Elizabeth A. Beringuel CIVIL CASE NO. 755 Plaintiff, For: Recovery of Possession and Ownership and Damages
-VERSUS-
Spouses REUBEN P. GARCELAZO, SR.
and ELENA R. GARCELAZO, et . al, Defendants.
VERIFIED ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM
Defendants, by the undersigned counsel, and with this Honorable Court,
most respectfully file this Verified Answer in counter to the allegations contained in the Complaint filed against defendants. Pursuant to this Verified Answer with Counterclaim, the following factual circumstances invalidating the allegations of the plaintiffs are hereby alleged as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 and 1.a are hereby DENIED for lack of knowledge or
information on the part of the defendants as sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof. 2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint is ADMITTED, in so far as the personal circumstances of herein defendants and the permanent address of the defendants. 3. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint are hereby DENIED for being fabrications and an outright lie of the complainant. The ownership, including the possession over that property identified as Lot No. ____ belongs to the Heirs of Jose Rodriguez, the registered owner of the property subject of this case. The trace or history of defendants ownership and rights over the property shall be discussed or expounded on the Affirmative Defenses. 4. Paragraph 5 is likewise DENIED for being false and untruthful. During the lifetime of Andres Advincula, he dispose his share in favor of Jose Rodriguez transferring whatever right or interest he may have over the property of the vendee. What is there to be adjudicated among the heirs of Andres Advincula where the property had long been disposed by the owner/decedent. 5. Paragraph 6 of the complaint is in the same manner DENIED for being a distortion of the truth actual events. The truth of the matter is that defendants predecessor-Jose Rodriguez is the VENDEE of the property in controversy. This transaction is supported by an instrument entitled ___________, dated ___________. Copy of this documents is hereunto attached as ANNEX ___ and made as as integral part of this Verified Answer. As early as 1957, upon the closure of the sale transaction between Andres Advincula and Jose Rodriguez, the VENDEE assumed possession over the property. The possession of defendants predescessor-Jose Rodriguez was by virtue of the legal implications sale transaction between Andres Advincula and Jose Rodriguez and NOT by mere tolerance. Contrary to the allegation of the complainants, the nature of dependants possession was a result or the legal effect of the disposal of the property made by their father. 6. Paragraph 7 of the complaint is DENIED Defenedants have no knowledge of the transfer made by the plaintiff. In fact, the transfer or the issuance of title in favour of the plaintiff is in itself questionable considering that a transfer certificate of title over the property in the name of Jose Rodriguez and two (2) other is existing and is or record with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Leyte. The issuance of a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo (Free Patent) in favour of the complainant over the property while at the same time being covered by TCT No. TP-13065 (formerly OCT-P-101) is an indizia of anomaly. For emphasis, this property, Lot No. 160 with a total area of 7.1839 hectares was covered by OCT P-101 registered in the name of Petra Rael. Consequently the Original Certificate of Title was cancelled by Transfer certificate of Title No. TP-13065 in the name of Jose Rodriguez, alvina Amago, and Perpetua Canales. The Transfer Certificate of Titled was issued in the year 1996. On the other hand, the KOT of the complainant was issued only in 2016. The Transfer Certificate of the Title No. 13065 has not been cancelled nor invalidated by the issuing agency, thus is valid in all respect. 7. Paragraph 8 of the complaint is hereby ADMITTED, in so far as the issuance by the Barangay of a Certificate to File Action in Court. The rset are denied for being concretions of the complainant. 8. Paragraph 9 of the complaint is DENIED. Defendants should not be faulted by the unfounded and groundless filing of this suti by the complainants. Had the complainants incurred expenses, they are the ones to borne it. Such is a result of their in apt filing of baseless complaint. 9. By way of Counter-Claim, the