REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Pasig City, Branch 67

ROMEO SILVERIO BARTOLOME

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 123456
For: Recovery of
Possession of Real
Property
-versus-

CASSIE CARDINAL MONDRAGON

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant CASSIE CARDINAL MONDRAGON (“Defendant”), single, of

legal age, Filipino, by the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court
respectfully states that:

Admissions/Denials

1. She admits the contents of paragraph 2 of the Complaint as to the fact

that she is the daughter and sole heir of Daniela Cardinal Mondragon, that she is
of legal age and a Filipino. However, defendant would like to be served with court
orders and other processes at her counsel’s office at 123 San Sebastian, Pasig
City.

2. She admits the contents of paragraph 3 of the Complaint as to the fact

that her mother and Plaintiff Romeo Silverio Bartolome were childhood friends
that her mother even made Plaintiff one of defendant’s godfather; and as to the
fact of her mother’s death in 2005. However, defendant specifically denies that
the friendship between her mother and Plaintiff was maintained until her mother’s
death, the truth being that in 2002, their relation as friends was strained because
Daniela refused to help Plaintiff when the latter got involved in a criminal case.

3. She admits the contents of paragraph 4 of the Complaint as to the fact

of marriage of her parents in 1989 and that she was born and legitimated in
1985.

4. She admits the contents of paragraph 5 of the Complaint insofar as to

the facts of her father being diagnosed with cancer and her father’s death, and to
the fact that her family suffered financially during that time. However, Defendant
is without sufficient information to form belief as to the truth that her mother at
that time could not run the business effectively. Defendant knows that her mother
had a business degree.
5. She admits the contents of paragraph 6 of the Complaint but only as to
the fact that a Contract of Sale has been entered on June 15, 1995 between her
mother and Plaintiff involving the 600 square meter lot, where the Mondragon’s
family home stood, and all the improvements on it, but specifically denies that the
contract reflects the true intent of the parties as explained in the Affirmative
Defenses below.

5.1. Defendant was able to go over her mother’s documents in the

family safe and found an original copy of the contract between her mother
and Plaintiff, which has “CONTRACT OF SALE” written on top of the
document and dated June 15, 1995, involving the land where their family
home stood and all the improvements on it. The search was brought about
by the demand letter that Defendant received from Plaintiff sometime in
November 2015. In the contract, her Yaya, Esther Bonifacio signed as
witness when the contract was executed at their family home in 1995. The
original copy of the contract is attached as “Annex 1” and made an
integral part of the records of this case.

5.2. In the purported Contract of Sale, the Plaintiff was the vendee
and Daniela Cardinal Mondragon was the vendor; that the amount of ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 100,000.00) was the consideration;
and that the object of the contract is the parcel of land at 54 General
Atienza Street, San Antonio, Pasig City including all the improvements on
it. It was also stipulated that possession will remain with the vendor and
her successors and that the vendor may perform any act of dominion over
the subject property. It was also stipulated that even if a Deed of Absolute
Sale will be executed, the Vendor and her successors in interest retains
possession of the property and perform acts of dominion.

5.3. Upon seeing the contract from her mother’s pile of documents,
Defendant then remembered a time when she saw her Ninong Romeo in
their house and gave her mother money. Defendant also heard her mother
say that they needed to sell the subject property so that their creditors
would not find interest in going after the remaining property that they
owned – the family home and the land where it was built. She also
remembered that her Ninong at that time needed a collateral for a loan
that he is applying in the bank. This made her mother give the owner’s
duplicate of title to the subject property to Plaintiff.

6. She admits the contents of paragraph 7 of the Complaint about the

description and location of the subject property and that the subject land was the
separate property of her mother who inherited it from her father Mr. Arturo
Cardinal as her father’s only heir. Defendant also admits that the subject land
was registered under her mother’s name on December 15, 1990 with TCT No.
057-T-81513. However, defendant clarifies that the subject land stated in
paragraph 7 is actually the same land where her family home is built, at 54
General Atienza Street, San Antonio, Pasig City. A certified true copy from the
Register of Deeds of Pasig of the subject title is attached as “Annex 2” and
made an integral part of the records of this case.

6.1 Defendant wants to clarify that she has been living in the
Mondragon family home, at 54 General Atienza Street, San Antonio, Pasig
City, since she was a baby. Her mother and father built the family home in
1984 and the family moved in on January 1, 1985. She now lives in the
same house, with Esther Bonifacio, 60, her “Yaya” since birth.

7. Defendant admits the contents of paragraph 8 of the Complaint only as

to the fact that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 057-T-81513 was given by
her mother to Plaintiff which was stipulated in the contract dated June 15, 1995.
However, she specifically denies that the copy was given to effect transfer of
ownership; the truth being that the duplicate copy was given to Plaintiff for him to
use as collateral of a loan that he is planning to apply with Metrobank. Moreover,
defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff paid TWO MILLION PESOS (P
2,000,000.00) to Daniela Cardinal Mondragon as payment of the purported sale
of the subject property; the truth being that Plaintiff gave Daniela only the amount
of ONE HUNDERED THOUSAND PESOS (P 100,000.00) to help in the cancer
treatment of her husband, Celestino Mondragon. The alleged amount of Two
Million Pesos only represents the Total Hospital Costs incurred for Celestino’s
treatment, and not the actual money given to Daniela.

8. She admits the contents of paragraph 9 of the Complaint insofar as the

fact that Plaintiff agreed that the Deed of Absolute Sale will be executed at a later
date. But Defendant specifically denies that such accommodation was caused by
the delivery of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title of the subject property, the
truth being that the said copy of the title was only lent by Daniela to Plaintiff to
help the latter apply for a loan in Metrobank, using the title as collateral.

9. She specifically denies the contents of paragraph 10 of the Complaint

as to the fact that Plaintiff tolerated the possession of the subject property by
Daniela and her family since the time of the execution of the contract without
paying any rent. The truth being that it was stipulated in the contracted dated
June 15, 1995 that the vendor and her successors-in-interest remain in
possession of the subject property and may perform acts of dominion over the
said property.

10. She admits the contents of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

11. She admits the contents of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Complaint as

to the fact that a Demand Letter dated November 10, 2015 was sent by Plaintiff
through his counsel, telling Defendant to vacate the subject property. Defendant
also admits that she refused to vacate the property which she expressed and
justified in her Reply to the Demand Letter dated November 17, 2015 which
was sent to Plaintiff arguing that Defendant owns the subject property as the sole
heir of Daniela Mondargon, the registered owner of the property. An original
duplicate copy of the Reply to the Demand Letter is attached as “Annex 3” and
made an integral part of the records of this case.
 12. Lastly, she specifically denies the contents of paragraph 14 of the
Complaint as to the statement that a compromise has been exerted by the
Plaintiff, the truth being that Plaintiff was so adamant that Defendant vacate the
subject property when Plaintiff went to Defendant’s house sometime in August
2019.

Special, Affirmative and Other Defenses

A. Complaint warrants outright dismissal

13. The Complaint filed by Plaintiff is nothing but a malicious lawsuit

calculated to harass the Defendants, not to mention that its bases for its causes
of action are unfounded.

14. The copy of the Complaint of the Plaintiff furnished to the Defendant,
through the former’s fault of not attaching the annexes it mentioned, warrants the
outright dismissal of the case. Par. 8, 33 of the Complaint mentions Annexes “A”,
“B”, and “C”. However, after Page 10 of the copy furnished, there are no annexes
found.

B. Defendant is the lawful owner of the subject property.

15. The title to and ownership over the subject property is in the name of
the Defendant, its registered owner, and not the Plaintiff.

16. The plaintiff has never been the lawful owner of the subject property,
contrary to his allegations in the Complaint.

C. The title of the contract is contrary to the intention of the parties.

17. The alleged “Contract of Sale” between the Defendant and the Plaintiff
is not annotated on the title on the property (See “Annex 2”).

18. The contract, however designated as a “Contract of Sale” is not really

a contract of sale which is embodied in the Civil Code. Art. As mentioned by the
Plaintiff in par. 15 of his Complaint, Article 1458 of the New Civil Code provides:

“ARTICLE 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties

obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a
determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in
money or its equivalent.

A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.”

The law specifically provides that one of the contracting parties obligates himself
to transfer the ownership to another. The Defendant’s mother never intended to
transfer ownership of the subject property to the Plaintiff.

19. The Defendant’s mother and the Plaintiff did not intend to enter a
contract of sale. The money given was not in consideration of the subject
property, but only to help for the treatment of Celestino Mondragon. The
“Contract of Sale” herein produced provides:

“The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) shall be payable

upon execution of this Contract to aid Celestino Mondragon’s chemotherapy.”

20. If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the

parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. The denomination or title given by
the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of its contents. 1 There
was never a sale in the “Contract of Sale”, because even if it was denominated
as such, the intention of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is inconsistent to that of a
sale.

D. The “Contract of Sale” is an absolute simulated Contract.

21. The “Contract of Sale” is void for being a simulated contract. The
requisites for simulation are: (a) an outward declaration of will different from the
will of the parties; (b) the false appearance must have been intended by mutual
agreement; and (c) the purpose is to deceive third persons.2

22. All the aforementioned requisites are met. The Defendant’s mother
and Plaintiff both agreed to the execution of the Contract of Sale believing
Daniela Mondragon can help escape her creditors as a last resort, and to receive
a little help from Romeo Bartolome. On one hand, Romeo Bartolome can benefit
from it for his personal motive.

23. The Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed only for the aforementioned
purpose. The Plaintiff should be precluded from assailing that the purpose is
different.

24. More importantly, Defendant continued to be in physical possession of

the subject property after the "Contract of Sale" in 1995 and up to the present. If
the Plaintiff really purchased the subject property and claimed to be its true
owner, he should have had asserted ownership immediately after the alleged
sale took place. On the contrary, they only asserted their ownership of it more
than a decade after the death of Daniela Mondragon. One of the most striking
badges of absolute simulation is the complete absence of any attempt on the part
of a vendee to assert his right of dominion over the property.3
1
Ayala Life Assurance, Inc. v. Ray Burton Development Corporation, G.R. No.
163075, January 23, 2006.
2
Ruben Loyola et al v. Court of Appeals et al, G.R. No. 115734, February 23,
2000.
3
Heirs of Intac v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173211, October 11, 2012
E. The Provisional remedy of Preliminary Injunction does not lie.

25. The cause of action for Preliminary Injunction should be dismissed.

The provisional remedy of preliminary injunction on the matter of possession, lies
only when the Plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto by a proper
action for the purpose. This is also the rule established in the case of Toyota
Motor Philippines Corporation v. The Court of Appeals et al 4 cited by the Plaintiff
which he apparently ignored by only taking a portion of the case.

26. Thus, preliminary injunction does not lie where legal title is in dispute,
to take property out of the possession or control of one party and place it into that
of another whose title has not clearly been established by law.5

27. Clearly, the right of the Plaintiff is not established by not producing the
title to the property. Assuming that he does, the certified true copy of the title
issued by the Register of Deeds shows that Plaintiff’s name was never
annotated.

F. There is no basis for registration with the Register of Deeds.

28. The basis of registration with the Register of Deeds lacks support.
Again, the title and ownership to the subject property belongs to the Defendant.

G. The prayer for damages is unfounded.

29. Anent the damages demanded by Plaintiff, these are unfounded and
should be dismissed.

30. First, the damages upon breach of obligation provided for under Article
1170 of the Civil Code which states that “those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages” is inapplicable.

31. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do, or not to do. 6 It must

be stressed that the Defendant does not have the obligation to return the
possession of the property to Plaintiff. She is the lawful owner of the property and
thus there is no obligation on her part to transfer possession of the property to
Plaintiff.

32. Necessarily, since Defendant does not have any obligation, she
cannot be held in delay. Hence, regardless of the mode of demand (i.e.
4
G.R. No. 102881, December 7, 1992
5
Gordillo and Martinez v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-15117, March 28, 1919
6
Article 1156, New Civil Code.
extrajudicial or judicial), the same cannot be given merit since the Plaintiff’s basis
of demand, that he is the lawful owner of the subject property, is baseless.
Plaintiff thus cannot assert his rights over the subject property and demand that it
be returned to his possession because precisely the true and lawful owner of the
said property is Defendant and not Plaintiff.

33. Second, as to the temperate or moderate damages, it may be

recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty. 7

34. No pecuniary loss has been suffered by the Plaintiff due to

Defendant’s possession and use of the subject property because Plaintiff is not
the lawful owner of the subject property. Hence, the temperate damages being
claimed by Plaintiff must fail.

35. Third, the moral damages claimed by Plaintiff should not prosper.
Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has
undergone, by reason of the Defendant's culpable action. 8 Plaintiff cannot be said
to have suffered any mental anguish, sleepless nights and serious anxiety
because no culpable action is attributable to Defendant. To reiterate, Defendant’s
continuous possession and use over the subject property is lawful.

36. Fourth, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation demanded by

Plaintiff against the Defendant is uncalled for. Defendant’s possession and use
over the subject property is lawful and no damage was caused to Plaintiff. Hence,
he should solely bear such expenses for engaging the services of a counsel.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

37. By reason of the instant precipitate and unfounded suit initiated by

Plaintiff, the Defendant was forced to hire the services of a counsel to defend her
rights and interests over the subject property for a professional fee of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) plus Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) per court
appearance;

38. Likewise, because of Plaintiff’s filing of an unjustified and

unmeritorious complaint, Defendant suffered wounded feelings, sleepless nights,
anxieties, and besmirched reputation for which she claims moral damages of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from Defendant;

39. Furthermore, since it is established that Defendant has the lawful title
and ownership to the subject property, Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s owner’s
duplicate of title be surrendered to the Defendant to prevent the Plaintiff from
pursuing any unwanted action.

7
Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. DMC-Construction Resources, Inc.,
G.R. No. 193914, November 26, 2014.
8
Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the Defendant’s compulsory
counterclaim be granted (i.e. attorney’s fees of P50,000.00, moral damages of
P50,000.00, and costs of suit, and return of owner’s duplicate.)

The Defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

November 6, 2019, Pasig City.

DHARWAYNE DIMANALO VALDEZ

Counsel for Defendant
Valdez Law Office
Roll of Attorney: 12345
PTR 1234567; 01/08/2019;
IBP 111111; 07/05/2019;
MCLE Compliance No. V-0016000
Pasig City, 07/05/2019
123 San Sebastian, Pasig City
 VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, CASSIE CARDINAL MONDRAGON, of legal age, do hereby state that: I

am the defendant in the case filed by ROMEO SILVERIO BARTOLOME for
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY; in response, I have
caused the preparation of this Answer with Counterclaim; I have read its contents
and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal
knowledge; I specifically deny the genuineness and due execution as well as the
binding effect of the actionable documents pleaded by Plaintiff, if he furnished
any, with the Court; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or
pending before any court involving the same parties and the same issue and
that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days
from my notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on November 6,

2019.

CASSIE CARDINAL MONDRAGON

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of Pasig on this 6th

day of November 2019, affiant exhibiting before me his Social Security System ID
No. 1234-5678-10 issued on January 1, 2005 at Social Security System - Pasig.

ATTY. ALTHENE B. VALDESTEROS

NOTARY PUBLIC for Pasig City
Commission Serial No. 8888
Until December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney: 12345
PTR 7547112; 07/05/2019;
IBP 889911; 07/05/2019;
MCLE Compliance No. V-0016172
Pasig City, 07/05/2019

Doc. No. 1
Page No. 1
Book No. 2
Series of 2019.

Copy furnished through personal service:

ATTY. XAVIER GOKONGWEI BATAAN

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Bataan Law Office
123 San Rafael, Tarlac City