Republic of the Philippines

8th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Catarman – Lope de Vega
Catarman, Northern Samar

MIKHAEL B. NARDO,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. _______

-versus- For: RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION & OWNERSHIP
WITH DAMAGES

TONY V. TREMERA, JENS D. TREMERA &

LUISA P. DERIO-TREMERA,
Defendants,
X------------------------ X

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM

DEFENDANTS, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court
respectfully states:

1. Defendants admit the allegation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint in so far as the
personal circumstances are concern;

2. That the defendants specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the Complaint not only for lack of sufficient knowledge to form
a belief as to the truth and falsity thereof and for being fabricated, baseless, speculative,
fictional and self-serving statements but also for reasons stated in the Special Affirmative
Defenses hereinafter set forth;

3. That defendants admit paragraph 10 of the Complaint in so far as the assessed value of
the subject and that is less than Php 20,000 and specifically deny the other facts
mentioned in the said paragraph;

SPECIAL and/or AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Defendants incorporate and replead all the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs
insofar as they are material and relevant thereto;

2. That Plaintiff’s cause of action is already barred by laches and statute of

limitations. The Complaint must be dismissed for the cause of action of the plaintiff to
recover possession and ownership of the property is already barred by prescription and
laches.

Plaintiff’s evidence for her claim of “ownership” over the disputed land is anchored on a
tax declaration no. 1234 for the year 1949 in the name of his grandfather Manny Nardo.
The said property is a residential lot with an area of 273 square meters situated in Veran
Street, Brgy. Dalakit, Catarman, Northern Samar. Marcos Vasquez who is the father of
defendant Tony V. Tremera, who likewise is the father-in-law of defendant Luisa P.
Derio-Tremera and grandfather of defendant Jens D. Tremera, was the named
administrator then of the above-mentioned tax declaration. However, the said tax
declaration was cancelled by another tax declaration no. 26809 in the year 1964
assessment and it was Marcos Vasquez, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants,
who then become the declared owner of the said property. Attached hereto is the copy
of Tax Declaration No. 26809 marked as Annex “1” and made as an integral part
hereof.

Since then, defendants and predecessors-in-interest enjoyed exclusive, open, adverse

and uninterrupted possession of the property. Defendant Tony V. Tremera who is now
78 years old can categorically vouch that since his childhood years he and his family
never left on the disputed lot and it is the place where they built their homes and raised
their own families.

On the assessment year of 1974, Tax Declaration No. 26809 was cancelled by Tax
Declaration No. 29066 still in the name of Marcos Vasquez. Attached hereto is the copy
of Tax Declaration No. 29066 and marked as Annex “2” and made as an integral part
hereof. In the same year and the succeeding years, defendants religiously paid the taxes
due on the said property. Attached hereto are the copies of Tax Receipts for the years
1974, 1975 and 1976 and marked as Annexes “3”, “4” & “5”, respectively, and made as
an integral part hereof.

In 1988 during the Cadastral survey, the disputed lot was resurveyed and designated as
Cadastral Lot No. 376 and Tax Declaration No. 00539 was issued in lieu of Tax
Declaration No. 29066 still in the name of Marcos Vasquez. After the re-survey the area
of the lot increased from 273 square meters to 453 square meters. Attached hereto is the
copy of Tax Declaration No. 00539 and marked as Annex “6” and made as an integral
part hereof. And the recent tax assessment of 2005, Tax Declaration No. 00539 had
been cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 05 02959 with an assessed value of Php 13,500.
Attached hereto is the copy of Tax Declaration No. 05 02959 and marked as Annex “7”
and made as an integral part hereof.

Defendants have been religiously paying the taxes due on the said property up to the
present as evidenced by the official tax receipts issued. Attached hereto are the copies of
tax receipts for the years 1995-2007, 2008-2011 and 2012-2013 and marked as Annex
“8”, “9” and “10”, respectively, and made as an integral part hereof;

From the year 1964 when the questioned lot was in the name of the defendants’
predecessor-in-interest and up to the present or an aggregate period of 48 years, the
defendants in good faith believed that the lands belongs to them owned by their
predecessor-in-interest under a just title and was passed to them by virtue of
succession. They are living and in actual possession on said property in the concept of
an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted for a very long period of time. In fact, the
plaintiff has never set foot on the disputed land.

Granting in arguendo that plaintiff has a right over the disputed lot, such right has
already prescribed and acquisitive prescription in favor of the defendants had already
set in.

As between the tax declaration of the plaintiff dated back 1949 and the tax declarations
issued in the name of the defendants’ predecessor-in-interest from 1964 up to the
present, the latter has a superior right to that of the plaintiff, and these buttress
defendants’ claim that they had been in actual and peaceful possession of the said lot.
Simply put, tax declarations are strong indications of possession and occupation of a
parcel of land.

Juxtaposed with defendants’ tax declarations are tax receipts for real estate taxes paid
regularly by the defendants. In the same vein, the tax receipts of the defendants are
evidential and suggestive demonstration of their possession of the subject lot in the
concept of an owner. Undeniably, the tax payments over the disputed land by the
defendants are pieces of denotive evidence tend to show the defendants had been in
possession of said lot not later than 1974.
 Plaintiff’s Tax Declaration is insufficient to establish plaintiff’s ownership of the subject
lot. That the disputed property has been declared for taxation purposes in the name of
any party does not necessarily prove ownership. Jurisprudence is consistent that tax
declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership of the properties stated therein. A
disclaimer is even printed on the face of such tax declarations that they are “issued for
tax purposes only and should not be considered as title to the property.” At best, tax
declarations are indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. (Azana vs. Lumbo,
GR No. 157593, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 707)

The allegations that defendants’ predecessor-in-interest committed fraud in order to

secure the issuance of tax declaration in his name is specious. Mere allegations of fraud
are not enough. Specific, intentional facts to deceive and deprive another party of his
right, or in some manner injure him, must be alleged and proved. Also, the issuance of
the Assessor’s Office of the Tax Declaration over the subject property to the name of the
defendants’ predecessor-in-interest enjoys the presumption of regularity.

Aside from the plaintiff’s cause of action which is barred by prescription it is likewise
barred by laches considering that plaintiff belatedly assert his claim just now or 48
years of sleeping on whatever rights he has. While plaintiff knew all the while about the
existence of their tax declaration of 1949 yet he did not take any action to recover the
same and waited until year 2021 to file a suit without offering any excuse for such delay.

Laches has been defined as failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence could or should have been
done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert his right has either
abandoned or declined to assert it. (Isabella Colleges, Inc. vs. Heirs of Nieves
Tolentino-Rivera, 397 Phil 955 (2000). This equitable defense is based upon grounds of
public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.
(Vda. De Rigonan vs. Derecho, GR. No. 159571, July 15, 2005)

3. That a condition precedent for filing the Complaint has not been
complied with. Plaintiff brought the matter to the Lupon of Brgy. 3, Poblacion,
Pambujan, Northern Samar with only Defendant Tony V. Tremera as the respondent
without joining other defendants in this case as appearing in the Certification to File
Action issued. Hence, the same is defective and wanting for said referral for
conciliation is not binding on the defendants who were not included as respondents
during the confrontation at the Barangay level.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

1. Defendants hereby replead and incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations as may be
material and relevant, and further aver that:

a) As a consequence of the plaintiff’s unjust and invalid claims, which prejudiced the
defendants’ rights and interests, defendants suffered great damage, actually experienced
mental anguish, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, and wounded feelings entitling
them to moral damages in the amount of Php 50,000;

b) Due to the precipitate and baseless initiation by the plaintiff of the instant Complaint, the
sole purpose of which is to enrich herself at the expense and inconvenience, harass and
prejudice of the defendants, and by way of public example to discourage, deter and prevent
others from following and imitating the plaintiff’s act of filing an unjust and invalid claim, the
plaintiff must be adjudged liable to pay the defendants exemplary damages in the amount
of Php 50,000;
 c) Due to plaintiff’s unwarranted and malicious Complaint, the defendants incurred costs of
litigation and were constrained to engaged the services of undersigned counsel in order to
protect their rights and interests for the sum of Php 10,000 as acceptance fee and Php 1,500
per counsel’s court appearance.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to dismiss the

instant case outright on the following grounds: (1) the cause of action has already prescribed; (2)
the cause of action is likewise barred by laches; (3) and the instant Complaint against the herein
defendants is wanting for a cause of action, baseless in fact and in equity of law; and awarding in
favor of the defendants their counterclaims, as follows:

a) Ordering the plaintiff to pay herein defendants the sum of Php 50,000 for and as moral
damages;
b) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendants the sum of Php 50,000 for and as exemplary
damages;

c) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendants the sum of Php 10,000 for and as attorney’s fees
and Php 1,500 per counsel’s appearance;

d) Ordering plaintiff to pay the costs of the suit;

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

Catarman, Northern Samar, October 20, 2022.

ATTY. JEREEN P. PITO

Counsel for the Defendants
Catarman, Northern Samar
Roll No. 12345-03/22/2012
IBP Lifetime No. 02355
PTR No. 435643-01/03/2022
MCLE Compliance No. VII-123879. 05/05/2021
 VERIFICATION

We, TONY V. TREMERA, JENS D. TREMERA & LUISA P. DERIO-TREMERA,

of legal ages, Filipinos and residents of Catarman, Northern Samar, under oath, hereby depose
and state:

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

2. We have caused the preparations of the above Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim
and have read and fully understood the contents thereof; and

3. That the factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery;

IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this _____ day of
______________________ at Catarman, Northern Samar.

TONY V. TREMERA JENS D. TREMERA

Affiant Affiant

LUISA P. DERIO-TREMERA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of

_________________ at Catarman, Northern Samar.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2022.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. DEIL EVAN Y. OROT

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Brgy. J. P. Rizal,
Catarman, Northern Samar
Registry Receipt No. ________
Date: ________