Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Catarman, Northern Samar
Mr. Ronil O. Litan,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 1234
Unlawful Detainer
-versusMs. Lyka Mae Randa
Defendant,
-----------------------------------/
ANSWER
DEFENDANT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers:
I
Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are admitted;
II
Paragraph 2 is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief thereof. The allegations
are purely baseless. Defendant is made to vacate a property covered by TCT No. 12023 issued in her
name on January 5, 2013 by the Catarman Register of Deeds, therefore she is denying liability based on
the complaint, the truth being as stated in the Affirmative defenses.
III
AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEFENDANTS REPLEAD AND INCORPORATE THE
FOREGOING AVERMENTS AND FURTHER ALLEGE:
THE CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED
WITH;
All disputes are subject to barangay conciliation pursuant to Revised Katarungang
Pambaranggay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Sections 399-422, Chapter VII,
Title 1, Book III, and Section 515, Title 1, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991) and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any
government agency (Par. 1, Supreme Court Administrative Circular 14-93).
A careful perusal of the complaint and its evidence would show that Plaintiffs failed to comply
with the conciliation proceedings. There is no allegation in the complaint that referral was made to the
Katarungang Pambaranggay, or an explanation that referral thereto is excepted under the given
circumstance.
In the words of the Supreme Court:
“The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D.
1508 (now Local Government Code of 1991, Sec. 412) where applicable is much the same
effect produced by nonexhaustion of administrative remedies; the complaint
becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity, the controversy there alleged is not ripe
for judicial determination.” (Garces v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 504).
In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in dismissing an ejectment case for failure to
comply with the conciliation proceedings, the Supreme Court said:
“Referral to the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat should be made prior to the
filing of the ejectment case under PD 1508. Legal action for ejectment is barred when
there is non-recourse to barangay court. The Complaint for unlawful detainer, docketed
as Civil Case No. 2137, should have been coursed first to the barangay court.” (Heirs of
Fernando Vinzons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111915. September 30, 1999).
By reason thereof, the case should be dismissed for pre-maturity.
COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION;
As alleged in the complaint, petitioner has the right to possess the property in question because
he inherited it from his father as indicated in the latter’s last will and testament, and thus, defendant
has no right to possess the said property.
On December 25, 2010, Don Facundo, father of the plaintiff, executed his last will and testament
bequeathing his property located in Brgy. Dalakit, Catarman, Northern Samar to his only son, Ronil.
On January 2, 2013, Don Facundo approached the defendant and sold her the aforementioned
property. After delivery of said property, defendant immediately occupied it and caused its registration
in the Register of Deeds of Catarman on which she was issued TCT No. 12023, dated January 5, 2013.
On January 6, 2013, Don Facundo died without the will having probated. The following day,
Plaintiff, relying on his deceased father’s last will and testament, went to the defendant, ordering her to
vacate the property, asserting that he is now the lawful owner of the property by succession. Defendant
did not oblige despite repeated demands to vacate, believing that she is the lawful owner of said
property by virtue of the Torrens Title.
In Heirs of Jose Maligaso, Sr. v. Sps. Encinas, G. R. No. 182716, The Supreme Court, in upholding
the holder of a Torrens Title, said:
“…when *a+ property is registered under the Torrens system, the registered
owner’s title to the property is presumed and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially
in a mere action for unlawful detainer. In this particular action where petitioner’s
alleged ownership cannot be established, coupled with the presumption that
respondents’ title to the property is legal, then the lower courts are correct in ruling
that respondents are the ones entitled to possession of the subject premises.”
(emphasis ours)
As regards to plaintiff’s right to the property by succession, it is well settled that a last will and
testament which was not probated has no effect, hence, no right can be claimed therein.
Unless it is proven that the defendant has no right and is not entitled to possess the questioned
property, there would be no cause of action to be considered.
Defendant’s Counterclaim:
By reason of Plaintiff’s unfounded and malicious suit against the Defendant, the latter suffered
serious anxiety, mental anguish, social humiliation, and sleepless nights for which they ought to be
compensated in an amount of no less than Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00).
As an example for
public good, Plaintiff is ought to be penalized by way of Exemplary
Damages in an amount of no less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to deter those who similarly
inclined to wantonly disrespect the rights of others and maliciously drag them to litigation.
Defendant was constrained to engage the services of a counsel, for which she paid Twenty Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as acceptance fee and is bound to pay Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00)
per counsel’s appearance.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
judgment be rendered, dismissing the complaint, and ordering the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant Six
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral Damages, Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as and by way of Exemplary Damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00) or more, as and by way of attorney’s fees.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Catarman, Northern Samar, September 19, 2013.
KEENA D. CAIMOL
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll. No. 12345
IBP No. 6789
PTR No. 0123
Laoang, Northern Samar
MCLE Compliance No. I-4567
MCLE Compliance No. II-890
PROOF OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing MOTION has been served on Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan, counsel for
the Plaintiff, at his address in Rosario, Northern Samar, by registered mail for lack of office personnel to
effect personal service.
KEENA D. CAIMOL
Copy furnished:
Atty. Rikki Roy Andoyan
Rosario, Northern Samar
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
PROVINCE OF NORTHERN SAMAR) S.S.
MUNICIPALITY OF CATARMAN )
I, MS. LYKA MAE RANDA, of legal age, Filipino, and resident of Brgy. Rizal, Catarman, Northern
Samar, after having been duly sworn in accordance to law, depose and say:
1.
I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;
2.
I have caused the preparation and the filing of this verified Answer, and I have read and
understood the allegations contained therein, and that the same are true and correct based on my
personal knowledge and authentic records;
3.
I further certify that I have not commenced any other action involving the same issues
before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in any other Tribunal or Quasi-judicial bodies, and
should there be any other action or proceeding involving the same issues, I shall undertake to inform the
Honorable Court within five (5) days from notice thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this 21st day of September 2013, at
Catarman, Northern Samar.
MS. LYKA MAE RANDA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21st day of September 2013, at Catarman, Northern
Samar, affiant showing to me her Passport No. 123456 and known to me to be the same persons who
executed the foregoing Verification/Certification.
ATTY. ROBERT C. CURATA
Notary Public