REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 4 KALIBO, AKLANGREGORIO ALFREDO ROBERTO and MA. RITA GLORIA both surnamed SANSON Plaintiff, -versusCIVIL 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. 2. Paragraphs 1a and 1b are admitted; Paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3c, 3e are denied for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof; 5350-N and 5350-K in a manner that was in the concept of owner. 5. copy of the resulting survey plan was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint. as a direct offshoot of civil case no. Martin Roberto G. 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. adversely and continuously are concerned. Save for the legal provisions quoted in paragraph 3c. Jr. the rest of the allegations is denied. 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. the rest of the allegations is denied for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. Tirol vs. 4. 7. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson. 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. 2 . 6. The allegation in paragraph 4 is denied as the same is an erroneous conclusion made by Plaintiffs. Paragraph 3b is denied insofar as the allegations that Plaintiffs took possession of the areas that are described as Lot Nos. 157-M entitled. the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder. since Defendants are without any knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof.3. openly. The allegations in paragraph 6b are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder.8. The allegations in par. 12. 5 (actually. the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder. in favor of defendants is concerned. 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. 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. copy thereof was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint. 9. 578 square meters are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses. 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. is admitted but the rest of the allegations is denied. subject however to the affirmative and special defenses stated hereunder. the same is admitted. With respect to the allegation in paragraph 7 in that a court decision was rendered. the second par. the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder. The allegations in par. 3 . Tirol Sr. The allegations in paragraph 6 in that. 11. 10. The first two (2) lots (5350-B and 5350-F) are not being contested by any of the parties here. No Cloud of Title 15. The allegations in paragraph 7 on page 6 (actually this is the second paragraph erroneously numbered as “par. tax declarations over the said parcels of land were issued in favor of Defendants. Affirmative and Special Defenses 14. 5350-F. not to mention that it does not state a cause of action and is a clear resort to forum-shopping. Jr. The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs is nothing but a malicious lawsuit calculated to harass the Defendants. The second two (2) lots (5350-N and 5350-K). 7”) are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder.13. 5350-N and 5350-K. 16. Too. were the subject of the Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) by the late Roberto Tirol. As a result of the said donation. After a painstaking review of the Complaint. whether concerning their title or whoever is entitled to possession thereof. 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 4 . 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. thereby rendering it dismissible outright. 5350-B. on the other hand. 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. the judgment favoring Defendants was affirmed in toto. 5350-N and 5350-K from the parents of Plaintiffs. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson. The Pearl of Boracay Landholdings. 17. 18. the latter having entered into the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) with the late father of Defendants. their parents and Plaintiffs themselves or through the corporate entity they represent. Likewise. The Pearl of Boracay Landholdings Inc. While the instant complaint is one titled for quieting of title or for removal of cloud of title. 5350-N and 5350-K.Case No. 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. which decision has awarded possession of lot numbers 5350-N and 5350-K and has become executory. Incidentally. 20. it has become clear in the Complaint that Plaintiffs are simply all-out to restrain Defendants from taking over the possession of lots nos. titled. Tirol vs. 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. have been unceasingly resorting to all sorts of legal actions just so Defendants become unsuccessful in their bid to regain possession of lots nos. It will be noted that Plaintiffs’ parents have filed a case for the cancellation of the Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) 5 . intervened. Unceasing Various Legal Attacks 19. Inc. In fact. 157-M. Martin Roberto G. joined by her husband.00 as litigation expenses. and P100. 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. 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.affecting the same parcels of land.000. November 25. docketed as Civil Case No. Iloilo City for Kalibo. Roberto G.000.00 as appearance fee.” xxx 21.00 as attorney’s fees plus P10. Civil 6 . Plaintiffs’ parents again. filed another lawsuit against Defendants this time assailing the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) docketed and titled.: 7342. 2004. Gregorio Sanson vs. Plaintiffs pray for such other relief and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.000. xxx xxx On another occasion and unrelenting. “Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson. P50. 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. 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) b) c) One Million Pesos as moral damages. titled. Tirol” (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “B” to “B-4”) and the prayer of plaintiffs therein is quoted herein verbatim. Aklan. b) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs two million pesos actual damages. Martin Roberto G. “Spouses Gregorio and Ma. Plaintiffs pray for judgment or order: a) Declaring the Contract of Lease as Null and void. Lourdes Sanson vs. xxx Petition for Certiorari xxx xxx 22.000. P100. Realizing that they were losing ground and with the impending demolition of the building located in lot no.00 atty’s fees and P10. 5350-K. Roxas City for Kalibo.Case No.000.000. 5350-K being imminent. 2006.00 moral damages. December 7. 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. to wit: “PRAYER 7 . 7956 and titled. Philippines. to wit: xxx xxx xxx “WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs further pray for such other remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises. The following was their prayer in their petition. . it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court.000. 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. the determination of which is left to the sound judgment of this Court.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees and P10. 2005 (affirmed on appeal with minor modification) ineffectual against petitioner.000. xxx xxx This was resolved by the Regional Trial Court. and that Plaintiffs’ parents were in default in their monthly rentals to Defendants for more than a decade. regular and legal. as follows: 1. Rita Sanson. Third-Party Claim 24. though 8 . on several times during her cross-examination was lying to the court. to render judgment. pay petitioner the sum of P200. and after due notice and hearing effectively enjoin the respondents from implementing the Writ of Demolition against the properties of the petitioner. Declaring the decision of the Honorable Public Respondent dated July 22. 4. Ordering the respondents to. pay petitioner exemplary damages.00 per appearance in Court. through their corporate entity. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the respondents. 2. presided by Judge Montalid Patnubay Jr.WHEREFORE. premises considered. 3. have attempted to block. Ordering the respondents to. jointly and severally. which is NOT a party thereto. jointly and severally. Plaintiffs.” (Boldface printing for emphasis) xxx 23. Undeterred by legal pronouncements that the said Contract of Lease was valid. Boracay. Stated otherwise. July 18. Plaintiffs and 9 . Jaro. by filing a Third-Party Claim dated July 18. the execution of the decision upholding said lease contract and the right to repossess the said lots. Malay. Akaln. SANSON Third-Party Claimant” (Boldface printing for emphasis) No Legal or Equitable Title 25. Metro Manila. hereby depose and state: 1. 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”. Filipino and duly elected and qualified Corporate Secretary of the PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS CORPORATION. In the afore-cited two (2) cases. 5350-K with an area of 1. with principal address at E. The true and actual possessor of Lot No. The full text of the said thirdparty claim is quoted hereinbelow to wit: “THIRD PARTY CLAIM I.980 square meters and Lot No. 2009. 5350-N with an area of 6. for Buruanga. Aklan is the PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS CORPORATION. Lopez Street. MARIA RITA GLORIA T. Quezon City. of legal age. SANSON. it is unmistakable that Plaintiffs’ parents challenged the legal title of Defendants and the latter’s right to possession over the said lots. (Sgd. 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.156 square meters all located at Balabag. after having been duly sworn.in vain. which is not a party to the above-numbered Civil Case. Iloilo City.) MARIA RITA GLORIA T. “the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to. or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. 27.. Forum-shopping 10 . to be able to bring an action to quiet title to land or any interest therein. particularly lot 5350-K where a bigger portion of one of the buildings of The Pearl of the Pacific Resort is erected on. 26. 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. 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. Said resort is owned by the Pearl of Boracay Landholdings Inc. 28. who incidentally have been alternating in filing a barrage of lawsuits against Defendants. have only one agenda. 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. which is to stop at all cost Defendants’ attempts to take over the possession of said lots. Under our existing laws.their parents and the corporation they own. where the majority shareholders are no other than the family of Plaintiffs’ thereby making it really a family-owned corporation. 477 of the New Civil Code).” (Art. By their own admission in their Complaint. Not only have they attacked the Deed of Donation. For Plaintiffs. it is crystal clear Plaintiffs have only resorted to the contemptuous act of forum-shopping. the issues in this case are also bound by the principle of res judicata. Roberto H. Tirol. This time around. 33. Sr. As discussed elsewhere herein. 32. Significantly too. they will be able to achieve this time. Roberto Tirol. 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. but also the Contract of Lease that Plaintiffs’ parents entered into with Defendant’s late father. legal victory has been elusive as they really have no reason to continue 11 . 30. But in all likelihood. Defendants respectfully submit. 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.29. 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. 31. the instrument that transferred ownership of the aforesaid lots to Defendants from their grandfather.. Jr. as there are already rulings by various courts awarding possession of the subject lots to Defendants. By filing this legal action. December 10. Quezon City. Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.00) PRAYER WHEREFORE. Defendants most respectfully pray for the dismissal of the complaint and the award of counterclaim to them. Defendants have hired the services of the undersigned counsel for an agreed amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP 500. EXPLANATION Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel through registered mail as personal service is impracticable. By Way of Counterclaim 34.000. 12 . 2010.being in possession of the subject lots much less own the lots that have never been given to them. in view of the foregoing.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. Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit.000. Salcedo Village. Loyola Heights 1108 Quezon City. DUCUSIN Unit 2311.. 3212580 / 01-06-2010 / Quezon City IBP LRN 02224 / 1-16-2001 / Caloocan City Roll of Attorneys 33018 MCLE Exemption no. CEBALLOS PTR No.C E B A L L O S L A W F I R M § Counsel for Defendants Unit 3E Agcor Building 335 Katipunan Ave. 23rd Floor Herrera Tower Valero corner V. Rufino Sts.A. Metro Manila PONCEVIC M. III-00827 Copy Furnished: NOEL C. City of Makati 13 .
Report "Sample-Answer With Counterclaim (Final) Vic Ceballos (1)"