You are on page 1of 7

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Branch 123
City of Muntinlupa

SPOUSES HIRO HIROSHIMA


and DINA HIROSHIMA

Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE NO. Q-2007-721


For: Quieting of Title

-versus-

XIAO XINGPIN

Defendant,

x-----------------------------------x

ANSWER

NOW COMES the defendant, Xiao Xingpin, and to this Honorable

Court most respectfully alleges:

1. Defendant admits the averment in Paragraph A of the Complaint;

2. Defendant admits the averment in Paragraph B only as to the fact that

there was a Deed of Sale executed between the Plaintiffs and the

Defendant; but specifically denies the allegation that the same is falsified;

3. Defendant admits the averment in Paragraph C subject however to

affirmative defenses hereunder;

4. Defendant has no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of the averment in Paragraphs D and E of the complaint;

5. Defendant admits the averment in Paragraph F subject however to

affirmative defenses hereunder;

6. Defendant specifically denies Paragraph G of the complaint as the same is

an erroneous conclusion made by Plaintiffs;

By way of affirmative defenses, defendant avers:

1
1. The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs must be dismissed for the following

reasons:

a. The Complaint is nothing but a malicious lawsuit calculated to

harass the Defendant, not to mention that it does not state a cause

of action, thereby rendering it dismissible outright;

b. Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive

and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party

alleging forgery. 1 The basic rule is that mere allegation is not

evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere

suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. When

the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and

fails to substantiate his allegations, the complaint must be

dismissed for lack of merit. 2 In this case, the Complaint filed by the

Plaintiffs merely alleged the falsification of the Deed of Sale without

sufficiently proving the truth of their allegation. The Plaintiffs did

not even present other documents with their signatures as basis for

comparison to substantiate their allegation of forgery.

c. The second paragraph of Sec. 5 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court states

that:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. —

xxxx

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall

not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other

initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the

case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon

motion and after hearing. (Emphasis supplied)

1 Heirs of the Late Felix M. Bucton v. Go, G.R. No. 188395, November 20, 2013

2 Florencio Morales, Jr. v. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016

2
Non-compliance with Verification and Certification against Non-

forum shopping is a ground to dismiss the Complaint without

prejudice. It is evident in the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs that it

lacked the said requirements hence, a ground to dismiss the

complaint outright, without allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their

Complaint.

2. In order that an action for quieting of title may proper, it is essential that

the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property

which is the subject-matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered

ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the

absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be

prevented or removed.3 The Complaint herein states no cloud on the title

of the questioned property because there was a valid transfer of property

to the Defendant, attached as Annex 1 hereof the TCT No. 89976 and

Annex 2 hereof the Deed of Sale by Plaintiffs in favor of the Defendant. The

Plaintiffs no longer have legal or equitable title or interest to the subject-

matter of the action;

3. The second element to constitute an action for quieting of title is that there

is a cloud on his title by reason of any instrument, record, deed, claim,

encumbrance or proceeding, which must be shown to be in fact invalid or

inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity.4 The Defendant

is now the new owner of the property in question supported by the Deed

of Sale. Such deed is not only valid on its face, but in truth and in fact is

a valid document because, the execution of a deed of sale operates as a

3 Dionisio Mananquil v. Roberto Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012

4
Bernadette S. Bilag, v. Estela Ay-Ay, G.R. No. 189950, April 24, 2017

3
formal or symbolic delivery of the property sold and it already authorizes

the buyer to use the instrument as proof of ownership.5

4. While it is true that the plaintiffs were the original owners of the property

in question, on January 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs offered to sell and the

Defendant agreed to buy the property in consideration of P 3,500,000.00.

The Defendant admits the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of

Sale, contrary to the allegation made by the Plaintiffs that the said Deed

was forged by the Defendant.

5. The Defendant was able to pay the Plaintiffs the abovementioned amount,

attached as Annex 3 hereof is the photocopy of six (6) postdated checks

issued by the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiffs.

6. Sometime in April 2017, the Plaintiffs went to the house of the Defendant

and requested to buy back the property sold, but the Defendant refused.

After a painstaking review of the Complaint, it is apparent from the

allegations therein that Plaintiffs have changed their mind and regretfully

sold the property in question to the Defendant; Now, they seek to

circumvent the law to recover their property since they are left with no

recourse because the Defendant refused to heed with their request.

7. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant were present before the Notary

Public to submit for notarization the said Deed of Sale. Contrary to the

allegation of the Plaintiffs in Paragraph G of the Complaint, that only the

Community Tax Certificate (CTC) was presented before the notary public,

the Defendant likewise presented her Voter’s ID with ID No. 2293819982

Issued on October 18, 2016 in Muntinlupa City. Furthermore, the notary

5 Estelita Villamar v. Balbino Mangaoil, G.R. No. 188661, April 11, 2012

4
public to whom the parties presented themselves before was Atty. Jesus

C. Velasco, with the following information:

a. Commission Serial No. 444561

b. Until Dec. 31, 2019

c. Roll of Attorney No. 3849

d. IBP No. 1239596/2-5-02/Muntinlupa

e. PTR No. 949855/12-22-01/Muntinlupa

f. Office at: Unit No. 1416 B Tower Alabang, Muntinlupa City

8. The demand letter mentioned by the Plaintiffs on Paragraph D was never

received by the Defendant; the truth being that no demand to vacate,

written or verbal, was ever made by the Plaintiffs;

9. It is true that Mr. Carlos Reyes (Reyes) is a friend of the Defendant,

however the affidavit mentioned by the Plaintiffs in the Complaint wherein

the Plaintiffs claimed that Reyes voluntarily made the affidavit, was in

truth without his knowledge nor consent. Reyes, in his own affidavit

attached as Annex 4 hereof, admitted to the Defendant, that sometime in

May 2017, he was made to sign a blank piece of paper by the Plaintiffs,

making him believe that he was merely signing for the registration of Ayala

Alabang Homeowners Association (AAHA). That he only found out about

the false affidavit upon receipt of the Complaint by the Defendant;

Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court, to render judgment, as follows:

1. Dismissing the complaint for non-compliance of Verification and

Certification against Forum Shopping;

2. Declaring that the Defendant is the real owner of the property in

question;

5
3. Ordering the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendant the sum of P

750,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees and P 20,000.00 per

appearance in Court;

4. Ordering the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendant exemplary damages,

the determination of which is left to the sound judgment of this

Court.

5. Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Muntinlupa, August 7, 2018.

CASQUEJO, DULAY, EVANGELISTA,


MORATA, TIONGSON LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
15th floor, Empire Building
Muntinlupa City

By:

Charmaine Fhaye C. Casquejo


Roll of Attorney No. 998531
IBP No. 13450/10-14-14/Manila
PTR No. 98894/5-20-10/Manila

Rio Tiaro A. Dulay


Roll of Attorney No. 382933
IBP No. 98611/02-01-02/Muntinlupa
PTR No. 66791/03-15-05/Muntinlupa

Gershwin D. Evangelista
Roll of Attorney No. 658872
IBP No. 11310/11-08-03/Manila
PTR No. 99824/12-11-04/Manila

Rodolfo D. Morata
Roll of Attorney No. 238902
IBP No. 99021/08-22-10/Pasig
PTR No. 24225/12-09-10/Pasig

Mark Anthony J. Tiongson


Roll of Attorney No. 792188
IBP No. 19920/10-30-09/Manila
PTR No. 11094/09-01-10/Manila

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Muntinlupa ) s.s.

x-----------------------------------x

6
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, XIAO XINGPIN, of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of 70 Narra

St., Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, Philippines, after having been duly

sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the case and have read the foregoing

Answer;

3. The Answer are true and correct to the best of our own knowledge and

authentic records;

4. The I have not commenced other actions or proceedings with same issues

before any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and there is no such

action or proceeding pending;

5. Should we learn that there is other action or proceeding pending before

any court or tribunal, we shall report the fact within 5 days to the court or

tribunal where the pleadings and sworn certificate was originally filed;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 10th day

of August 2018 at Muntinlupa City, Philippines.

XIAO XINGPIN

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of August at

Mandaluyong City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver’s License No.

42271, issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 10, 2018 at the

City of Manila.

Atty. Maria Christine V. Cruz


Notary Public
Commission Serial No. 442201
Until Dec. 31, 2019
Roll of Attorney No. 5649
IBP No. 6233396/5-29-01/Manila
PTR No. 249878/10-21-00/Manila

Doc. No. 3
Page No. 6
Book No. 2
Series of 2018.