REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THIRD JUDICIAL REGION MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN BRANCH 22 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 318-M-2021 FOR: ANNULMENT OF DEED OF ~versus- SALE, TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, — RECONVEYANCE AND DAMAGES ROLANDO VILLARICO, Defendant. ANSWER WITH COUNTER CLAIM DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that: DENIALS AND ADMISSIONS 1. The allegations regarding the personal circumstances of the parties are admitted subject to the presentation of the original copy of the Marriage Contract (Exhibit “A') and Birth Certificate (Exhibit "B").* 2. The allegations as to the ownership of the subject property (Exhibit “D") and fact of death of Pedro (sic) Santos (Exhibit “C') are admitted. However, the allegation that the same property has a market value of more or less Four Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (P408,000.00) is denied for lack of knowledge or basis sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity thereof? * Par. 1,2, page 1; par. 1,2, page 2. ” Par. 3, page 2.RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 2] t 3. The allegation that plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the defendant is denied. The transaction was between defendant and Pedro Roque on 14 August 2003 but it was formally executed only on 29 December 2003. The existence and due execution of the Real Estate Mortgage is admitted, with qualification that the agreement was denominated as Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan (Exhibit “E”)* 4. The allegation that the property subject of the Real Estate Mortgage or Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan is also the subject of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 February 2004 (Exhibit "F-2") and that by virtue of which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 040-2021003661 dated 22 February 2021 (Exhibit “F-1") was issued in favor of defendant are admitted, 5. The allegation that plaintiff came to know about the execution of the Deed of Sale only on 15 June 2021 when she was called to attend the Barangay Conciliation proceeding (Exhibit ’G’) is denied. The truth of the matter is that set forth in the special and affirmative defense hereof. 6. The allegation that there was no sale that took place on 11 February 2004 and that Pedro Roque never signed the said Deed of Absolute Sale is vehemently denied. The truth of the matter is that set forth in the special and affirmative defense hereof. 7. The allegation that defendant is barred by prescription to enforce the mortgage agreement is denied. The truth of the matter is that set forth in the special and affirmative defense hereof. 8 The allegation that plaintiff continues to possess the Property even after the date indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale is ° Par. 4, page Z, “Id. * Par.3, page 3.RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Givil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER. 3 / admitted subject to the facts and circumstances put forward in the special and affirmative defense hereof. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant respectfully adopts the above allegations and further states that: 9. As admitted by the plaintiff, Pedro Roque executed the Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan in favor of herein defendant, However, as clarified in Paragraph 3 hereof, the agreement actually transpired on 14 August 2003 but the document was only formally executed on 29 December 2003 (EXHIBIT "1"). 10. Plaintiff conveniently omitted to state in her complaint that the Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan also categorically provides that: NA: ang sanglaan ito ay may taning na ANIM (6) na BUWAN na magsisimula sa araw ng pagkagawa ng kasulatang ito: AUG 14 2003 11. On 11 February 2004, Pedro Roque went to defendant and told the latter that he cannot settle his obligation within the Period agreed upon. Instead, he asked the defendant for additional amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and that he will just execute a Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit “2") in his favor. Hence, the allegation of plaintiff that she was unaware of this fact is a blatant lie since she signed the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit "2-A") together with Pedro Roque. 12. However, since defendant is not really interested in the property, he agreed to give Pedro Roque the additional amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) with the promise that he (defendant) is willing to re-sell the same to Pedro Roque once he is financially able.RIC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 4l 13. Accordingly, Pedro Roque paid the defendant on a monthly installment from 2004 to 2008. However, in 2009, Pedro Roque stopped making his monthly payment, hence, defendant was constrained to remind Pedro Roque about their agreement. Unfortunately, Pedro Roque did not go to the defendant and discuss this matter as requested. 14. After sometime, ‘defendant was informed that Pedro Roque had passed away in 2010. After giving the family of Pedro Roque time to grieve their loss, defendant made efforts to discuss his agreement with Pedro Roque about the property. Lamentably, the efforts of defendant proved futile. Thus, in March 2020, defendant sent a Notice to Vacate the property (EXHIBIT "3") to the heirs of Pedro Roque. 15. In October 2020, defendant tried to secure a copy of the Tax Declaration from the Assessor's Office of Obando, Bulacan but was refused by said office because the improvement found therein was constructed without the required building permit. Nonetheless, he made a formal request to be issued a tax declaration on 26 October 2020. (Exhibit "4") 16. When his Notice to Vacate was ignored by the heirs of Pedro Roque, defendant was constrained to finally use the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Pedro Roque to protect his rights and interest. 17. Thereafter, he went to the Office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay Lawa, Obando, Bulacan to seek the assistance of the conceined barangay officials to mediate. But then again, the attempt of defendant to have this matter amicably settled did not bear good result and he was then issued a Katibayan Para Makadulog sa Hukuman (Exhibit “5") on 19 July 2021. 18. Still, on 24 November 2021, defendant sent a letter (Exhibit “6") to the heirs of the Pedro Roque to give them one lastRTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 5] y Opportunity to buy back the property. Unfortunately, the letter was returned to the defendant by the post office with notation: Insufficient address. (Exhibit "6-A") 19. On 22 February 2022, defendant once again set a letter (Exhibit "7") to the heirs of Pedro Roque at their address: Hilerang Kawayan (Former Poyee's Beear (sic) Haus) Bgy. Lawa, Obando, Bulacan. Again, this letter was returned to defendant by the post office undelivered after the three (3) attempts to deliver the same had failed. (Exhibit “7-A") 20. For the third time, defendant sent a letter (Exhibit "8") to the heirs of Pedro Roque using the same address: Hilerang Kawayan (Former Poyee's Beear (sic) Haus) Bgy. Lawa, Obando, Bulacan. This time, the letter was received by Penny Labby Roque as shown by her signature on the Registry Return Receipt. (Exhibit "8-A") The case should be dismissed outright for failure of the plaintiff to declare the assessed value of the property 21. A circumspect examination of the allegations in the complaint would show that plaintiff failed to state the assessed value of the subject property. What was declared by the plaintiff is the alleged market value only of the property. 22, In Ma. Rosario Agarrado, et al. vs. Cristita Librando- Agarrado,° the Honorable Supreme Court dismissed the case, albeit without prejudice, for failure by the plaintiff to indicate the assessed value of the subject property in his/her complaint, or at the very least, in the attachments in the complaint, thus: “GR. No. 212413, June 06, 2018.RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no, 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 6| According to Foronda-Crystal, failure to allege the assessed value of a real property in the complaint would result to a dismissal of the case. The reason put forth by the Court is that: xxx absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of cannot be determined whether the RTC or the exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action. Indeed, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market value of the land. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted) This same ratio has been repeated in a number of cases, including the cases of Spouses Cruz vs. Spouses Cruz, et aL and Quinagoran vs. Court of Appeals,*"! where the Court concluded that: Considering that the respondents failed to allege in their complaint the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC seriously erred in denying the motion to dismiss. Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void, and the CA erred in affirming the RTC. (Emphasis ours.) THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE IS VALID AND BINDING UPON THE HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE 23. Notwithstanding the foregoing fatal defect in the complaint, it is further asserted that plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant. Conversely, in her attempt to invalidate the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 February 2004, plaintiff stated that: a) — Sonny B. Valeriano is a witness that on 23 August 2003, the real estate mortgage was signed by the plaintiff and she received the money;’ ” Par. 2, page 4.RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER, 7 1 b) Plaintiff-heir only received a demand letter on 16 March 2009 stating the non-payment of the loan amounting to 100,000.00 and confirmed the mortgage of the property;* ©) Plaintiff-heir continue to pay for the mortgages even after the death of Pedro Santos (sic); and d) Defendant admittedly disputed the sale took place on 11 February 2004.1 24. With all due respect, the fact of the mortgage and the service of the demand on 16 March 2009 is not disputed by the defendant. However, a careful reading of the Letter dated 16 March 2009 does not in any way repudiate the Deed of Absolute Sale which Pedro Roque and Merlie Rastica Roque signed cn 11 February 2004. On the contrary, defendant was only extending the Opportunity for Pedro Roque to buy back the property. 25. While it is true that Pedro Roque made some payments between 2004 to 2008, it is not true that his heirs continue making Payment even after his death in 2010. Such fact of additional Payment must be supported by credible evidence for the basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.'On the contrary, Pedro Roque stopped making payment in 2009 which necessitated the sending of the letter in March 2009, 26. While it is true that the Deed of Absolute Sale was not immediately registered by the defendant after it was executed in 2004, it does not ipso facto makes it null and void, In Heirs of Tomas ® Par.3, Id. °1d. * Par. 4, id. © Pastor Abaracoso Macaventa Vs. Attorney Anthony C. Nuyda, A.C. No. 11087, October 12, 2020.RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 8) 1 Arao, et al. vs. Heirs of Pedro Eclipse, et al,”the Highest Tribunal clarified that non-registration of a Deed of Sale is not sufficient to nullify the agreement of the parties embodied therein, especially if the same is acknowledged before a Notary Public. Thus: Moreso, the above-mentioned deeds of sale, having been acknowledged before notaries public, are public documents as defined under par. (b), Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. Thus, [they carry] the evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to [their] due execution, and have in their favor the presumption of regularity, in the absence of a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. They are valid and binding between the parties thereto even if said deeds of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds, since registration is not a ment for validity of the contract as between the parties.” (emphasis ours) Indeed, registration is not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties, for the effect of registration serves chiefly to bind third persons. The principal purpose of registration is merely to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into. Thus, it has been held that “registration in a public registry creates constructive notice to the whole world.” Hence, if the conveyance is not registered, it is not valid against any person. But there are recognized exceptions. The conveyance is still valid as to (1) the grantor; (2) the grantor's heirs and devisees; and (3) third Persons having actual notice or knowledge thereof. No doubt, respondents are the grantors' heirs. Petitioners, on the other hand, are third persons within the contemplation of the registration rule. Apart from them being the heirs of Tomas, they have actual notice/knowledge of the conveyance. Hence, registration is not required to bind respondents and petitioners. (Emphasis supplied: Citations omitted.) 27. Here, the Deed of Absolute Sale was duly executed for a consideration of 150,000.00 in 2004 by Pedro Roque before a notary * GR. No. 211425, November 19, 2018, Citing Heirs of de Vela v. Tolentino, GR. No. 200058 (Notice), November 6, 2017.Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ‘ANSWER 9] ite public and was even signed by plaintiff Merlie Rastica Roque as a witness. Therefore, she cannot feign ignorance or surprise about the existence or due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, PLAINTIFF ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN THE FILLING OF THE COMPLAINT 28. It appears that the instant case was instituted by the plaintiff on 20 May 2022. She also claimed therein, among others, that she became aware of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Transfer Certificate of Title issued in favor of the defendant only on 15 June 2021 when she was calied to attend the barangay conciliation for Kasong Pang Barangay Blg. 145-2021 Subject: Pagbibigay Linaw sa Usapin (Isinanlang Titulo) filed by the defendant. 29. It is deferentially reiterated that plaintiff Merlie Rastica Roque cannot feign ignorance or surprise about the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale since she signed the same as a witness in 2004. 30. It is undeniable too that in 2009, defendant invited Pedro Roque to discuss their agreements (mortgage in 2003 and Deed of Absolute Sale in 2004); 31. Then, after the death of Pedro Roque in 2010, or on 11 March 2020, the heirs of Pedro Roque were once again reminded by the defendant about the obligations of the deceased. 32. Unexpectedly, they refused to receive the letter dated 22 February 2022 notwithstanding the fact that it bears the same address with the letter dated 18 July 2022. 33. Under the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is quite evident that plaintiff filed this complaint after being repeatedly forewarned by defendant that he will file a case against them to getRTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER. 10| / the property which was first mortgaged then later sold to him by Pedro Roque. 34. It is an irrefutable fact that Pedro Roque and his heirs were, time and again, simply given by the defendant the opportunity to buy back the property but Pedro Roque and his heirs failed to take advantage of the generosity extended to them. 35. Quite the opposite, what is manifest here is that the heirs of Pedro Roque had no intention of honoring his obligation which eventually forced the defendant to finally register the Deed of Absolute Sale in 2021. DEFENDANT IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION TO REGISTER THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE 36. It is humbly put forward that the issue in this case is not the Real Estate Mortgage or Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan which was executed by Pedro Roque in favor of the defendant on 14 August 2003 but the Deed of Absolute Sale which was perfected by and between the same parties in 2004. This is the subject of the Complaint, ie, annulment of Deed of Sale, etc 37. In the instant case, defendant has no reason to enforce the Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan as it was already superseded by the Deed of Absolute Sale although they have a verbal agreement that defendant will give Pedro Roque the chance to buy back the same for the same amount he obtained as a loan, plus interest. 38. The Deed of Absciute Sale executed by Pedro Roque in favor of defendant is a contract of sale which is consensual in nature, and is perfected upon the concurrence of its essential requisites, thus: The essential requisites of a contract under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code are: (1) consent of the contractingRIC: Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER. 11] 1 Parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is established. Thus, contracts; other than real contracts are perfected by mere consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. Once ted, they bind other contr: ies the obligatic isi we the force of law en the ties and should be complied with in gox ith. The Parties are bound not only to the fulfilment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law."* (Underscoring ours) 39. While the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in 2004 was only registered in 2021 by the defendant, the validity of such deed was never affected. In Jun Miranda Vs. Sps. Engr. Ernesto and Aida Matlari, et al,,’> the Supreme Tribunal elucidated The registration the d of Absolute Sale with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija did not affect the sale's validity and effectivity. In the 1958 case of Sapto v. Fabiana (Sapto) pennect by Justice J. B. L. Reyes, the Court stated: The issue is whether the deed of sale executed by appellants’ predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question, although never registered, is valid and binding cn appellants and operated to convey title and ‘ownership to the appellee. The question is not new. In a long line of cases already decided by this Court, we have consistently interpreted Sec. 59 of the Land Registration Act providing that "no deed x x x shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration” in the sense that as between the parties to a sale registration is not necessary to make it valid and 1, Province of Cebu v. Heirs of Morales, 569 Phil. 641, 650 (2008). * GR. No. 218343, November 28, 2018.RIC: Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 22 effective, for actual notice is equivalent to registration x x x. “The peculiar force of a title under Act No. 492", we said in Medina vs. Imaz and Warner Barnes & Co., 27 Phil, 314 (syllabus), “is exhibited only when the purchaser has sold to innocent third parties the land described in the conveyance. Generally speaking, as between vendor and ven: e rights an ies exist in_relation to land not so registered.” In Galanza vs. Nuesa, 95 Phil., 713, we held that “registration is intended to protect the buyer against claims f third persons arising from subsequent alienation: the vendor, and js_certainly not_necessary to_give effect as between the parties to their deed of sale.” And in the recent case of Casica vs. Villaseca, G.R. No. L-9590, April 30, 1957, we reiterated that “the purpose of registration is merel ly to Dotify an interests strat rs _te i \saction,_ wh e ignorant pf. the non- registration of the deed evidencing said transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of __ their obligations reunder.” (Underscoring supplied; Citations omitted.) P| 40. Differently put, defendant's right to register the Deed of Absolute Sale does not prescribe, although he may be exposed to certain consequences, such as payment of penalty for late registration or adverse claims by innocent third parties. AND BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM Defendant deferentially repleads and adopts the foregoing averments and further states that: 41. By reason of the unjust and reprehensible action of the plaintiff, defendant suffered moral shock, sleepless nights, serious anxiety and wounded feelings for which he should be compensated by way of Moral Damages in the amount of at least ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P.100,000.00).RIC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 13] 42. To serve the public good and to serve as deterrent to other persons who might have the same inclination to misuse the legal processes, plaintiff should be assessed to pay Exemplary Darnages in the amount of at least ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00). 43. In order to protect his rights against the baseless acts of the plaintiff, defendant was constrained to secure the services of counsel and incur expenses in connection with the instant case, for which he should be reimbursed for Attorney's fees in the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P75,000.00) as acceptance fee, the further amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) for every hearing attended by counsel and legal expenses, WITNESSES 44. To controvert the malicious and false allegations of the plaintiff and to prove his counterclaim against the plaintiff, defendant shall take the witness stand to substantiate the facts alleged in his Answer. He will likewise identify documentary evidence in support thereof. 45. Further, defendant respectfully reserves the right to present the following witnesses: a) Representative of the post office to testify regarding the service of the letters to the plaintiff on 24 November 2021, 22 February 2022 and 18 July 2022 and circumstances relevant thereto; b) Representative from the Office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay Lawa, Obando, Bulacan to testify on the proceedings held therein in connection with the complaint filed by defendant against the heirs of Pedro Roque. Such representative shall likewise identify and authenticate theRTC- Malolos City, Brarich 22 Givil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER. 14| 1 Katibayan Para Makadulog sa Hukuman and testify on other matters material and relevant thereto; ° d) Atty. Leodegario A. Belarmino, notary public for the City of Manila to testify as to the due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale on 11 February 2004; and Additional witnesses whose testimony may be found to be material and relevant during the course of the proceedings and upon showing of good cause therefor. * EXHIBITS 46. Defendant shall present, identify, and mark the following exhibits: a EXHIBIT _ DESCRIPTION PURPOSE “T’ and “1-A" Kasulatan Ng Pagsasanglaan, two (2) Pages, signed by Pedro C. Roque and witnessed by Merlie Roque and Sonny Valeriano To prove that the agreement —_ actually transpired on 14 August 2003 but the | document was only formally executed on 29 December 2003 "9H Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Pedro Roque. his favor. To prove its existence and due execution. It | "2A" | Signature of Merlie Roque To prove that she is an instrumental witness to the Deed and that she cannot pretend ignorance as to its existence before 15 June 2021RTC: Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER, 15) / [Notice to Vacate dated 11 March 2020 To prove that due notice to vacate was sent to the heirs of Pedro Roque on account of the deed of sale Letter addressed to the Office of the Assessor, Obando, Bulacan dated 26 October 2020 "4" _t To prove that defendant made a/ formal request to be issued a tax declaration preparatory to the filing of a case against the heirs of Pedro Roque "5" Katibayan Para Makadulog | sa Hukuman dated 19 July 2021. ins prove that | defendant went to} the concerned barangay officials for possible amicable settlement of the issue or to comply with condition precedent prior to the filing of a case against the heirs of Pedro Roque Letter dated 24 November 2021 addressed to Merly Rastica and Penny Labby Roque of Brgy. Lawa, Obando, Bulacan “er To prove that the defendant made efforts to offer the heirs of Pedro Roque the opportunity to buy back the property | or vacate the same.RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER. 16 | "eA Notation: Insufficient address |To prove that this letter was returned unserved to the} | defendant letter dated 22 February To prove that the, ee 2022 addressed to Merly | defendant made Rastica and Penny Labby | efforts to offer the Roque of Hilerang Kawayan | heirs of Pedro Roque (Former Poyee's Seear (sic) | the opportunity to Haus) Bgy. Lawa, Obando, | buy back the property Bulacan. or vacate the same, "TA" Handwritten dates on the | To prove that this letter envelope “3-1-22", "3- | letter was returned 2-22" and “3+3-22" unserved to the defendant and the three (3) attempts | |made by the post | office to deliver the ne —— same pee letter dated 18 July 2022|To prove that the "8" addressed to Merly Rastica | defendant made and Penny Labby Roque of| efforts to offer the Hilerang Kawayan (Former | heirs of Pedro Roque Poyee’s Beear (sic) Haus) Bgy.|the opportunity to | Lawa, Obando, Bulacan. buy back the property or vacate the same. "BA" Registry Return Receipt |To prove receipt of | signed by Penny Labby| the Letter by one of Roque the heirs of Pedro Roque at the same | address indicated in the Letter dated 22 | February 2022RTC- Malolos City, Branch 22 Givil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ‘ANSWER a7] 1 47. Defendant respectfully reserves the right to present and mark additional documentary evidence which are not available at this time and upon showing of good cause therefor. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that defendant be granted leniency and understanding and that: a) The instant complaint for Annulment of Deed of Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title, Reconveyance and Damages BE DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction of the Honorable Court to hear and decide the same and for lack of cause of action; b) The counterclaim of defendant BE GRANTED en toto. Caloocan City for Malolos Ps 4 October 2022. ZALES IBP Lifetime No. 010076 - 16 ah 2011 PTR No. 0694119- 1/14/2022 - Caloocan City MCLE Compliance No. VII-0002723 (06/16/2020) Valid Until April 14, 2025 Generoso 4, Galauran Compound 382 EDSA, Caloocan City Contact Nos. 8283-0291 / 0919-0097868 Email add: joseisaganigonzales@gmail.comRIC- Malolos City, Sranch 22 Givil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO ANSWER 18] COPY FURNISHED: Atty. ARACELI B. GLORIA Counsel for the Plaintiff-Heris c/o Gloria Law Office 3049 Bambang Bulacan, Bulacan EXPLANATION The foregoing pleading was filed with the Honorable Court and copy thereof served to the other party in accordance with Section 3 (d), Rule 13 and Section 5 (b), Rule 15 of AM. No. 19-10-20-SC, respectively. JigaeiVERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING 1, ROLANDO S. VILLARICO, of legal age, Filipino, married, with address at 87 P. Burgos St., Paliwas, Obando, Bulacan, under oath, depose and states that: 1. _ Lam the defendant in the above-entitled case; I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer; I have read and understood its contents; 2. Thereby certify that I have not commenced, and have no knowledge of the pendency of any similar action of the same nature involving the same parties before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal or other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. In the event that other action of similar nature shall be filed among the parties herein or be known to me, I undertake to inform this Honorable Office within five (5) days from notice thereof. 3. Finally, I certify that: (@) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents; (b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will ikewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby set my hands in writing this (E25 aE _ hereat Caloocan City. INDO S. VILLARICO Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this QT 18 Ptereat Caloocan City, affiant exhibiting to me his Professional Driver's License identification card with number CO7-80-012439. Doc. No. _20 Page No. _ Book No. __Y Series of 2022.- Bde & Mog "KASULATAN NG PAGSASANGLAAN ze DAPAT MABATID NG LAHAT: EXHIB! i | Ako Si PROBO Ge ROGUE, htymde __, may sapat ng gulang, kasal_ ay | . Pilipino, at sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan at may padalahang- | sulat sa 1 ‘sa bisa ng kasulatang ito ay | malayang, nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod | Na: ako ay nagmamay-aring tunay ng isang (1) lagay na lupa at ang lehat ng bagay na napapalood sa lupang ito, na malataqpuan S2_ Bey leuay Ghande, Duleean | atlalong makikilala sa pamamagitan ing mga sumusunod na palatandaen: « TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO._12345995 (4) “4 parcel af land (Lot 4n3- of the oubd plan 12k Pode 361501, approved aoc nen-eible peels) beioe t pontine at int nd, Be-d3- siete, Priv ee ieien Hat tea inne ear hee Sor se taba ee tas cubes ply a tbe Sy pte, 3 te 4 ty Let dd plan cee Soo Bucy Ase 1 be Ae L508 too tore eeaedyy tase (entices Mey pts, 1 te Dicienay mecunstes ia a ocrteaces aren of ON HUNDRED SWINE FOUR (174) SQTANC METERS, mere er loss", st NA: dahil at alang-alang sa halagang _ GF eke ( ane huatang Pilipino, na umiral na inaamin kong aking INUTANG al Sa akin ay BINAUTANG at aking ‘anggap ng buong kasiyang-oob buhat sa kay Lai 00 may sapat na gulang, kasal kay 1 . Pilipino, at sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan at may padalahang sulat sa Bulacan, . $a bisa ng kasulatang ito ay aking ISINASANGLA ai IPINANANAGOT sa nasabing 8. VILiaRIce 3 ca Kanlyang mga tagasunod al mga tagapagmana ang lupang binanggt ee toes kasama ang lahat nitong kauntaran at sa ilaim ng mga sumusuinod nia mga kasunduan at mga tagubilin: NA‘ ang sanglaan ito ay may taning na ANIM (6) na BUWAN na ma pagkagawa ng kasulatang ito; 4!) 2 imula sa araw ng 003 NAsitoay —_____Patubo o, interest; NX ng lupangisinangla ay hindi maaring muling isangla 0 ‘pagbil sa iba ng walang nakasulat na Pahintulot ng pinagsanglaan; NA: kung ang pagkakautang ay hindi m: ‘Maari nang ilitin sa. Paraang labas sa Hi Susog nitong Batas 4118 at ang pina Nagsangla upang ang panagotay ina dito ay pinananagutan ng Nagsany at bayad sa abogado na pinagsa multa na halaga ring jabayaran sa takdang taning, lukuman matapos maipatupad ang mga fi igsanglaan at ang Sherif ng Bulacan ay gbil sa isang halagang bithan (Public Au: gla gayundin ang bayad pinsala at mula at mglaan na hind bababa sq % ng halaga ng pagkakautang ng lupang ipinanagot ay inadhana ng Batas 3135 at ginagawang kinatawan ng ction) at ang lahat ng gugol 1g halaga ng pagkekautang ——% ng halaga ng pagkakautang at* Kastitalan eg Maysasanglaan Pahina Blg 7 . 4 A a Exnigi7 +" SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO. kam a} ‘sulatang ito nyayon ka. diosa MELE: Nagsang!a NILAGDAAN & REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) MUNICIPALITY ne \ss_ * VINCE OF RLEN ty DEE 29 2003 BEFORE Me this day of PEDRO C. ROQUE - 04581996 / Obands, Bulacan / August’ 12, 2003, bo tl towne purr ona Wale executed th lorerjomg incdrument gine fe INOIE fees CF Lo A bnowledged Une tstrament es 7} pane UIE page oe which the sok nouiedt EROS NE Le hs mgt cate ae wel sag on nt is waite A eid oveM * \ND.REGISTRATION AUTHORITY CCV-Ft - UNOFFICIAL COPY IF NOTIN BLUE COLOR ‘BHBIT ecetven i Foc tga eects Reker pcs i e * | e ‘O60 OF ABSOLUTE Sau ee ‘ Sen s \ PERRE . Rogue — ws) SoAgWersHON Ct tho cum of ed Pe = 24d 0e Sr Le MARCELO een Commissiog Ko. C422 Book No ly Nova Pubic Caloocan Cty Until Docaiber 34, eee ABP Ho, 198655 fi. 22/C 0. MANA PTR io, 064746 /pi-27-22/Galoocan City Rilo, 398 MCLE Gompf onee0s8 Room 201 sf dep 91" Ave. Cor. Riza{ Ape, Grace Park Catoocan phy Weir avilaRTC- Malolos City, Sranch 22 Civil Case no. 318-M-2021 HEIRS OF PEDRO ROQUE versus ROLANDO VILLARICO JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF ROCEL P. MARIANO. Page 5 of 5 COPY FURNISHED: Atty. ARACELI B. GLORIA Counsel for the Plaintiff-Heris c/o Gloria Law Office 3049 Bambang Bulacan, Bulacan EXPLANATION The foregoing pleading was filed with the Honorable Court and copy thereof served to the other party in accordance with Section 3 (d), Rule 13 and Section 5 (b), Rule 15 of A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, respectively. Jigfe