Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
Branch 6, Cebu City

SPS. RICARDO CHAN and

TERESITA CHAN,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL CASE NO.:

- versus - R-CEB-17-12938-CV
FOR: JUDICIAL PARTITION

SPS. ALEXANDER TAN

and AMANDA TAN,
Defendants.

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS

The Defendants, SPS. ALEXANDER and AMANDA

TAN, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The present case asks whether or not the plaintiffs

herein, the defendants former parents-in-law, have an
interest in the house and lot (subject properties, collectively)
under the given facts, circumstances and applicable laws.

Inasmuch as the defendants herein do not desire

litigation over these corporeal things, whose value is
outweighed by goodwill and peaceful relations, they have no
other choice but to engage the plaintiffs herein in their
baseless suit, directed primarily to vex and inconvenience
the defendants. Moreover, to protect the interest of the
defendants, and of Alexanders child, Tiffany, the defendants
cannot, and will not, remain passive whilst their rights are
continuously being threatened. Hence, this Answer is filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1. The Defendants received a copy of the Plaintiffs

Complaint on 07 February 2017;
2. One (1) day thereafter, the Defendants filed this
Answer and served a copy of the same to the

1
 Plaintiffs, in compliance with the pertinent Rules of
Court.

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint are hereby

ADMITTED;

4. The allegations in Paragraph 3 are PARTLY ADMITTED

as to the fact of death of the decedent Therese Chan-
Tan. However, the allegation that the decedent died
intestate is DENIED, as the Defendants have no
knowledge sufficient to constitute a belief as to the
truth or falsity thereof;

5. Paragraph 4 is DENIED as the Defendants have no

knowledge to form a belief as to its veracity or falsity;

6. The allegations in Paragraphs 5 and 8 are

SPECIFICALLY DENIED on the ground that the parties
of this case are not co-owners of the house and lot
subject of the dispute. Defendant Alexander Tan is the
sole and exclusive owner of the said properties. The
accurate facts thereof are set forth in the Affirmative
Defenses, infra;

7. Paragraph 6 is VEHEMENTLY and SPECIFICALLY

DENIED due to its falsity. The truth of the matter is
that the lot was purchased alone by Alexander
Tan sometime in 2001 and not in 2010, long
before his marriage to Therese. The whole and
accurate facts are those set forth in the Affirmative
Defenses;

8. Paragraph 7 is likewise specifically denied. The truth

being that the lot has an assessed value of only Php
200,200.00, per Tax Declaration No. 2016-67892;1

9. The allegation in Paragraph 9 is hereby DENIED. The

truth thereto is that the house has an assessed value
of only Php 135,000.00, per Tax Declaration No. 2012-
34567;2

10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 are hereby

ADMITTED with QUALIFICATIONS. The averments
1 Copy of Tax Declaration No. 2016-67892 is hereto attached
as ANNEX 1.

2 Copy of Tax Declaration No. 2012-34567 is hereto attached

as ANNEX 2.

2
 relating to the dates of the commencement and
completion of the houses construction are ADMITTED,
however, such construction was exclusively financed
by the parents of Defendant Alexander Tan. The whole
and accurate facts thereof are those set forth in the
Affirmative Defenses;
11. Paragraph 11 is DENIED as the Defendants have
no knowledge as to the truth or falsity thereof;

12. The allegations in Paragraph 12 and 13 are

ADMITTED with QUALIFICATIONS as there are
justifiable reasons on the part of Defendant Alexander
to deny the demand for partition by the Plaintiffs
herein. This is further elaborated in the Affirmative
Defenses below;

13. Lastly, the allegations in Paragraph 14 are PARTLY

ADMITTED as to the part that the subject house and
lot remain undivided like the way it should be since
Defendant Alexander Tan is the sole and exclusive
owner thereof. The part where the Plaintiffs alleged
that it is for the best interest of the heirs that the
same be partitioned judicially is SPECIFICALLY
DENIED as the same has no legal nor factual basis.
Partition presupposes that the property is co-owned
however, there is no co-ownership to speak of in the
first place. Such facts are hereby elaborated in the
Affirmative Defenses;

COUNTER-ALLEGATIONS

First Marriage

14. On 05 January 1986, Defendant Alexander Tan got

married to Rebecca Rivera.3 Their marriage was
blessed with a daughter, Tiffany Grace R. Tan, who
was born on 09 February 1988;4

15. However, due to Rebeccas psychological

incapacity to perform her essential marital
obligations, her marriage to Alexander was declared
annulled on February 1, 1995 through a Decision
issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cebu
City;5

3 Copy of the Marriage Certificate dated 15 January 1986 is

hereto attached as ANNEX 3.

4 Copy of the Certificate of Live Birth dated with Local

Registry No. 88-0112 is hereto attached as ANNEX 4.

3
 16. The decision nullifying the marriage became final
on 20 March 1995;6
17. Sadly, on the 5th day of January 1996, Rebecca
took her own life, perhaps owing to depression due to
a broken heart;7

Purchase of Subject Lot

18. On 5 February 2001, the subject lot was

purchased by Alexander from Arman B. Torres for PHP
3,000,000 PESOS;8

Second Marriage

19. Moving on with his life, Alexander married the

Plaintiffs daughter, Therese Chan, on January 15,
2010;

20. While Alexander and Therese were married, the

formers parents donated to Alexander the subject
house, as a Christmas gift for the year 2011; 9

21. The subject houses Tax Declaration 10 was named

under Alexandria Tan, the defendant Alexanders
mother. Thereafter, the aforesaid Tax Declaration was
cancelled and a new one was issued in its stead
under the name of Alexander;11

5 Copy of the Decision Annulling the Marriage dated 01

February 1995 is hereto attached as ANNEX 5.

6 Copy of the Certificate of Finality declaring the Decision

rendered on 1 February 1995 has become final on 20 March
1995 is hereto attached as ANNEX 6.

7 Copy of the Death Certificate dated 05 January 1996 is

hereto attached as ANNEX 7.

8 Copy of the Deed of Sale dated 05 February 2001, TCT No.

__________ and the Tax Declaration dated 05 February 2001
are hereto attached as ANNEXES 8, 9 and 10
respectively.

9 Copy of the Deed of Donation dated 24 December 2011 is

hereto attached as ANNEX 11.

10 Copy of Tax Declaration No. 2011-23456 is hereto

attached as ANNEX 12.

11 See ANNEX 2.

4
 22. By an unfortunate turn of events, Therese died in
a terrible car crash on 30 July 2014;12

Third Marriage

23. One year later, finding company in misery,

Alexander rekindled the flame of romance with
Amanda de Lima, his high school sweetheart.
Incredibly, the two got married in the same year on
November 9 at Cebu Metropolitan Church, Cebu City;

24. Prior to their aforementioned wedding, Alexander

and Amanda executed a Marriage Settlement. 13 The
said Marriage Settlement provides that a Complete
Separation of Property will govern as their property
regime during their marriage;

25. Sometime later, Alexander, to his surprise,

received a Demand Letter from the Plaintiffs. 14 In the
said Letter, the Plaintiffs were demanding their share
of the subject house and lot and were alleging that
they were co-owners thereof and thus had the right to
have the same partitioned;

26. Alexander refused to accede to Plaintiffs demand.

Hence, the Complaint for Judicial Partition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

A. The subject lot is

exclusively owned by
Defendant Alexander.

27. The instant Complaint should be dismissed for

lack of valid cause of action, because the plaintiffs
herein do not have interest, even the minutest, over
the subject properties. No less than Article 92 of the
Family Code provides that the following shall be
excluded from the community property:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by

gratuitous title by either spouse, and the
fruits as well as the income thereof, if any,
unless it is expressly provided by the donor,

12 Document annexed in the Complaint as ANNEX A.

13 Copy of the Marriage Settlement dated 22 September

2015 is hereto attached as ANNEX 13.

14 As attached in the Complaint as ANNEX H.

5
 testator or grantor that they shall form part
of the community property;

(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of

either spouse. However, jewelry shall form
part of the community property;

(3) Property acquired before the

marriage by either spouse who has
legitimate descendants by a former
marriage, and the fruits as well as the
income, if any, of such property.15

28. Still under the same Code, particularly Article 164

thereof, children conceived or born during the
marriage of the parents are legitimate. x x x

29. In the present case, the Plaintiffs would want this

Honorable Court to believe that the subject land is
part of the community property of Alexander and
Therese. The Plaintiffs further posit that they have a
right to inherit the subject lot; that when Therese
passed away, rights to the said property have been
transmitted to them by virtue of succession and thus
they allegedly have co-ownership over the property
together with Alexander. However, this allegation
must fail due to fact that the said land falls under the
afore-cited provision, on properties excluded from the
absolute community, for the following reasons:

29.1. The land in question was clearly acquired by

Alexander before the marriage. It was sold to or
purchased by him on February 5, 2001 and his
marriage to Angela was only celebrated on January
15, 2010, years after the consummation of the
sale;16 and

29.2. Tiffany Grace Tan is the legitimate child or

descendant of Alexanders marriage to Rebecca as
she was born during the subsistence of the said
marriage;17

30. For the foregoing reasons, the land in question

was never brought into the community property.
Since the said land was never brought into the
15 Emphasis supplied.

16 See herein ANNEXES 8, 9, 10 and Complaints

ANNEX B.

17 See ANNEXES 3 and 4.

6
 community property, Therese had no right to the
same and, consequently, the Plaintiffs also have no
right to inherit the subject land from Therese. Thus,
there could have been no co-ownership created as
between the Plaintiffs and Alexander and the former
has no right to be given the partition prayed for in
their Complaint.

B. The subject house

was also not brought
into the community
property.

31. In the provision cited above regarding properties

excluded from the absolute community, property
acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by
either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income
thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the
donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of
the community property18 are considered exclusive
properties of the spouse concerned;

32. Plaintiffs, in this case, also want the Court to

believe that subject house is part of the community
property. But again, the contention fails since the Law
once again provides for an exception to properties
acquired by gratuitous title;

33. The subject house was donated by Alexanders

parents to him as a Christmas gift. This act was
evidenced by the Deed of Donation that was executed
on 24 December 2011.19 Moreover, a perusal of the
said Deed reveals that there is an absence of the
required stipulation, that the property would form part
of the absolute community, which would have
brought the said house to the absolute community;

34. Now since the subject house was not brought into
the community property, Therese, again, had no
rights over the same. Thus, effectively depriving the
Plaintiffs of any right over the said house as there was
nothing that transmitted to them when Therese died;

35. In conclusion, since both the subject house and

lot were never brought into the community property
of Alexander and Therese, the latter had no right in
law which would amount to ownership thereof and
therefore there was no right or property transmitted
18 Article 92 (1), FAMILY CODE, supra.

19 See ANNEX 11.

7
 to the Plaintiffs when she died. Consequently, the
Plaintiffs cannot be considered as co-owners since
they have no right over the subject properties;

C. The case should be

dismissed as to
Defendant Amanda,
because she has been
mistakenly impleaded
in the case at bar.

36. It must be observed that the case is against both

Alexander and Diana. However, as adverted to
above, prior to her marriage to Alexander, they
signed a Marriage Settlement, wherein they agreed
that the Complete Separation of Property
Regime shall govern their property relations;20

37. Therefore, the law, and even common sense,

would lead to the conclusion that Amanda does not
have any interest in the subject properties, as the
same remained to be Alexanders exclusive property
by virtue of the Marriage Settlement;

38. It follows, therefore, that defendant Amanda is not

a person in whom or against whom any right to
relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
exist,21 or persons without whom no final
determination can be had of an action. 22 She is also
not a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of
the action that should be impleaded;23

39. Clearly, there is no cause of action against

Amanda. She was wrongfully impleaded in this case,
which must be remedied by a dismissal of the case
as against her.

COUNTERCLAIMS

40. Defendants hereby re-plead all its previous

allegations for purposes of the Counterclaims.
20 See ANNEX 13.

21 Sec. 6, RULE 3, Revised Rules of Court.

22 Sec. 7, RULE 3, Id.

23 Sec. 8, RULE 3, Id.

8
 41. Plaintiffs filed the present action against
Defendants, knowing fully well that the same is
groundless, frivolous and without basis at all in fact
and in law, all which brought untold mental anguish,
besmirched reputation and sleepless nights to
herein Defendants justifying an award from this
Honorable Court of moral damages in the amount of
not less than FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php
500,000.00) PESOS;

42. As deterrent to people of like-minded attitude,

Plaintiffs should be made to pay Defendants by way
of exemplary damages the sum of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (Php 300,000.00) PESOS;

43. Forced and compelled to face Plaintiffs in court by

the filing of this instant case, Defendants were
constrained to engage the services of the
undersigned counsel, binding themselves to pay
counsel the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00) PESOS as attorneys fees plus FOUR
THOUSAND (Php 4,000.00) PESOS per court
appearance.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be
rendered in favor of the Defendants Alexander and Amanda
and against the Plaintiffs by:

1. Dismissing the Complaint against Alexander for utter

lack of merit;

2. Dismissing the Complaint against Amanda for lack of

cause of action against her; and

3. Ordering the Plaintiffs to pay Defendants the following:

a. The sum of Php 500,000.00 as moral damages;

b. The sum of Php 300,000.00 by way of exemplary
damages;
c. The amount of Php 100,000.00 plus Php 4,000 per
court appearance as Attorneys Fees;
d. The cost of the suit.
Other reliefs, legal, just and equitable under the premises,
are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

9
Cebu City, Philippines. 07 February 2017.

The Law Firm of

KNJ Law Firm
Counsel for the Defendants
Executive Suite 502, Law Bldg., Sta. Ana St.,
Brgy. Camputhaw, Cebu City,
Philippines 6000

BY:

CLARISSE DELANTAR
Junior Associate
PTR. No. 1171023/1-11-17/CEBU CITY
IBP No. 090748/1-10-17/CEBU CITY
ROLL NO. 585381, MCLE V-0005254/01-05-2016

FRANCHESCA GARCIA
Senior Partner Litigation Department
PTR. No. 11754380/1-11-17/CEBU CITY
IBP No. 0982069/1-10-17/CEBU CITY
ROLL NO. 38903, MCLE V-0005373/01-5-2016

10
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Cebu ) S.S.
x-----------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING

We, ALEXANDER TAN and AMANDA TAN, both of

legal ages, Filipinos, married to one another, and residents of
No. 6 Forest Hills, Banawa, Cebu City, Philippines, after being
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:

1. We are the Defendants in the above-entitled case;

2. We have caused the preparation of the above Answer

and we have read the same and know the contents
thereof;

3. The allegations contained therein are true and correct

of our own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records; and

4. We further certify that: (a) we have not heretofore

commenced any other action or proceeding or filed any
claim involving the same issues or matter in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of our
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending
therein; and (b) if we should hereafter learn that the
same or similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,
we undertake to report such fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original
pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein
have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our

hand this 07th day of February 2017 at Cebu City, Philippines.

_____________________________ _____________________________
ALEXANDER TAN AMANDA TAN
Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 07th day

of February 2017, by Alexander Tan who exhibited his Social
Security System I.D. No. 001283759-189 issued at Cebu City
and by Amanda Tan who exhibited her Professional
Regulatory Commission I.D. No. 4873-A918-990 issued at
Cebu City, both of whom I have identified through competent
evidence of identity.

11
 VANESSA DELATADOR
Notary Public for Cebu City
Until December 31, 2018
PTR No. 020931; Jan. 05, 2017/Cebu City
IBP No. 755849; Jan. 10, 2017/Cebu City
XZY Bldg. I2, IT Park
Cebu City

Doc. No. : 20;

Page No. : 05;
Book No. : 05;
Series of 2017.

Copy furnished to:

ABC LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
ABS Bldg., I2, I.T. Park

c/o ATTY. STELLA JANE CORPUZ

Received by : ___________________________
Date : ___________________________

12