Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 3
Nabunturan, Davao de Oro

Labanon & Ivy Ventures Civil Case No. _____

as represented by its Proprietor- FOR: Rescission of Joint
Manager Karl Max Labanon Venture Agreement with
Plaintiff. Action for Damages
and Attorney’s Fees

- versus -

Hajarah R. Divinagracia
Defendant.
x ---------------------------- x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant by undersigned Counsel and in answer to

plaintiff’s complaint in the above- entitled case, respectfully allege:

1. That defendant admits the averments in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and

8 of the complaint;

2. That defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraphs 9 of the

complaint, the truth being that, defendant had made efforts to notify
plaintiff of the sale dating back since April 2012 to also inform plaintiff
that upon legal consultation, defendant has come to the knowledge that
the Joint Venture Agreement with the plaintiff is void since the subject
property is part of the absolute community property of the defendant and
her spouse and such spouse was not a party, a signatory, nor gave consent
to, the Joint Venture Agreement;

3. That the defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 10, the
truth being that, aside from the fact that the Joint Venture Agreement is
void, there are no stipulations in the joint venture agreement that
prohibits the sale of the property; and

4. That the defendant specifically denies paragraph 11 for no damages are

warranted in the circumstances surrounding these transactions.
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Having answered the Complaint, the Defendant, Hajarah R. Divinagracia,

assert the following enumerated Affirmative Defenses:

1. That the properties of the defendant and her spouse is subject to the
system of absolute community of property pursuant to Article 75 of
Executive Order No. 209 or The Family Code of the Philippines, to wit,

“Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree
upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains,
complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absence of a
marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the
system of absolute community of property as established in this Code
shall govern”;

2. That the subject property is part of the absolute community properties of

defendant and her spouse pursuant to Article 91 of Executive Order No.
209 or The Family Code of the Philippines, to wit,

“Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage

settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property
owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage
or acquired thereafter.”;

3. That the defendant’s spouse has not been a party, a signatory, nor has
given consent, neither notarized nor not-notarized, to the Joint Venture
Agreement and the inclusion of the subject property to such agreement;

4. That the Joint Venture Agreement is void since a notarized written

consent from both spouses shall be needed in order to sell, mortgage,
lease, exchange, donate and joint-venture any real property that belongs
to the absolute community property pursuant to Article 124 of Executive
Order No. 209 or The Family Code of the Philippines, to wit,

“Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal

partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of
disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to
the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within
five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to

participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other
spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not
include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the
written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or
consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the
transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the
 consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a
binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization
by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.”;

5. That, since the Joint Venture Agreement is void, the defendant can
exercise her rights of ownership over the property, specifically jus
disponendi or the right to dispose of property;

6. That even if the Joint Venture Agreement is valid or is still continuing,

there is no prohibition in the said Joint Venture Agreement that the
defendant cannot exercise her rights of ownership over the property,
specifically jus disponendi or the right to dispose of property; and

7. No act or omission on the part of Defendant either caused or contributed

to whatever injury (if any) the Plaintiff may have sustained.

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, Hajarah R. Divinagracia, alleges:

1. That the Joint Venture Agreement is void and thus be declared as such;

2. That by virtue of this scandalous suit by the Plaintiff, Defendant was

wrongfully shamed and her reputation was damaged; and

3. That by virtue of this unwarranted suit initiated by the Plaintiff,

Defendant were forced to engage counsel in the sum of Ten Thousand
Pesos (10,000.00).

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed, the

Joint Venture Agreement be declared void, and defendant be awarded the amount
of Twenty Thousand Pesos (20,000.00) for moral damages and cost of litigation.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Nabunturan, Davao de Oro, Philippines, February 18, 2020.

 BY:

ATTY. KRISTIAN WELLER P. LICUP

Counsel for the Defendant
7th floor, Mangaka Building
Apokon, Tagum City
Attorney’s Roll No. 1234124
IBP No. 1231421; Tagum City; 1-2345
PTR No.1231541, Tagum City, 1-21-13
MCLE Compliance No. 1110016263, 10-11-19
 VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, Hajarah R. Divinagracia, of legal age, Filipino Citizen and residing at Apokon,

Tagum City after first having duly sworn to in accordance with law depose and
say:

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

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing pleading

3. The contents therein are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and based on authentic documents and witnesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed our signatures this 18th

day of February in Nabunturan, Davao de Oro, Philippines.

Hajarah R. Divinagracia
Philippine Driver’s License No. D07-12-002343
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 18th day of February

in Nabunturan, Davao de Oro, Philippines.

ATTY. KRISTIAN WELLER P. LICUP

Counsel for the Defendant
th
7 floor, Mangaka Building
Apokon, Tagum City
Attorney’s Roll No. 1234124
IBP No. 1231421; Tagum City; 1-2345
PTR No.1231541, Tagum City, 1-21-13
MCLE Compliance No. 1110016263, 10-11-19