You are on page 1of 9

HOW TO PREPARE AN ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM by

Dean Vic Ceballos


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

BRANCH 4

KALIBO, AKLAN

GREGORIO ALFREDO ROBERTO

and MA. RITA GLORIA

both surnamed SANSON

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 8076

FOR: QUIETING OF TITLE

HEIRS OF ROBERTO TIROL, JR

Namely: MARTIN ROBERTO G. TIROL

ET AL,

Defendants
X––––––––––––––––––––––X

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file their Answer in response to the
Complaint of the Plaintiffs and interpose as well as their counterclaim against the latter, to wit:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Paragraphs 1a and 1b are admitted;

2. Paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3c, 3e are denied for lack of information or knowledge sufficient
to form a reasonable belief thereof;

3. Paragraph 3b is denied insofar as the allegations that Plaintiffs took possession of the areas that
are described as Lot Nos. 5350-N and 5350-K in a manner that was in the concept of owner, openly,
adversely and continuously are concerned, since Defendants are without any knowledge or
information sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof;

4. But insofar as the allegation in paragraph 3b is concerned that the purported contiguous areas they
actually took possession of were surveyed on the ground by a court commissioner sometime in 2005,
copy of the resulting survey plan was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint, the same is denied
because the said survey plan was conducted only for purposes of determining the delineations of Lot
Nos. 5350-N and 5350-K and for no other purpose, as a direct offshoot of civil case no. 157-M
entitled, Martin Roberto G. Tirol vs. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson;

5. Save for the legal provisions quoted in paragraph 3c, the rest of the allegations is denied for lack
of information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof;

6. The allegation in paragraph 4 is denied as the same is an erroneous conclusion made by


Plaintiffs;

7. Other than the allegations in paragraphs 5a and 5b that a Contact of Lease (annex “D” of the
Complaint) was entered into by the parents of Plaintiffs and the late Roberto Tirol, Jr., the rest of the
allegations is denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

8. The allegations in par. 5 (actually, the second par. 5 on page 4 of the Complaint there being an
erroneous numbering) insofar as a Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) was executed by
the late Roberto H. Tirol Sr. in favor of defendants is concerned, is admitted but the rest of the
allegations is denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;
9. The allegations in par. 5 found in page 5 of the Complaint (note that there are three (3)
paragraphs in the Complaint that have been numbered “5”) in that Defendants have claimed that
Plaintiffs have encroached on lots 5350-N and 5350-K are denied, the truth being that stated in the
affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

10. The allegations in paragraph 6 in that, Defendants have made an admission of the adverse
possession by the Plaintiffs of lots 5350-N and 5350-K which possession ripened into ownership by
way of acquisitive prescription thereby making their total land area 10, 578 square meters are denied
the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses;

11. The allegations in paragraph 6b are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and
special defenses hereunder;

12. With respect to the allegation in paragraph 7 in that a court decision was rendered, copy
thereof was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint, the same is admitted, subject however to the
affirmative and special defenses stated hereunder;

13. The allegations in paragraph 7 on page 6 (actually this is the second paragraph erroneously
numbered as “par. 7”) are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses
hereunder;

Affirmative and Special Defenses

14. The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs is nothing but a malicious lawsuit calculated to harass the
Defendants, not to mention that it does not state a cause of action and is a clear resort to forum-
shopping, thereby rendering it dismissible outright;

No Cloud of Title

15. Too, no cloud of title exists nor is there a need for a quieting of title that affects all the lots
mentioned by Plaintiffs in the Complaint which are lots nos. 5350-B, 5350-F, 5350-N and 5350-K. The
first two (2) lots (5350-B and 5350-F) are not being contested by any of the parties here, whether
concerning their title or whoever is entitled to possession thereof. The second two (2) lots (5350-N
and 5350-K), on the other hand, were the subject of the Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint)
by the late Roberto Tirol, Jr. to Defendants and were the subject of the Contract of Lease (annex “D”
of the Complaint) between Plaintiffs’ parents on one hand and Defendants’ late father on the other. As
a result of the said donation, tax declarations over the said parcels of land were issued in favor of
Defendants;

16. After a painstaking review of the Complaint, it is apparent from the allegations therein that what
Plaintiffs seek from the Honorable Court is to reverse or at least render inutile the court decision in
Civil Case No. 157-M, titled, Martin Roberto G. Tirol vs. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes Tirol-
Sanson, which decision has awarded possession of lot numbers 5350-N and 5350-K and has become
executory;

17. Said decision in the aforesaid eviction suit has reached the Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs
either by themselves or through the corporate entity they represent, The Pearl of Boracay
Landholdings Inc. intervened. Incidentally, the judgment favoring Defendants was affirmed in toto;

18. Likewise, it has become clear in the Complaint that Plaintiffs are simply all-out to restrain
Defendants from taking over the possession of lots nos. 5350-N and 5350-K. In fact, Plaintiffs and
their parents have tried every trick in our books just to frustrate the rightful and legal claim of
possession by Defendants over said lots;

Unceasing Various Legal Attacks

19. While the instant complaint is one titled for quieting of title or for removal of cloud of title, their
parents and Plaintiffs themselves or through the corporate entity they represent, The Pearl of Boracay
Landholdings, Inc. have been unceasingly resorting to all sorts of legal actions just so Defendants
become unsuccessful in their bid to regain possession of lots nos. 5350-N and 5350-K from the parents
of Plaintiffs, the latter having entered into the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint)
with the late father of Defendants;

20. It will be noted that Plaintiffs’ parents have filed a case for the cancellation of the Deed of
Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) affecting the same parcels of land, docketed as Civil Case No.:
7342, titled, “Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson, joined by her husband, Gregorio Sanson vs. Roberto G.
Martin Tirol et al” (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “A” to “A-10”) where the prayer
in the complaint was as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Deed of Donation made Annex
“A” of this complaint the new tax declarations issued in the name of the defendants
covering Lots 5350-K and Lot 5350-N be declared null and void “ab initio” and thereby
ordering defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiffs:

a) One Million Pesos as moral damages;

b) P50,000.00 as litigation expenses; and

c) P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P10,000.00 as appearance fee.


Plaintiffs further pray that upon filing of this complaint a Temporary Restraining Order be issued
and that the case be set for hearing for Preliminary Injunction which should thereafter be issued and
made permanent after the final decision, thereby directing defendants to cease and desist
from further taking any action which would deprive (sic) plaintiff Maria Lourdes
Tirol-Sanson of her rights as co-owner of Lot 5350 more specifically those portions
which the defendants refer (sic) to as Lot 5350-K and Lot 5350-N.

Plaintiffs pray for such other relief and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and
equitable under the premises.

Iloilo City for Kalibo, November 25, 2004.”

xxx xxx xxx

21. On another occasion and unrelenting, Plaintiffs’ parents again, filed another lawsuit against
Defendants this time assailing the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) docketed and
titled, Civil Case No. 7956 and titled, “Spouses Gregorio and Ma. Lourdes Sanson vs. Martin Roberto
G.Tirol” (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “B” to “B-4”) and the prayer of plaintiffs
therein is quoted herein verbatim, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

“WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment or order:

a) Declaring the Contract of Lease as Null and void.

b) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs two million pesos actual damages, P100,000.00 atty’s fees
and P10,000,000.00 moral damages.
Plaintiffs further pray for such other remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises.

Roxas City for Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines.

December 7, 2006.

xxx xxx xxx

Petition for Certiorari

22. Realizing that they were losing ground and with the impending demolition of the building located
in lot no. 5350-K being imminent, they have filed a petition for certiorari (photocopy thereof is
attached herewith as annexes “C” to “C-11”) to challenge the court’s order of demolition of the said
building they used to occupy and erected on one of the subject lots, 5350-K. The following was their
prayer in their petition, to wit:

“PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, to


render judgment, as follows:

1. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the respondents, and after due notice and
hearing effectively enjoin the respondents from implementing the Writ of Demolition against the
properties of the petitioner;

2. Declaring the decision of the Honorable Public Respondent dated July 22, 2005
(affirmed on appeal with minor modification) ineffectual against petitioner, which is
NOT a party thereto;

3. Ordering the respondents to, jointly and severally, pay petitioner the sum of P200,000.00 as
and by way of attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 per appearance in Court;
4. Ordering the respondents to, jointly and severally, pay petitioner exemplary damages, the
determination of which is left to the sound judgment of this Court;” (Boldface printing for emphasis)

xxx xxx xxx

23. This was resolved by the Regional Trial Court, presided by Judge Montalid Patnubay Jr., where
the said Petition was dismissed for Plaintiffs’ corporation miserable failure to prove that it was entitled
to injunctive reliefs and insinuating that one of the Plaintiffs herein, Rita Sanson, on several times
during her cross-examination was lying to the court;

Third-Party Claim

24. Undeterred by legal pronouncements that the said Contract of Lease was valid, regular and legal,
and that Plaintiffs’ parents were in default in their monthly rentals to Defendants for more than a
decade, Plaintiffs, through their corporate entity, have attempted to block, though in vain, the
execution of the decision upholding said lease contract and the right to repossess the said lots, by filing
a Third-Party Claim dated July 18, 2009 supported by a duly notarized Secretary’s Certification
(photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “D” to “D-2”) but which was rejected by the
ejectment court. The full text of the said third-party claim is quoted hereinbelow to wit:

“THIRD PARTY CLAIM

I, MARIA RITA GLORIA T. SANSON, of legal age, Filipino and duly elected and qualified
Corporate Secretary of the PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS CORPORATION, with
principal address at E. Lopez Street, Jaro, Iloilo City, after having been duly sworn, hereby depose
and state:

1. 1. The true and actual possessor of Lot No. 5350-N with an area of 6,980 square meters and Lot No. 5350-K with an area of 1,156
square meters all located at Balabag, Boracay, Malay, Aklan is the PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS CORPORATION,
which is not a party to the above-numbered Civil Case.

Copy of the SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE attesting to the authority of the undersigned to execute
this “THIRD-PARTY CLAIM” is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, for Buruanga, Akaln, July 18, 2009.
(Sgd.)

MARIA RITA GLORIA T. SANSON

Third-Party Claimant”

(Boldface printing for emphasis)

No Legal or Equitable Title

25. In the afore-cited two (2) cases, it is unmistakable that Plaintiffs’ parents challenged the legal
title of Defendants and the latter’s right to possession over the said lots. Stated otherwise, Plaintiffs
and their parents and the corporation they own, who incidentally have been alternating in filing a
barrage of lawsuits against Defendants, have only one agenda, which is to stop at all cost Defendants’
attempts to take over the possession of said lots, particularly lot 5350-K where a bigger portion of one
of the buildings of The Pearl of the Pacific Resort is erected on. Said resort is owned by the Pearl of
Boracay Landholdings Inc., where the majority shareholders are no other than the family of Plaintiffs’
thereby making it really a family-owned corporation;

26. Under our existing laws, to be able to bring an action to quiet title to land or any interest therein,
“the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action.” (Art. 477 of the New Civil Code);

27. Defendants most respectfully submit that the Complaint hardly qualifies for a quieting of title
because they have not established equitable or legal title to the parcels of land in question;

28. By their own admission in their Complaint, it was with the consent of their grandfather or by
mere tolerance of the latter that Plaintiffs were allowed to build structures on the south-western
portion of lot 5350 but without specifying saying if it was on 5350-N or 5350-K. The fact that their
possession is by mere tolerance is anathema to the concept of equitable or legal title under the rules
on quieting of title;

Forum-shopping

29. By filing this legal action, it is crystal clear Plaintiffs have only resorted to the contemptuous act
of forum-shopping. Significantly too, the issues in this case are also bound by the principle of res
judicata, as there are already rulings by various courts awarding possession of the subject lots to
Defendants;

30. As discussed elsewhere herein, Plaintiffs and their parents have used all legal remedies available
just so they will not be booted out of lots 5350-N and 5350-K;
31. Not only have they attacked the Deed of Donation, the instrument that transferred ownership of
the aforesaid lots to Defendants from their grandfather, Roberto H. Tirol, Sr. but also the Contract of
Lease that Plaintiffs’ parents entered into with Defendant’s late father, Roberto Tirol, Jr.;

32. This time around, they have filed this suit for alleged quieting of title in the hope that what they
were not able to get from the courts through all those legal maneuvers they have resorted to thus far,
they will be able to achieve this time;

33. But in all likelihood, Defendants respectfully submit, this legal action for quieting of title is
destined also to be doomed as the causes of actions and prayers are really no different from the
previous legal actions they have already filed so far and have been unsuccessful. For Plaintiffs, legal
victory has been elusive as they really have no reason to continue being in possession of the subject
lots much less own the lots that have never been given to them;

By Way of Counterclaim

34. Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, Defendants have hired the services of the
undersigned counsel for an agreed amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP
500,000.00) and have suffered sleepless nights and besmirched reputation which when quantified in
monetary terms is in the amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP 500,000.00)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendants most respectfully pray for the dismissal of the
complaint and the award of counterclaim to them. Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

EXPLANATION

Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel through registered mail as personal service is
impracticable.