Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Republic of the Philippines Eleventh Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Davao City Branch 33 MAY SAMANTHA MACAHIG,

Plaintff, - versus Jennifer Castillo Defendant. X -------------------------------------------------- X VERIFIED ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, the Defendant JENNIFER CASTILLO, through the undersigned counsels, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that: MATERIAL DATES Defendant, through counsel, received a copy of the Complaint filed by plaintiff on December 6, 2013; that this answer is timely filed within the reglementary period under the Rules of Court. ADMISSIONS and DENIALS 1. Defendant Jennifer Castillo admits the following allegations in the complaint, namely Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. 2. Paragraph 5 is partially admitted insofar as there was a Deed of Donation executed by Don Roberto Castillo in favour of plaintiff. However, the donation was void ab initio as it was made without the knowledge and consent of Dona Margarita Castillo. 3. Paragraph 8 is partially admitted with regard to the existence of the extra-judicial settlement. However, such extra-judicial settlement is not prejudicial to any persons title. 4. Paragraph 9 is specifically denied. No title may be acquired from a void contract; hence, the extra-judicial settlement of the defendant casts no cloud upon anyones title. In fact, it is the existence of

Civil Case No. 13-2678 For: Quieting of Title with Application for Preliminary Injunction

plaintiffs void donation which casts a cloud upon defendants title on the property in question. 5. Defendant has no knowledge of the facts stated in paragraph 10.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THE ALIENATION OF THE CONJUGAL PROPERTY IS VOID AB INITIO 6. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.1 As evidenced by the transfer certificate of title submitted by plaintiff, the property in dispute was registered under the name of Don Roberto Castillo on the 24th of May 2006. Don Roberto Castillo and Doa Margarita Castillo were married on May 28, 1963. 7. Under Article 125 of the Family Code, neither spouse may alienate any conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other. The Deed of Donation clearly shows that the donation in favour of plaintiff May Samantha is without the consent of Doa Margarita Castillo. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM Defendant Jennifer Castillo, hereby repleads and incorporates the foregoing by way of reference insofar as they are relevant and material hereto, and by way of counter-claim, respectfully aver THAT: 8. Defendant Jennifer Castillo is the daughter of Roberto Miguel Castillo, son of Don Roberto Castillo. Roberto Miguel predeceased his father Don Roberto, hence, Jennifer stands in the place of Roberto Miguel as an heir of Don Roberto. 9. Don Roberto Castillo died on January 18, 2010 due to old age and was survived by his spouse Doa Margarita Castillo and herein defendant Jennifer Castillo.

Article 116, Family Code.

-2-

10. Don Roberto left no will, hence, on ___, Doa Margarita and Jennifer executed an extra-judicial settlement to partition between and among them the estate of Don Roberto. 11. Among the properties adjudicated to Jennifer was the property alleged to be donated to plaintiff May Samantha. 12. Jennifer found out about the existence of the alleged void donation when she went to survey the property. Hence, Jennifer sought the reconveyance of the property from May Samantha. 13. As the demands made by Jennifer fell on deaf ears, she was constrained to seek the advice of the undersigned counsel. A demand letter was thereafter sent to May Samantha on ___. 14. May Samantha alleged that Jennifer threatened the teachers, parents and students of Smiley Learning Center. Due to such malicious imputations, Jennifer suffered sleepless nights and besmirched reputation. 15. Because of plaintiff May Samanthas unjust refusal of reconveying the property to its rightful owner, defendant Jennifer Castillo is constrained to seek the assistance of the undersigned counsels.

CONCLUSION 16.In sum, the donation made in favour of May Samantha was void and the extra-judicial settlement adjudicating the property to Jennifer is valid for the following reasons: 15.1 The donation was void ab initio, being made without the consent of Doa Margarita Castillo. 15.2 The donation being void ab initio, the property forms part of the estate of Don Roberto upon his death. 15.3 Jennifer, as a legal heir of Don Roberto Castillo, is entitled to inherit from the latter.

-3-

OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued if the applicant has shown, with clear and convincing evidence, that the following requisites are present: (1) his right is clear and unmistakable; (2) the invasion of their right sought to be protected is material and substantial; and (3) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. The applicant, May Samantha Macahig has failed to show the existence of the requisites. First, May Samantha claims ownership over the disputed property by virtue of the Deed of Donation executed by Don Roberto in her favour. She alleged that she is the registered owner of said property. However, the Deed of Donation is void ab initio because being a conjugal property, such donation requires the consent of Doa Margarita Castillo, the legal wife of the alleged donor. May Samantha must have been aware of the invalidity of the deed because no step was made by her to register the property in her name. Second, no legal rights of the applicant was invaded by the Jennifer. The applicant, May Samantha, herself has admitted that Jennifer has sent a letter demanding the reconveyance of the property, otherwise, the latter shall be forced to resort to legal action. Resort to a legal action in order to justify ones claim is not tantamount to an invasion of ones rights, but would rather ensure that peaceful and legal means would be undertaken in the settlement of the dispute. Third, there is no urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. The applicant May Samantha, alleged that Jennifer has threatened the parents, teachers and students of Smiley Learning Center, hence the need for preliminary injunction. Such allegations were mere malicious imputations. Assuming arguendo that such allegations were true, Jennifer has already manifested her intention to bring the matter to the courts should May Samantha refuse to reconvey the property to the former. Hence, there is no urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. Based on the forgoing, there is no need for the issuance of preliminary injunction. No imminent nor threatened injury to the rights of
-4-

May Samantha exists as Jennifer, has already expressed her intention to bring the matter to the courts even before May Samantha has filed this present action. Hence, as both parties has already manifested their intention to let the courts settle the matter in dispute, no preliminary injunction is necessary.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after hearing on the merits: 1.) Deny the application of preliminary injunction; 2.) Declare the Deed of Donation as void ab initio; 3.) Declare that herein defendant is the rightful owner of the questioned parcel of land; 4.) Award moral damages in favour of defendant Jennifer Castillo; and 5.) Grant attorneys fees and costs. Defendant and counsel also pray for such other relief consistent with justice and equity. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this December 14, 2013 in Davao City, Philippines.

DELFIN HAO LAW FIRM Counsel for the Defendant Tel No: 221-2210 123 Claveria St. Davao City

By:

ATTY. CHERRY MARIE DELFIN


-5-

PTR No. 765895/01-03-13/Davao City IBP Lifetime No. 98767 Roll No.56785 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0005435 (12 March 2013)

ATTY. LOUIE LYNNE TE HAO PTR No. 767465/01-03-13/Davao City IBP Lifetime No. 93767 Roll No.56168 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0004535 (12 March 2013)

Copy furnished:

ATTY. GLAIZA MAE PADLAN ATTY. IRIS PAULINE TAGANAS ATTY. JOHN PAUL MACABABAD Counsels for Plaintiff

-6-