Republic of the Philippines

Sixth Judicial Region

5TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
********
*******

HEIRS OF EMILIO,
Plaintiffs,

- versus - Civil Case No. 2022-09-538-C

For Recovery of Ownership and
Possession, Cancellation of Document
with Damages

SPOUSES MERLE,
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, Defendants by Counsel, in answer to Plaintiff’s

Complaint, respectfully alleges:

1. Defendants *** are by themselves and as the duly authorized

representative of Defendant Lim by virtue of a Special Power of
Attorney hereto attached as Annex “1”;

2. Defendants specifically deny Paragraph 1 of the Complaint for

lack of personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truthfulness of the same but admit as to the existence of the
Special Power of Attorney as attached to the Complaint;

3. Defendants admit Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the Complaint;

4. Defendants admit Paragraph 5 of the Complaint;

5. Defendants admit Paragraph 6 of the Complaint but specifically

deny the area stated thereat considering that Tax Declaration
(TD) No. 07-0002-00999 in the name of Esteban before it was
cancelled by TD 07-002-00999 in the name of Defendant
Carmen D. Lim (herein to be referred as Defendant) is 1,343 sq.
meters and not 300 sq. meters. Copy of TD No. 07-0002-00999
is attached to and made integral part hereof as Annex “2”;

6. Defendants admit Paragraph 7 of the Complaint;

7. Defendants admit Paragraph 8 as to the allegation that Plaintiffs’

late father, Emilio, built his house on the portion of Lot 71 but
specifically deny the allegation that Emilio purchased the same
from Miguel for lack of personal knowledge to verify the

1
 truthfulness or veracity of the said allegation. The truth being
that had it been true indeed that the late Emilio purchased the
same from Miguel, he would have contested or did not sign the
Agreement of Partition with his siblings;

8. In addition, it was only in 1990 when Emilio and his Siblings

started to subdivide the property of their maternal grandfather, ,
hence, prior to the subdivision, legally, all heirs are considered
co-owners of all the points and corners of the said lot;

9. Defendants admit Paragraph 9 of the Complaint;

10. Defendants specifically deny Paragraph 10 of the Complaint

for lack of personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truthfulness of the same or to the existence of the alleged
Deed;

11. Defendants admit Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Complaint but

specifically deny Paragraph 13 for being false and misleading the
truth being …..;

12. Defendants specifically deny Paragraph 14 of the Complaint

for being false considering that it …..;

13. Defendants specifically deny Paragraph 15 of the Complaint

for being misleading, false and bereft of any factual basis, the
truth being that:

a. Defendants’ possession and occupation was not by

tolerance as it was already settled, way back in 1990 and
further in 1996, the respective shares of the heirs of
Maximo and Macaria;

b. Hence, there was no way that Plaintiff ..…;

c. In the said Subdivision and Partition Agreement, …..;

d. In so far as the children of Macaria …..;

14. Defendants admit Paragraph 16 on the allegation that

Defendant ……;

15. Defendants specifically deny Paragraph 17 on the allegation

that Defendant wrote to her a letter ….:

a. When the letter was written in 1995, ….

b. Hence, the only lot of Emilio …;

16. Defendant specifically deny paragraph 18 of the Complaint for

being false since ….;

2
 17. For Defendants, the following shall give their testimony in
support of this Answer through their Judicial Affidavit attached
as Annexes “7”, “8” and “9” namely:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants hereby re-plead the allegations aforementioned and

further aver by way of Affirmative Defenses thus:

1. Defendants asserts that Plaintiffs waited …..;

2. Defendants further assert that Plaintiffs have No Cause of Action

against herein Defendants considering that there is nothing that
supports their claim that they own the property subject of this
case to warrant them the right to recover its ownership and
possession from herein Defendants;

3. The instant Complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of

action

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

By way of counterclaim, herein Defendants replead the allegations

stated above and further states that:

1. As a result of the unjustified filing of a baseless, false and flagrant

suit against Defendants which caused them to be talked about in
the community, they suffered disturbed nights and serious anxiety
which if given monetary value could be estimated at Php 50,000.00
each;

2. They were forced to defend their rights and protect their properties
when they were dragged by Plaintiffs in this baseless and
unsupported claim which led them to hire the services of
undersigned counsel for Attorney’s Fee amounting to Php
100,000.00 as acceptance fee and Php 5,000.00 for attorney’s
appearance in court;

3. To in order that the act of the Plaintiff would not be emulated by

others who intent to file flagrant, unjustified and baseless cases,
Plaintiff should be held liable to pay Php 50,000.00 as and by way
of exemplary damages

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered:

3
 1. To dismiss the instant Complaint for lack of legal, factual basis
to support the allegations of the Complaint and the Pray sought
in the instant case;

2. To dismiss the Complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs have no

cause of action against herein Defendants;

3. To pay Defendants moral damages amounting to Php 50,000.00;

4. To pay Defendants attorney’s fees and cost of suit;

5. To pay Defendants exemplary damages amounting to Php

50,000.00

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

Silang, Cavite for *******. October 24, 2022.

LEE HYERI.
Counsel for the Accused
Unit B, E & E Commercial Bldg,
J. Rizal St.,
Silang, Cavite
attorney@gmail.com/09955555555
Roll of Attorney No. 488888
IBP ID No. 177777/1-5-2025/Pasig City
PTR No. 5500000/01-07-2025/TMC
MCLE VII Compliant

Copy Furnished:

KIM SOON HEO

SOON HEO LAW OFFICE
2nd Floor, Eagle’s Place,
Cheongdam St., Agpujong,

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing ANSWER was served to the adverse party

through Counsel by registered mail and LBC Courier personal service not
being practical in view of time, distance and manpower constraints.

LEE HYERI

4
VERIFICATION