1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Eight (8th) Judicial Region
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
CAPUL-SAN VICENTE

CAMILLE COCO AND

VERNIECE COCO,
Plaintiffs,

versus Civil Case No. 53

For: RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION AND
OWNERSHIP WITH
DAMAGES
KRYZZ NOW YOUNG
Defendant.

x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER
(WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM)

Defendant, through counsel unto this Honorable Court, by way of her

answer to the complaint most respectfully avers:

ADMISSIONS, DENIALS, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1.That she denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint in

regard to plaintiff’s capacities to sue and be sued.

2.The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint as to the personal

circumstances of the Defendant is admitted;

3.The allegation in paragraph 3 of the complaint is specifically denied.

The truth of the matter is that Defendant has been in possession of the
property that the plaintiff now claiming to be hers; that she has been
exercising the attributes of ownership thereof as evidenced by their
obtaining Tax Declaration over the property and she is paying the
annual real property taxes thereon enclosed as Annex “A” is Tax
Declaration No. 13568 under the name of Manuel Quezon covering the

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
2

property known as Lot No. 2064 with an area of 3,310 sq. m. and as
Annex “B” is the official receipt issued by the Provincial Treasurer of
Capul, N. Samar that the real property taxes have been paid with Real
Property Tax Receipt 6021890 dated December 31, 1886 for the year
1979-1985 under the name of Rodulfo Quezon and hereto attached as
Annex “C” and series.

4.That paragraph 4 of the complaint is specifically denied. The truth of

the matter is that Defendant is the heir of Rodulfo Quezon, decedent-
registered owner of Lot 2064. Decedent, during his lifetime bought the
property from ESTEBAN QUEZON as evidenced by an instrument of
conveyance captioned as Absolute Sale of Two Parcels of Land
Including Improvements, more particularly described and bounded as
follow:

x-x-x-x-x-x

SECOND PARCEL: A parcel of land without improvement,

bounded on the north – by Fabian Cat; on the East by the
Seashore; on the south by Nicolas and on the West Capul
Provincial Road; covered by Land Tax Dec. No 18790 in the
name of Manuel Quezon for 1951; with an area of , more or
less 3310 sq. m., and assessed value of P30.00 (Emphasis
supplied)

Copy of the said deed is hereto attached as Annex “D” and made as
an integral part hereof.

5.Defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth and veracity of the allegations in paragraphs 5,6,7 and
8 of the complaint, hence, the same are hereby denied.

6.Paragraph 9 of the complaint is specifically denied. The truth of the

matter is that, an Agreement was entered into by the parties but
plaintiffs did not attend the scheduled survey and did not pay the 50%
of the costs incurred for the payment of professional fee of said survey.
Since herein defendant cannot pay the appointed geodetic engineer,
certain Mana Delia solely paid for all the expenses.

7.Paragraph 10 of the complaint is specifically denied. The truth of the

matter is that there was no confrontation between the parties before
the Lupon.

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
3

8.Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the complaint are specifically denied, as

defendant never encroached nor illegally possessed the portion of the
land that caused damages to the plaintiffs.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

9.Defendant hereby replead and incorporate herein the allegations

heretofore stated in this ANSWER.

10.That BY WAY OF FIRST SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, Defendant hereby most respectfully declare:

THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE

A CAUSE OF ACTION.

11.The subject matter of the complaint is Lot 2364 as alleged in the

complaint. The complaint filed before this Honorable Court is Recovery
of Possession and Ownership of a portion of Defendant Lot 2064, to
the extent of 847 sq. m.

11.1 Plaintiffs are the absolute and lawful owners of a parcel of land
situated in Brgy. Luis, Capul, Northern Samar, covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 19147 in the name of Joni Coco designated as
Lot No. 2364, Pls 1056-D, declared for taxation purposes also in the
name of Gualberto Calamay as per Tax Declaration No. 2012-05-011-
00690 with an assessed value of Php 44,750.00, particularly described
as follows:

“A parcel of an agricultural land denominated as Lot 2364, Pls-

1056-D, C-3 with an area of THREE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED NINETY (3390) SQUARE METERS, bounded on the
SW ., along line 1-2 by barrio road; on the NW along line 2-3 by
Lot 2365; on the NE along line 3-4 by Capul Pass; on the SE
along line 4-1 by Lot 2064, all Pls -1056-D, Capul Public Land
Subdivision. Containing an area of 3380square meters.”

11.2A cursory reading of the DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OF

UNREGISTERED PARCEL OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (Annex “D” of
the Complaint) would show that the total area of the Lot purchased by
GUALBERTO CALAMAY from CANDIDO CATUCOD, is only 3,150
sq.m. In other words, regardless of the actual area of the lot, the rights
and interests that were transferred in favor of the plaintiff in only up to
the extent of 3,150 sq. m. and nothing more.

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
4

11.3 As a rule, the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to

constitute a cause of action against the defendant if, admitting the facts
alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in
accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exists if the
following elements are present, namely: 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff
by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2.
An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to
violate such right; and 3. An act or omission on the part of such
defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach
of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Santos vs. Sps De Leon,
GR No. 1409822)

11.4Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek to recover portion of Lot 2064

because it is beyond his right to do so and to maintain such action
would constitute an unjust enrichment at the expense of the defendant.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSE OF ACTION

IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION

12.Assuming arguendo that the plaintiff has a cause of action, still his
action was filed beyond the period od extinctive prescription from the
time that the action may be brought. Furthermore, defendant already
owns the portion of the property in question by virtue of acquisitive
prescription through his continuous, uninterrupted, notorious, open
possession and occupation of the property in the concept of an owner:

12.1 Article 1141 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after

thirty years.

This provision is without prejudice to what is established for

the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.
(Emphasis supplied)

In relation, Article 1117 and 1134 states that:

Article 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real

rights may be ordinary and extraordinary. xxx

Article 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable

property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of
ten years. (Emphasis supplied)

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
5

12.2Defendant has been in open, continuous and peaceful possession

of the entire 3,310 square meters are of Lot 2064 for approximately 57
years already. In addition, defendant’s possession has been in the
concept of an owner, in good faith and with just title, owing to his being
one of the legal heirs of the previous owner MANUEL QUEZON;

12.3 Therefore, plaintiff and/or his predecessors in interest, had only

10 years from the time that Defendant commenced possession, within
which to file this instant action. Said 10 years already lapsed, so
plaintiffs action had already prescribed.

13.Further, Defendant acquired ownership of the subject property

through their open, continuous, uninterrupted peaceful and notorious
possession of the property through extraordinary acquisitive
prescription of more than THIRTY (30) YEARS.

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF

IS AN INDIGENT PARTY AND THAT HE
CAN AVAIL THE FREE LEGAL SERVICE
OF PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE.

14.Since he is not indigent he should pay the appropriate docket fees.

Since there us no evidence of payment of proper docket fees, the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.

PERMISSIVE AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

15. DEFENDANT, replead and incorporate herein all the allegations

heretofore contained in this ANSWER as part of this
COUNTERCLAIM.

PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM

16. Granting without admitting that Plaintiff’s Original Certificate of Title

No. P-19147 was duly issued by the government, Defendant
respectfully pray that the same be annulled and declared nullified for
having covered an area outside of what was owned by the Plaintiffs.
The same title was secured, either through mistake, accident, fraud on
account of the obvious excess in the area of what they were supposed
to own by virtue of the Deed of Sale to them.

17. Since the Title was obtained through fraud, or mistake, Plaintiffs
hold subject area of the property in trust ( through implied trust) in favor
of the Defendant who are true and lawful owners of the property (to the
extent that it exceeded the area of the subject sale)

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
6

18.The Original Certificate of Title secured by the Plaintiffs was

obtained by way and through FREE PATENT. The OCT having been
issued covering a private property owned by herein Defendant the
same cannot be covered by a Free Patent declaration by the
government. Under the Free Patent Law, only state owned properties
can be issued a Free Patent. Private properties are not free patentable.
Hence, OCT issued was secured through mistake or fraud.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

19. DEFENDANTS, replead and incorporate herein all the allegations

heretofore contained in this ANSWER as part of the COUNTERCLAIM.

20. THAT as COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF, herein

Defendant most respectfully aver:

20.1 That the filing of this malicious complaint has heaped the untold
hardship upon the Defendant and unnecessarily caused by them
sleepless nights, mental anguish, besmirched reputation and serious
anxiety, which sufferings, lawfully, justifiably and equitably entitles
them to an award of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)

20.2 That by way of example or correction for the public good, thereby
serving as deterrent to those who prey on hapless, unsuspecting
litigants. Defendants are furthermore entitled to an award for
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00)

20.3 That Defendant, no doubt is compelled to litigate and thus incur

to protect his interest, litigation and incidental expenses in the sum of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court, that judgment be rendered in favor of herein
Defendant and against the Plaintiff by:

a. DISMISSING the instant complaint with costs against Plaintiff.

b. Ordering the Plaintiffs to pay the following damages:

1. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as

MORAL DAMAGES;

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
7

2. TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as EXEMPLARY

DAMAGES
3. LITIGATION EXPENSES, not less than THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00).

c. Declaring the OCT No. P-19147 annulled or null and void ab initio
for having been obtained through fraud or mistake and thus
declaring the Defendant the true and lawful owners of the subject
property complained of.

d. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY PRAYED.

Tacloban City for Capul, N. Samar. July 20, 2019.

ATTY. VERN NARCISO

Counsel for the Defendant
Real St., Tacloban City
Roll No. 70707
IBP No.:123123/06-16-19
PTR No.: 87654321/07-05-19
MCLE Exempt (New Lawyer)

COPY FURNISHED;

LAUREEN UY-UY
Public Attorney I
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Hall of Justice
Allen, Northern Samar

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B
8

VERIFICATION

I, KRYZZ NOW YOUNG, of legal age, Filipino, single and a

resident of Brgy. San Luis, Capul N. Samar, after being duly sworn to
in accordance with law, hereby dispose and say:

1. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer

with affirmative defenses; and

3. I have read and understood the allegations therein and the

same are tur and correct of my personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20

July 2019 in Catarman, N. Samar.

KRYZZ NOW YOUNG

Defendant/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

___________________ in _______________________, personally
appeared above-named affiant/defendant with her competent
evidence of identity appearing below their names and who claim to me
that she is the same person who executed the foregoing answer and
acknowledged to me that the same is her free act and deed.

ATTY. PEPITO MANALO

Notary Public until Dec. 31, 2019
PTR No. 34343434 issued on Jan. 10, 2019
Catarman, Northern Samar

EXPLANATION

Counsel requests the kind understanding and indulgence of the

Honorable Court in allowing the registered mailing of the foregoing
answer, both to the counsel of the Plaintiff and to the Honorable Court,
because of distance and urgency. (If served personally, please
disregard explanation.)
ATTY. VERN NARCISO

DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW 4B