Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 260

MARY GRACE ARMAMENTO

Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 12-3456

For: Accion Reinvidicatoria

Spouses KARL and RUTH

ARMAMENTO,
RICA ARMAMENTO-BENTLY,
MARK ARMAMENTO, and
ROMEO ARMAMENTO
Defendants.

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

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS

COMES NOW the Defendants Spouses KARL and RUTH

ARMAMENTO, RICA ARMAMENTO-BENTLY, MARK
ARMAMENTO, and ROMEO ARMAMENTO, represented by the
undersigned counsels, before the Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits this Answer with Counterclaims, averring that:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. The allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, and 15

of the Complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria as to the personal
circumstances of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are
ADMITTED;

2. The allegations in paragraphs 3, insofar as the

Plaintiff’s ownership claim of the disputed property is
specifically DENIED, but the description of the said property is
ADMITTED;

3. The allegations in paragraph 5 are ADMITTED

insofar as the existence of the bank loan and the Deed of
Absolute Sale;
 4. The allegation in paragraph 6 is ADMITTED with the
manifestation that the Defendants are in possession of the
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the said Transfer Certificate Title
hereof as ANNEX 1;

5. The allegations in paragraph 8 and paragraph 9 as to

the propriety of Accion Reinvidicatoria as a remedy are DENIED;

6. The Defendants deposited certain amounts to the

Plaintiff ’s bank account as partial payments for their respective
shares pertaining to the area that they are occupying, as
evidenced by the bank deposits hereof ANNEX 2;

7. The allegations in paragraph 10 and 11 are

specifically DENIED. The Defendants assert that it is Article
1450 on implied trust that applies in the present case as the
circumstances are detailed in the succeeding paragraphs;

Article 1450 of the New Civil Code provides that:

Art. 1450. If the price of a sale of property is loaned or paid
by one person for the benefit of another and the conveyance
is made to the lender or payor to secure the payment of the
debt, a trust arises by operation of law in favor of the person
to whom the money is loaned or for whom its is paid. The
latter may redeem the property and compel a conveyance
thereof to him.

8. The allegation in paragraph 12 is likewise

ADMITTED; In addition, the Defendants have been paying the
annual real property tax over the subject land and improvement
from the year 1990 to present; Official Receipts of the payments
are attached herein and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX
3. Also, the certified true copy of the tax declaration of the
improvement issued by the Manila City Assessor’s Office in the
name of the Defendants is attached herein and made an integral
part hereof as ANNEX 4;

9. With the intention of securing the property from

risks, the Defendants availed of an insurance policy in the name
of the Defendants, Mark Armamento, Karl Armamento, Ruth
Armamento, Rica Armamento-Bently, and Romeo Armamento
starting 1 August 2000 hereof as ANNEX 5. The annual
payment of the premium from 2000 to 2020 were also made by
the Defendants as evidenced by the receipts hereof as ANNEX
6;
 10. The allegations of the Plaintiff in paragraph 14 on
the Defendant's ownership claim and waiver of rights are
DENIED;

11. The allegations in paragraph 16 are DENIED as there

had been no repeated demands to vacate made upon the
Defendants;

12. The allegation of the Plaintiff in paragraph 17 is

likewise DENIED. Contrary to the assertion of the Plaintiff , the
Defendants did not receive any demand letter with respect to
the alleged encroachment of the portion of the said property;

13. The allegations in paragraph 18 and sub-paragraphs

15.1 and 15.2 insofar as to the Barangay proceedings and the
subsequent issuance of a Certificate to File Action are
ADMITTED;

14. The foregoing are subject to the affirmative defense

hereunder presented.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Defendants replead and incorporate by way of reference the

allegations from paragraphs 1-13 and further state as follows:

The Plaintiff has NO CAUSE OF ACTION against the

Defendants;

“Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as:

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.

The essential elements of a cause of action are (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 Defendants to respect or not to violate
such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such
Defendants in violation of the right of the Plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the Defendants to
the Plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.”
 There is an implied trust created between the Plaintiff and
the Defendants. The existence of implied trust bars the Plaintiff’s
claim of sole ownership and possession over the disputed
property. Hence, the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the
Defendants.

Sps. Felipe and Josefa Paringit vs. Marciana Paringit Bajit, et al.
(G.R. No. 181844 : September 29, 2010) provided:

“The CA found that Felipe and his wife's purchase of the lot
falls under the rubric of the implied trust provided in Article
1450 of the Civil Code. Implied trust under Article 1450
presupposes a situation where a person, using his own
funds, buys property on behalf of another, who in the
meantime may not have the funds to purchase it. Title to the
property is for the time being placed in the name of the
trustee, the person who pays for it, until he is reimbursed
by the beneficiary, the person for whom the trustee bought
the land. It is only after the beneficiary reimburses the
trustee of the purchase price that the former can compel
conveyance of the property from the latter.”

Similar to the said case, an agreement was made between the

Plaintiff and the Defendants that the former will purchase the
property for the benefit of the family and that the latter will contribute
to their respective share of the amount relative to the area that they
are occupying. The real and true intention to establish an implied
trust is shown through the acts before and after the purchase of the
disputed property.

Despite the absence of a written agreement, implied trust can

be proved by parol evidence as authorized by Article 1457 of the Civil
Code. It was emphasized in several jurisprudence that the “(p)arol
evidence that is required to establish the existence of an implied trust
necessarily has to be trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose, equivocal
or indefinite declarations.”

It is evident in the circumstances that there is an intention to

create a trust. Jose Juan Tong, et al., vs. Go Tiat Kun, et al., (G.R. No.
196023, April 21, 2014), provided:

“ xxx The oral testimonies of witnesses Simeon Juan Tong

and Jose Juan Tong, to arrive at the conclusion that an
implied resulting trust exists. What is crucial is the intention
to create a trust.
 xxx
Intention—although only presumed, implied or supposed by
law from the nature of the transaction or from the facts and
circumstances accompanying the transaction, particularly
the source of the consideration—is always an element of a
resulting trust and may be inferred from the acts or conduct
of the parties rather than from direct expression of conduct.
Certainly, intent as an indispensable element is a matter
that necessarily lies in the evidence, that is, by evidence,
even circumstantial, of statements made by the parties at
or before the time title passes. Because an implied trust is
neither dependent upon an express agreement nor required
to be evidenced by writing, Article 1457 of our Civil Code
authorizes the admission of parol evidence to prove their
existence. Parol evidence that is required to establish the
existence of an implied trust necessarily has to be
trustworthy and it cannot rest on loose, equivocal or
indefinite declarations.”

The insistence of the parties’ parents to purchase the property

manifests the intention to make this property as a family home. The
acts of the parties as mentioned in this Answer with Counterclaim
also prove such intention.

The Supreme Court in Sps. Felipe and Josefa Paringit vs.

Marciana Paringit Bajit stated:

“xxx Second. Julian said in his affidavit that Felipe and his
wife bought the lot from Terocel Realty on his behalf and on
behalf of his other children. Felipe and his wife advanced
the payment because Julian and his other children did not
then have the money needed to meet the realty company's
deadline for the purchase. Julian added that his other
children were to reimburse Felipe for the money he
advanced for them.”

Similarly, it was only the Plaintiff who had the capability to

purchase the property at the time being as evidenced by the bank
loan provided by her. However, true to their agreement, the
Defendants have contributed their respective shares since 2000 as
stated in paragraph 6 of this Answer with Counterclaim.

The Plaintiff has not claimed nor manifested any intention to

claim the said property for 30 years. Assuming that the alleged
demand letters were really existing and were given to the Defendants,
they were just made, as claimed, starting 2020. No other interest in
the property was asserted by the Plaintiff. As stated in the case of
Jose Juan Tong, et al., vs. Go Tiat Kun, et al., (G.R. No. 196023, April
21, 2014) and Sps. Felipe and Josefa Paringit vs. Marciana Paringit
Bajit, the existence of implied trust was proven through long-time
undisputed possession:

“xxx Fourth, respondent Leon admitted that up to the time

of his father’s death, (1) Lot 998 is in the possession of the
petitioners, (2) they resided in the tenement in the front part
of Juan Tong’s compound, (3) Luis Sr. never sent any letter
or communication to the petitioners claiming ownership of
Lot 998, and (4) he and his mother have a residence at
Ledesco Village, La Paz, Iloilo City while his brother and
sisters also have their own residences.

“Felipe and his wife demanded rent from Marciana, et al

only on December 18, 1995, a year following Julian's death
on December 21, 1994. This shows that from 1984 when
they bought the lot to December 18, 1995, when they made
their demand on the occupants to leave, or for over 10 years,
Felipe and his wife respected the right of the siblings to
reside on the property. This is incompatible with their claim
that they bought the house and lot for themselves back in
1984. Until they filed the suit, they did nothing to assert
their supposed ownership of the house and lot.”

Payments of real property taxes as mentioned in paragraph 8

also strengthened the claim of the existence of implied trust as it was
used by the Supreme Court to justify the establishment of the implied
trust in the case of Jose Juan Tong, et al., vs. Go Tiat Kun, et al:

“Fifth, the real property taxes on Lot 998 were paid not by
Luis Sr. but by his father Juan Tong and the Juan Tong
Lumber, Inc., from 1966 up to early 2008 as evidenced by
the following: a) the letter of assessment sent by the City
Treasurer of Iloilo, naming Juan Tong as the owner of Lot
998; and b) the receipts of real property taxes paid by Juan
Tong Lumber, and later by Juan Tong Lumber, Inc., from
1997 to 2008. While some of the tax receipts were in the
name of Luis Sr., the fact that the petitioners were in
possession of the originals thereof established that the
petitioners, the Juan Tong Lumber, Inc., or the late Juan
Tong paid for the taxes. The respondents did not try to
explain the petitioners’ possession of the realty property tax
receipts in the name of Luis Sr.”
 The Plaintiff cannot claim that the Defendants’ action to recover
their portions of the property had already prescribed. As provided in
Sps. Felipe and Josefa Paringit vs. Marciana Paringit Bajit, “In an
implied trust, the beneficiary's cause of action arises when the trustee
repudiates the trust, not when the trust was created as Felipe and his
wife would have it.” No act of repudiation was made by the Plaintiff
towards the Defendants. The registration of the title in the name of
the Plaintiff cannot be considered as a repudiation as emphasized in
the same case:

“The spouses of course registered the lot in their names in

January 1987 but they could not be said to have repudiated
the implied trust by that registration. Their purchase of the
land and registration of its title in their names are not
incompatible with implied trust. It was understood that they
did this for the benefit of Julian and all the children.”

The circumstances presented in the preceding paragraphs

established an implied trust between the Plaintiff and the
Defendants. The Plaintiff bought the lot for the benefit of the family-
her parents and siblings.

With the foregoing premises, the Defendants respectfully

submit that the Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the
grounds cited above.

COUNTERCLAIMS

In the rare event that the Honorable Court shall resolve to

proceed with the trial of the case despite the above affirmative
defense, the Defendants submit the following compulsory
counterclaims and for this purpose, hereby restate and repleads
all the allegations in the preceding paragraphs by way of reference
and incorporation:

a. By virtue of this unwarranted suit initiated by the Plaintiff,

Defendants was forced to hire the services of a lawyer in the sum of
FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 40,000.00);

b. By reason of Plaintiff ’s unwarranted suit, Defendants

suffered mental anguish, wounded feelings, sleepless nights, serious
anxieties, and other similar sufferings for which Defendants claims
moral damages of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 50,000.00).
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most

respectfully prayed that:

1. The Affirmative Defense shall be immediately set for

preliminary hearing;

2. After the said preliminary hearing, to issue an Order

dismissing the Plaintiff ’s complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria, with
prejudice;

3. In the remote event that the Honorable Court shall proceed

with the trial, the Defendants pray that the Honorable Court uphold
the existence of an implied trust between the parties and render a
judgment denying the reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff for lack of
merit;

4. On the compulsory counterclaims--

a. Ordering the Plaintiff to pay the cost of suit, attorney’s fees

amounting to FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 40,000.00) and
other legal fees incurred by the Defendants;

b. Ordering the Plaintiff to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS

(P50,000.00) for moral damages sustained by the Defendants;

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

Manila, Philippines this 22nd day of September 2021.

COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENDANTS

(sgd)
Nur Badron
IBP No. 12345/1-6-2018/Manila City
PTR No. 5678/1-6-2018/ Manila City
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. III-12345/1-25-
2011
(sgd)
Mark Galla
IBP No. 12344/1-1-1111/ Manila City
PTR No. 12345/1-1-111/ Manila City
Roll No. 1234
MCLE Compliance No. III-12345-11

(sgd)
Honeyf G. Goling
IBP No. 12345/1-6-3444/ Manila City
PTR No. 123456/1-6-4455/ Manila City
Roll No. 532233
MCLE Compliance No. III-012334/1-25-
2011

(sgd)
Erika Rae P. Rosario
IBP No. 12345/1-6-3444/ Manila City
PTR No. 123456/1-6-4455/ Manila City
Roll No. 532233
MCLE Compliance No. III-012334/1-25-
2011

(sgd)
Jevilyn Mary C. Ruiz
IBP No. 12345/1-6-3444/ Manila City
PTR No. 123456/1-6-4455/ Manila City
Roll No. 532233
MCLE Compliance No. III-012334/1-25-
2011
Republic of the Philippines)
CITY OF MANILA )s.s.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, KARL and RUTH ARMAMENTO, RICA ARMAMENTO-

BENTLY, MARK ARMAMENTO, and ROMEO ARMAMENTO,
Filipino, legal age, Filipino, and are currently residing at Barangay
788, Peninsula Garden Subdivision corner Quirino Avenue, Paco,
Manila City, Philippines, under oath, depose and say that:

1. We are the Defendants in the above-entitled case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with

Counterclaims;

3. I read all the allegations thereof and that the same are true
and correct based on my own personal knowledge and
authentic records;

4. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding

is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency.

6. If I should hereafter learn that of any other similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
the Honorable Court.

SIGNED this 22 September 2021 at Manila City, Philippines.

(sgd)
KARL ARMAMENTO

(sgd)
RUTH ARMAMENTO
 (sgd)
RICA ARMAMENTO-BENTLY

(sgd)
MARK ARMAMENTO

(sgd)
ROMEO ARMAMENTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on 22 September 2021

at Manila City by KARL and RUTH ARMAMENTO, RICA
ARMAMENTO-BENTLY, MARK ARMAMENTO, and ROMEO
ARMAMENTO affiants exhibiting to me their competent evidence of
identity by way of their Passports with number E474924, E948480,
E2895783, E2484023, and E874549, respectively, and issued on 2
April 2019, 2 April 2019, 4 December 2019, 9 March 2012, and 2
March, respectively, at DFA NCR West, DFA NCR West, DFA NCR
West, DFA NCR East, and DFA NCR West, respectively.

(sgd)
ATTY. ROBERT MANANSALA
Notary Public
Commission Serial No.
23344
Until December 31,
2021
IBP No. 2345/1-6-3444/
Manila City
PTR No. 45677/1-6-4455/ Manila City
Roll No. 53456
MCLE Compliance No. III-013444/1-25-2011

Doc. No. 233;

Page No. 23;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2021.
Copy furnished to:

Atty. Chris Delos Santos

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Delos Santos Law Office

Unit M, 5th Floor, Acacia
Tower 4, Suntrust Parkview
Natividad A. Lopez Street,
Ermita, Manila 1000