Answer with counterclaim - Unsigned deed of sale PDF

Preview

Summary

sample...

Description

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Eighth (8th) Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Tacloban City, Leyte Civil Case No.:____________

Alfonso de la Cruz, Plaintiff -versus-

For: Recovery of Possession With Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Attachment under Section 1(c), Rule 57 of the Rules of Court

Samuel Regalado and Rafaela Regalado, Defendants ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANT, RAFAELA REGALADO, thru the undersigned counsel unto this most Honorable Court most respectfully states that: 1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is specifically denied due to lack of knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff; 2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is admitted; 3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is admitted; 4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are specifically denied. The truth of the matter is that the Original Certificate of Title is still in the possession of the Defendant, registered under the name of Rafaela Regalado as owner of the subject parcel of land, Lot No. 4675-A, being more particularly described herein as follows: “A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4675-A, located at Brgy. Calanipawan, Tacloban City, Leyte, bounded on the NE, by Lot 4654, on the SE, by Lots 3980, 4674, and 4675-B, on the SW, by Lots 4655, 4675B, and 3981, and on the NW, by Lots 4674, 4679, and 3982, containing an area of 357 Sq. Meters more or less, and embraced in Certificate of Title No. P-621”; A copy of the Original Certificate of Title covering the above-described property is hereto attached as Annex “A”; Defendant declares that the Transfer Certificate of Title on which Plaintiff based his claim of ownership, is spurious. A cursory inspection of the TCT readily showed glaring discrepancies which indicated that the same is spurious; In an inquiry, the Registry of Deeds of Tacloban City issued a Certification, attached as Annex “B”, stating that the Transfer Certificate of Title T-5789 registered under the name of Alfonso dela Cruz is not recorded in the Registry, hence, confirmed Defendant’s declaration that the same is fabricated; The Title number predominantly shown on the title and alleged by the Plaintiff is T-5789, however the marginal footnote of the same TCT reads

“This is a Certified True Copy of TCT T-8625 on file at Registry of Deeds of Tacloban City...’’; Basic is the rule that the last two digits of the Title Number should match the last two digits of the page number found at the top right portion of the title. The alleged Title Number is T-5789, however, the last 2 digits of the page number shown on the top right portion of the title is page 25. Clearly, the last two digits of the title number did not match the last two digits of the page number, which instead matched the last two digits of the Title Number shown in the marginal footnote T-8625; The ROD of Tacloban City is the repository of all records regarding OCTs issued in the City, and the certification is therefore competent and admissible evidence to prove that the title is spurious (Escobar vs Luna GR 169204, Mar 2007); 5. Paragraph 5 is specifically denied, in as much as Defendant have also religiously paid the property taxes of the above-described parcel of land, and a copy of the latest Tax Declaration for said property under the name of Rafaela Regalado, issued by the Assessor’s Office of Tacloban City, is attached as Annex ‘’C’’ hereof; 6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint on the jurisdiction of the RTC is admitted; 7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is specifically denied under oath attached as Annex ‘’D’’ hereof. Defendant disputes the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The truth of the matter is that the Deed of Absolute sale was not signed by the Defendant due to the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement as to the cost of the subject land. Plaintiff insisted that the land is worth only P50,000.00, which is significantly lower than the prevailing market value of the same is valued at P200.00 per square meter or P71,400.00. The failure of the parties to the contract to arrive at an agreement indicated the absence of consent or the meeting of minds, which is an essential element of a contract. Defendant also claims that she never received the payment for the land allegedly made by the Plaintiff. Hence, there was no valid sale; 8. The allegation in Paragraph 8 is conditionally admitted, insofar as the Plaintiff had indeed built a fence around the perimeter. However, Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s claim that the act of fencing is based on his claim of ownership after having validly acquired the land; 9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is specifically denied due to lack of knowledge or sufficient information on the whereabouts of the Plaintiff; 10. The truth of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is specifically denied. Defendant claims that her possession of the subject land cannot be considered as intrusion, said possession being exercised under a claim of ownership, as evidenced by the OCT P-621, which was never transferred to Plaintiff Alfonso dela Cruz; 11. The truth of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is specifically denied. Defendant avers that no demand to vacate was ever made by the Plaintiff, and any demand in writing was not received by them, and assuming arguendo that demand was in fact made, the same is without legal basis; 12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is admitted;

13. The allegation in Paragraph 13 and 16, in relation to Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Complaint, are specifically denied by Defendant; the truth of the matter is that Defendant is lawfully correct in asserting her right to possess the subject property under a claim of ownership evidenced by a Title registered under her name. The exercise of possession, being an attribute of ownership, is proper and legal. The ownership over the subject land was never transferred to the name of the Plaintiff by virtue of an invalid Deed of Sale and spurious Title. The Plaintiff, having no right of ownership or right of possession over the subject land, cannot be deprived of the same; 14. The truth of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint is likewise specifically denied, in as much as Defendant had not once received a notice from the Lupong Tagapamayapa on the scheduled Barangay Conciliation, hence, Defendant was not apprised of such meeting, and was not given the opportunity to present her defense before the Lupong Tagapamayapa; 15. Defendant specifically denies the truth of Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21, and adduces evidences to prove that her claim of right to possess the land and construct a house thereon is based on an authentic Certificate of Title over the same; 16. Plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment should not be granted because the subject parcel of land was not unjustly or fraudulently taken. Sec.1(c), Rule 57, of the Rules of Court provides that Preliminary Attachment may be availed of in “ xxx an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person”. The Complaint is bereft of allegations and commission of the acts which would justify the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM Defendant reiterates the foregoing allegations and further states THAT: Due to the filing of the Complaint, Defendant’s reputation have been tarnished, for which reason, Plaintiff should be held liable in the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by way of moral damages; By way of example and in the interest of public good so that others may be deterred from filing a similar Complaint, Plaintiff should be held liable for exemplary damages in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00); In order to protect her rights and interests, Defendant was constrained to engage the services of a lawyer whom they paid the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as Attorney’s fee plus FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) honorarium per court appearance. PRAYER WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed for that the Honorable Court DENY the issuance of writ of Preliminary Attachment and

render judgement in favor of the Defendant by DISMISSING the Complaint for Recovery of Possession, and thereafter award to the Defendant the damages as set forth in the Counterclaim. Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Respectfully Submitted. 14 June 2021, Tacloban City.

The Clerk of Court RTC - Tacloban City Please submit to the Honorable Court the foregoing Answer immediately upon receipt hereof for favorable action. Thank you. ROMNICK CANONA

Copy furnished via registered mail: ATTY. LOVELY MAE SABALBERINO Sabalberino Law Office, Room 12, XYZ Building 6500, Tacloban City, Philippines...