MUNICPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

10TH Judicial Region

BRANCH 6
Cagayan de Oro City
mtcc1cdo006@judiciary.gov.ph/09554831879

HEIRS OF GERONIMO AGCOPRA M-CDO-22-01837-CV

NAMELY:MARILYN AGCOPRA
CAPARAS, ROY ROQUE U. AGCOPRA,
RUBICON CEASAR U. AGCOPRA,
RANDY U. AGCOPRA, HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY CYD ABAS
AGCOPRA
Plaintiff,

-versus-
FOR: ACCION PUBLICIANA
HONORATO TUPAZ, ELINA NILLOS, WITH DAMAGES
WENNIFE LONGANAY, RODRIGO
MACASA, AREMO AGBALOG, EDITH
TAYLO,
Respondents.

X---------------------------------------------------/

ANSWER with COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

COMES NOW Respondent Honorato Tupaz, by counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states and avers that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs are all heirs of the late GERONIMO S. AGCOPRA. They are
all of legal age, Filipinos, and all residents of Cagayan de Oro City. They
are all represented in this instant case by CYD ABAS AGCOPRA, who
is of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of 148 Magsaysay-Del
Pilar Sts., Brgy. 18, Cagayan de Oro City. She may be served with the
orders, writs and processes of this Honorable Court at the undersigned
counsel’s address below.

2. Defendant, Honorato Tupaz, is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of

Tipolojon, Barrio Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City where he may be
served with summons, orders, writs and processes of this Honorable
Court.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Defendant initially began occupying the land that allegedly is in the area
of the complainant’s lot on 2012;

4. During the entire duration of his occupation in the aforementioned area,

he was unaware the lot had any owner since there was no indication of
the same when he first settled in the area;

5. That he occupied the same in the concept of an owner and in good faith;

DENIALS AND ADMISSIONS

6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5;

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

to the truth of the material averments made in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 8, 12,
17 of the complaint;

8. Defendant vehemently denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of

the Complaint. Defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiffs intended to
have Defendants called before the barangay (Office of the Lupon
Tagapamayapa) to have them vacate the area;

9. The allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint as to the said

occupation by the Defendant of Lot No. 58, Psd-242872 is specifically
denied for the same reason asserted in paragraph 9 of this Answer;

10. Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 13. He has

neither had any previous interaction with the Plaintiffs in relation to the
Complaint;

11. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 14 of the Complaint. Defendant

has not received any demand to vacate from the Plaintiffs;

12. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 15. The defendant settled and
built her house in good faith since there was no indication that the lot had
an owner;

13. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 18. There is no legal basis to

justify the payment of rent by the Defendant;

14. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 19. Defendant did not illegally
occupy their land as mentioned in the previous paragraphs;
 15. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 20. There is no legal basis to
justify the same;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DEFENDANT AS BUILDER WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND THE

PLAINTIFFS AS LANDOWNER WAS IN BAD FAITH

16. Defendant asserts that his occupation with the aforementioned lot was in
good faith and in the concept of an owner.

17. In the case of SPOUSES MAXIMO ESPINOZA and WINIFREDA

DE VERA vs. SPOUSES ANTONIO MAYANDOC and ERLINDA
CAYABYAB MAYANDOC1:

“To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a person

asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e., that he be a possessor
in the concept of owner, and that he be unaware that there exists in
his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.”

Here, the defendant is unaware that there exists in his title or mode of
acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. When he first settled in the
area, there were no indication that the land was owned by any person.
Thus, the defendant relied on such fact and built his home within the
alleged area of the plaintiffs.

The settled rule is bad faith should be established by clear and

convincing evidence since the law always presumes good faith.2

Here, the plaintiff merely alleges that the occupation of the defendant
was illegal. Their allegations were only mere conclusions of law.

And in the case of AMALIA S. MENEZ vs. STATUS MARITIME

CORPORATION, NAFTOTRADE SHIPPING AND
COMMERCIAL S.A., AND MOILEN ALOYSIUS VILLEGAS : 3

“…mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof,

the allegation is essentially self-serving and devoid of any evidentiary
weight.”

1
G.R. No. 211170, July 3, 2017
2
Id.
3
G.R. No. 227523, August 29, 2018
 In the complaint, the plaintiffs merely allege that the occupation
and possession of the defendant was illegal without evidentiary or legal
basis. Thus it cannot be gainsaid that the defendant was in bad faith.

18. Under Article 453 of the New Civil Code:

“If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner
of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though
both had acted in good faith.

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner

whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part.”

The plaintiffs herein are landowners in bad faith since they

knew as early as 2008 that there were people building on their lot yet
they waited until 2019 to assert their rights to the said lot.

And under Article 454, in relation to Article 447, Civil Code:

“Article 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder,
planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article 447
shall apply.

Article 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or
through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials of
another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also
be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the materials
shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without
injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or
works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith,
the owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a
right to be indemnified for damages.”

Thus, being landowners in bad faith, herein plaintiffs cannot

eject the defendant from his home without the payment of the value of
the materials used by the defendant in building his house and for the
reparation of damages.

19. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code which provides:

“Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the
works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in
Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the
price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the
 builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall
pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate
the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms
thereof.”

20. These remedies available to the Plaintiffs was reiterated in the case of
Pablo M. Padilla VS. Leopoldo Malicsi4:

“Article 448 of the Civil Code gives a builder in good faith the right to
compel the landowner to choose between two (2) options: (1) to appropriate
the building by paying the indemnity required by law; or (2) to sell the land
to the builder.

Ignacio v. Hilario5 summarized the respective rights of the landowner

and builder in good faith as follows:

“The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by

another, is entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the
value of his building, under Article 546. The owner of the land, upon the
other hand, has the option, under Article 448, either to pay for the
building or to sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot,
as Defendants here did, refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the
land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land
where it is erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having
chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same.”

Although Article 448 of the Civil Code provides the owner of the lot
with the two options stated above, to allow Plaintiffs to appropriate the
house of herein Defendant would serve as an injustice to the latter who has
been occupying the same for a long period of time in good faith and in the
concept of an owner.

COMPLAINANTS ARE ESTOPPED BY LACHES IN ASSERTING THEIR

RIGHTS

21. In the case of Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po (G.R. No. 208450 and 208497,
June 5, 2017), the Supreme Court held that:

"There is laches when a party was negligent or has failed "to assert a
right within a reasonable time," thus giving rise to the presumption that
he or she has abandoned it. Laches has set in when it is already
inequitable or unfair to allow the party to assert the right. “

4
G.R. No. 201354, September 21, 2016
5
G.R. No. 122824, September 26, 2001
 22. The elements of laches were further enumerated in Spouses Oropeza vs.
Allied Banking Corporation6:

“Laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time. The following
elements must be present in order to constitute laches:

(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he

claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made for
which the complaint seeks a remedy;

(2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant

having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant's conduct and
having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit;

(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and

(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded

to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.”

Here, it was only in 2019 that plaintiffs finally acted upon the
defendant’s occupation of the subject lot to assert their rights, 11 years
from the time of the plaintiffs’ discovery of such occupation. They have
never bothered in the time in between to assert their rights or the to make
it known to the public that the land that the defendant was occupying
already has an owner.

Herein defendant has been occupying the house he is currently

residing in for a long period of time. He has established a home in the
said land without any interference from the plaintiffs, who had more than
ample time to regain possession of the aforementioned lot, which is the
sole basis of their complaint against him. They have slept on their rights,
as a result of which, defendant was led to believe that he was occupying
his house on a land with no owner. To grant the plaintiffs the relief they
are praying for would in effect condone their unreasonable inactivity to
protect their interests, to the prejudice of herein defendant.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant Honorato Tupaz respectfully plead herein the allegations in the

preceding paragraphs.

A. FIRST COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

23. Defendant Honorato Tupaz, has established and continue to establish his
good name and reputation in his community. Plaintiffs’ act of filing this
unmeritorious suit has unnecessarily besmirched her good name and
6
G.R. No. 222078, April 01, 2019
 reputation, and as a result, the defendant has nurtured, sustained, and
suffered serious anxiety, sleepless nights, and too much stress, therefore
plaintiffs must be held liable for moral damages in the amount of not less
than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱ 100,000.00).

B. SECOND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

24. By way of example and correction for the public good, and to effectively
deter those similarly minded, the plaintiffs should be ordered to pay to
defendant exemplary damages in the amount of not less than One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱ 100,000.00).

C. THIRD COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

25. As a consequence of this clearly unwarranted suit, defendant Honorato

Tupaz was compelled to engage the services of counsel for a fee, and to
incur expenses in litigation which the plaintiffs should be made liable,
therefore, they should be ordered to pay the defendant attorney’s fees and
other litigation expenses in the amount of not less than One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (₱ 100,000.00).

WITNESS

26. Judicial Affidavit of Defendant Honorato Tupaz

Defendant Honorato Tupaz will testify on his behalf. His testimony shall
cover his personal knowledge as to his possession and occupation over
the subject land, and that he was unaware that the same had any owner.

EVIDENCE
Documentary Evidence:

Exhibit Number Description

Exhibit “1” Judicial Affidavit of Honorato Tupaz
Exhibit “2” Photo of the house of Honorato Tupaz

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

after hearing on the merits, this Honorable Court to DISMISS the complaint for
lack of merit:

On defendant’s counterclaims, it is respectfully prayed that Judgement be

rendered against the plaintiffs, as follows:
 1. On the First Compulsory Counterclaim, ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendant
Honorato Tupaz moral damages in the amount of not less than One Hundred
Thousand Pesos ((₱ 100,000.00).

2. On the Second Compulsory Counterclaim, ordering Plaintiffs to pay

Defendant Honorato Tupaz exemplary damages in the amount of not less
than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱ 100,000.00).

3. On the Third Compulsory Counterclaim, ordering the Plaintiffs to pay

Defendant Honorato Tupaz attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses in
the amount of not less than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱ 100,000.00).

Defendant Honorato Tupaz, prays for such other reliefs that are just and
equitable under the premises.

Most respectfully submitted this 25th day of August 2022, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines.

PRECIOSO SEALZA SASAM LAW OFFICE and Associates

Zone 3, Brgy. Patag,
Camp Evangelista, Cagayan de Oro City

By:

EDWARD REY E. SASAM

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll No.81955; TIN No.608-239-761
IBP OR No.230997; Dated, Jun. 12, 2022
PTR No. 5376413; Dated, Aug. 15, 2022
MCLE Compliance: Recent Bar Passer
Signed the Roll of Attorneys on May 26, 2022
Zone 3, Patag, Camp Evangelista, Cag.de Oro City
Mobile No. 09151798391
Email Add: edward.sasam@gmail.com

ATTESTATION
(Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 7 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure – AM No. 19-10-20-SC)

I HEREBY ATTEST AND CERTIFY that my signature as counsel for defendant

constitutes as certification that I read the pleading and documents and to best of my
knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry, reasonable
circumstances, it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation, the
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions warranted by existing law or
jurisprudence, or by non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing
existing jurisprudence. The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the
modes of discovery under these rules.
 ATTY. EDWARD REY E. SASAM

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF CAGAYAN DE ORO ) S.C.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Honorato Tupaz, of legal age, Filipino Citizen, married, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

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

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and have read
the allegations contained therein;

3. That the allegations in the said Answer are true and correct of my own
knowledge and authentic records;

4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issued in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency;
 5. That if I should thereafter learned that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any
other tribunal agency, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and
sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed;

6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing

facts and to comply with the provision of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the
Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 25 th day of

August 2022, in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

HONORATO TUPAZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 25th day of August

2022, exhibiting his Senior Citizen I.D. with No. 70933 bearing his photo and
signature, known to me as the same person who personally signed the foregoing
instrument before me and avowed under penalty of law to the whole truth of the
contents of said instrument.

Doc. No. 48 ATTY. DEXTER BAQUIANO PRECIOSO

NOTARY PUBLIC
Page No. 50 Notarial Commission Until December 31, 2021
Roll No.62701; TIN No.452-664-622-000.Mis.Or.
Book No. 41 IBP OR No.141827; Dated, Jan. 27.2021
PTR No. 0712588; Dated, Jan. 22, 2021.Cag.de Oro
Series of 2022 MCLE Compliance No.VII-0000848; Sept. 4, 2019
Zone 3, Patag, Camp Evangelista, Cag.de Oro City
Pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution, October 26, 2021
Re: B.M. No. 3795. September 28, 2021
S.C. Resolution dated July 5, 2022

Copy furnished by personal service:

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
10th Judicial Region
Branch 6
Cagayan de Oro City

ATTY. RAMIL G. CARREON

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Suite #310, P&J Lim Building
Tiano-Kalambaguhan Streets,
9000 Cagayan de Oro City
Cagayan de Oro City 9000