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 Mrs. Wennife Ambag Longganay, 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, Wennife Ambag Longganay, is of legal age, Filipino, and a

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

3. Defendant initially began occupying the house that was allegedly in the
area of the complainant’s lot on 2006;

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

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

5. She then had her residence connected to the electric grid of CEPALCO
on 2009;

6. She has built her house and raised her family in the same for more than
15 years.

DENIALS AND ADMISSIONS

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

8. 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;

9. 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;

10. 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;

11. Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 13. She has
neither had any interaction with the Plaintiffs in relation to the
Complaint;

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

has not received any demand to vacate from the Plaintiffs;

13. 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;
 14. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 18. There is no legal basis to
justify the payment of rent by the Defendant;

15. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 19. Defendant did not illegally
occupy their land as mentioned in the previous paragraphs;

16. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 20. There is no legal basis to

justify the same;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

REAL RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF COMPLAINANTS HAVE BEEN

LOST

17. Under Article 555, New Civil Code:

“Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:

(1) By the abandonment of the thing;

(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous

title;

(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it goes out
of commerce;

(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article

537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one year. But the
real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.”

Here, the defendant has been living in Tipolojon, Barrio Camaman-an,

Cagayan de Oro City since 2006 and has been occupying and has raised her
family in her residence ever since.

The complainant discovered that there were people occupying in their

land on 2008 and but only on 2019, or 11 years thereafter that they were
summoned before the barangay for a re-survey. And only until July 7, 2022
that the complainant filed herein case for accion publiciana.

In the case of Spouses Padilla vs ISAURO A. VELASCO et. al.1:

“Under Article 555(4) of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the real right
of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years. It is settled that
the remedy of accion publiciana prescribes after the lapse of ten years.”

1
G.R. No. 169956, January 19, 2009
 Thus, the remedy of accion publiciana prescribes by herein complainant
has already lapsed, and their real right of possession is now lost.

COMPLAINANTS ARE ESTOPPED BY LACHES IN ASSERTING THEIR

RIGHTS

18. 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. “

19. The elements of laches were reiterated and enumerated in Spouses

Oropeza vs. Allied Banking Corporation2:

“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
defendants’ occupation of the subject lot to assert their rights, 11 years
from the time of the plaintiffs’ discovery of such occupation. Considering
the unreasonable delay on the part of the plaintiffs to assert their rights
over the said lot, it would cause considerable damage to the defendant
since she has already built her house and has raised a family in the same
since 2006.

Herein defendant has been occupying the house she is currently residing
in for a long period of time. She has established a home and raised a
family in the said area, without any interference from the plaintiffs, who
had more than ample time to regain possession of the aforementioned lot,
2
G.R. No. 222078, April 01, 2019
 which is the sole basis of their complaint against her. They have slept on
their rights, as a result of which, defendant was led to believe that she
was occupying her house as 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 Wennife Ambag Longganay respectfully plead herein the

allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

A. FIRST COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

20. Defendant Wennife Ambag Longganay, has established and continue to

establish her good name and reputation in her community. Plaintiffs’ act
of filing this unmeritorious suit has unnecessarily besmirched her good
name and 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

21. 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

22. As a consequence of this clearly unwarranted suit, defendant Wennife

Ambag Longganay 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

23. Judicial Affidavit of Defendant Wennife Ambag Longganay

Defendant Wennife Ambag Longganay will testify on her behalf. Her

testimony shall cover her personal knowledge as to her possession and
occupation over the subject land, and that she was unaware that the same
had any owner.
 EVIDENCE
Documentary Evidence:

Exhibit Number Description

Exhibit “1” Judicial Affidavit of Wennife Ambag Longganay
CEPALCO Application and Service Connection
Exhibit “2”
Contract
Photo of the house of Wennife Ambag
Exhibit “3”
Longganay
Exhibit “4” Photo of Mahogany tree planted on 2009

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

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

Defendant Wennife Ambag Longganay, 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:

ATTY. EDWARD REY E. SASAM

Counsel for the Defendant
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, Wennife Ambag Longganay, 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.

WENNIFE AMBAG LONGGANAY

Affiant

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

2022, exhibiting her COMELEC I.D. with VIN: 4305-0309A-B0370WAL20000
bearing her 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. 46 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