Property and
Damages
JESSA D. WHO, EMMANUEL
GIMARINO as Head of
REGISTER OF DEEDS of Cebu
City; and EMMA E. MALANA
as the Regional Director of the
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Defendant.
x----------------------------------------/

ANSWER

The defendant, through counsel, most respectfully files his Answer in

response to the Complaint, to wit:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is admitted in so far as to the

veracity of the personal circumstances of the Petitioner, but denies the
authority of Pedro San Jose to sue in a representative capacity.

2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is admitted. The defendant is

residing at Brgy. Cambuhawe, Balamban as certified by the Office of
the Punong Barangay of Cambuhawe, Balamban, hereby attached as
Annex 1.

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is admitted.

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is admitted.

5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is denied. The petitioner had actual

possession of the disputed lot only in the year 1980 when Hector San
Jose, father of petitioner, asked the permission of Jose Datu,
grandfather of the defendant, who is then residing in a house adjacent
to the disputed lot, to build a Nipa Hut for the formers family.
 The continued possession of Hector San Jose and his family was
merely tolerated by Defendant, as she deemed it beneficial for the
maintenance and upkeep of the land and the fruit bearing trees situated
therein.

The Complainants possession was uninterrupted until

December of 2016 when the Defendant demanded for the return of the
land after she discovered that the Complainant is building a concrete
bungalow house therein. Attached herein is a Demand Letter dated
December 28, 2016 as Annex 2.

6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint is admitted.

7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is admitted.

8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is admitted.

9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is denied under oath, it is the

Defendant and her predecessor-in-interest who had been religiously
paying the property taxes of the disputed property as early as 1904.
Attached herein is the certified copy of tax declaration paid by the
defendant and her predecessor-in-interest in the name of her father,
Joselito Datu issued by the Assessors Office of Local Government of
Balamban as Annex 3, and 4, respectively.

10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied, the disputed parcel of

land has been declared by the Secretary of Department of Environment
and Natural Resources as alienable and disposable lands of public
domain as early as January 25, 1978 shown in Annex 5.

11. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment
in the complaint.

12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is admitted except that the

disputed lot was located in Brgy. Cambuhawe, Balamban, Cebu and not
in the Municipality of Dalaguete, Province of Cebu. Attached herein is
the Original Homestead Certificate of Title as Annex 6.

13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint is admitted except that the

disputed lot was located in Brgy. Cambuhawe, Balamban, Cebu and not
in the Municipality of Dalaguete, Province of Cebu.

14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint is denied. The continuous and

uninterrupted possession of the Petitioner was not made in the concept
of an owner but that of a Bailee in Precarium, hence, the possession of
the Petitioner did not ripen into ownership.

15. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint is denied. The Defendant and her

predecessor-in-interest had been paying real property taxes as early as
1904. Attached herein is the certified copy of tax declaration paid by
the defendant, and her predecessor-in-interest in the name of her father,
Joselito Datu, issued by the Assessors Office of Local Government of
Balamban as Annex 3, and 4, respectively.

16. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint is admitted.

17. Paragraph 17 of the Complaint is admitted. In fact, a Transfer

Certificate of Title No. 123456 was issued in the name of the Defendant
with respect to an adjacent property. A Transfer Certificate of Title
issued in the name of the Defendant on June 15, 1998 is hereby attached
as Annex 7.

18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment
in the complaint.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

19. The complainant failed to submit the dispute to the Katarungang

Pambarangay for Barangay Conciliation as required by the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Sections 399-422, Chapter VII, Title
1, Book III, R.A. 7160). This action involves parties residing in the
same barangay. Prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a
complaint in court. A certification of the Pangkat Secretary of Barangay
Cambuhawe, Balamban that this action was not submitted before the
Katarungang Pambarangay is hereby attached as Annex 8.

20. The action for Reconveyance had already prescribed. An action

for Reconveyance of real property must be filed within 10 years from
the time the cause of action accrued (Ramos v. Court of Appeals). The
counting of the prescriptive period should be reckoned on the date of
the issuance of the Original Homestead Certificate of Title on January
5, 1998, as the recording thereof in the Register of Deeds is a notice to
the whole world. The Original Homestead Certificate of Title of the
aforementioned lot is hereby attached as Annex "6.

21. Pedro San Jose, the representative of the Petitioner has no

authority to file this case in behalf of his father. The Special Power of
Attorney attached as Annex A of the complaint is an authority given
to Atty. Henry Filoteo and Associates and not to Pedro San Jose as
alleged in their complaint.
 Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:

Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name

of the real party in interest.

Since Pedro San Jose is a stranger in this case, he has no

right or authority to prosecute or defend this action.

22. The venue of this action is improperly laid.

Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides:

Venue of real actions. - Actions affecting title to or

possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated.

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City has no jurisdiction over a

lot located in Brgy. Cambuhawe, Balamban, Cebu. It is the Regional
Trial Court of Toledo that has the jurisdiction of the disputed real
property, hence, the action should be filed therein.

23. The petitioner is estopped from denying the title of the defendant
and her predecessors in interest.

Article 1947 and 1436 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and
the contractual relation is called precarium, in the following
cases:

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner.

Art. 1436. A lessee or bailee is estopped from asserting

title to the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or
bailor.

Thus, the petitioner, as a bailee in Commodatum, could not

question the title of the defendant, the bailor.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

24. By reason of the Petitioners wanton and deliberate act of filing

this baseless and unfounded suit against the Defendant, the latter was
constrained to engage the services of counsel for P50,000.00 as
acceptance fee plus P5,000.00 per hearing as appearance fee. The
Defendant also incurred and continually incur litigation expenses in
relation to this case in an estimated amount of P20,000.00.
Furthermore, she suffered and continually suffers mental anguish and
anxiety due to the filing of this case, hence, the Petitioner should be
made to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and
exemplary damages of P50,000.00.

25. The Defendant was deprived of the possession of his property by

reason of the adverse possession of the Petitioner, hence, the latter
should be ordered to vacate the property to its rightful owner after the
Defendant demanded for the return of the thing loaned.

26. The Defendant was also deprived of the use and the fruits of her
property, hence, the Petitioner should be made to pay rentals in such
reasonable amounts as the Court may determine and be ordered to remit
the proceeds of the sale of the fruits harvested therein.

27. Lastly, the Petitioner should be ordered to demolish his concrete

bungalow house and restore the land to its former condition at his
expense.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court to dismiss the complaint, grant the relief
prayed, and such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable by
the Court.

August 12, 2017, Cebu City, Philippines.

ATTY. BEA SUAN

Counsel for Defendants
Mabolo, Cebu City
IBP No. 764814 dtd. 01-07-09 Cebu City
PTR No. 5448574 /01/14/17/ Cebu
Roll No. 33476
MCLE Compliance II 0009328
Dtd. March 27, 2016

ATTY. NIKKI ROSE AGERO

Counsel for Defendants
Mabolo,Cebu City
IBP No. 873409 dtd. 02-04-08 Cebu City
PTR No. 8769563 /02/17/17/ Cebu
Roll No. 34628
MCLE Compliance II 0078325
Dtd. February 18, 2016

ATTY. KARLA BALNEG

Counsel for Defendants
Mabolo,Cebu City
IBP No. 764784 dtd. 02-08-08 Cebu City
PTR No. 5448574 /03/13/17/ Cebu
Roll No. 675832
MCLE Compliance II 0087588
Dtd. January 15, 2016