Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Eighth (8th) Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Tacloban City, Leyte

Alfonso de la Cruz, Civil Case No.:____________

Plaintiff
-versus- For: Recovery of Possession
With Prayer for Writ of Preliminary
Samuel Regalado and Attachment under Section 1(c),
Rafaela Regalado, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court

Defendants
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANT, RAFAELA REGALADO, thru the undersigned counsel unto this

most Honorable Court most respectfully states that:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is specifically denied due to lack of knowledge

or sufficient information to form a belief as to the personal circumstances of
the Plaintiff;

2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is admitted;

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is admitted;

4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are specifically denied. The

truth of the matter is that the Original Certificate of Title is still in the
possession of the Defendant, registered under the name of Rafaela
Regalado as owner of the subject parcel of land, Lot No. 4675-A, being more
particularly described herein as follows:

“A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4675-A, located at Brgy.

Calanipawan, Tacloban City, Leyte, bounded on the NE, by Lot 4654, on
the SE, by Lots 3980, 4674, and 4675-B, on the SW, by Lots 4655, 4675-
B, and 3981, and on the NW, by Lots 4674, 4679, and 3982, containing an
area of 357 Sq. Meters more or less, and embraced in Certificate of Title
No. P-621”;

A copy of the Original Certificate of Title covering the above-described

property is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

Defendant declares that the Transfer Certificate of Title on which Plaintiff

based his claim of ownership, is spurious. A cursory inspection of the TCT
readily showed glaring discrepancies which indicated that the same is
spurious;

In an inquiry, the Registry of Deeds of Tacloban City issued a Certification,

attached as Annex “B”, stating that the Transfer Certificate of Title T-5789
registered under the name of Alfonso dela Cruz is not recorded in the
Registry, hence, confirmed Defendant’s declaration that the same is
fabricated;
The Title number predominantly shown on the title and alleged by the
Plaintiff is T-5789, however the marginal footnote of the same TCT reads
 “This is a Certified True Copy of TCT T-8625 on file at Registry of Deeds of
Tacloban City...’’;

Basic is the rule that the last two digits of the Title Number should match
the last two digits of the page number found at the top right portion of the
title. The alleged Title Number is T-5789, however, the last 2 digits of the
page number shown on the top right portion of the title is page 25. Clearly,
the last two digits of the title number did not match the last two digits of the
page number, which instead matched the last two digits of the Title Number
shown in the marginal footnote T-8625;

The ROD of Tacloban City is the repository of all records regarding OCTs
issued in the City, and the certification is therefore competent and
admissible evidence to prove that the title is spurious (Escobar vs Luna
GR 169204, Mar 2007);

5. Paragraph 5 is specifically denied, in as much as Defendant have also

religiously paid the property taxes of the above-described parcel of land,
and a copy of the latest Tax Declaration for said property under the name
of Rafaela Regalado, issued by the Assessor’s Office of Tacloban City, is
attached as Annex ‘’C’’ hereof;

6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint on the jurisdiction of the RTC is admitted;

7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is specifically denied under oath attached as

Annex ‘’D’’ hereof. Defendant disputes the validity of the Deed of Absolute
Sale. The truth of the matter is that the Deed of Absolute sale was not signed
by the Defendant due to the failure of the parties to arrive at an agreement
as to the cost of the subject land. Plaintiff insisted that the land is worth only
P50,000.00, which is significantly lower than the prevailing market value of
the same is valued at P200.00 per square meter or P71,400.00. The failure
of the parties to the contract to arrive at an agreement indicated the absence
of consent or the meeting of minds, which is an essential element of a
contract. Defendant also claims that she never received the payment for the
land allegedly made by the Plaintiff. Hence, there was no valid sale;

8. The allegation in Paragraph 8 is conditionally admitted, insofar as the

Plaintiff had indeed built a fence around the perimeter. However, Defendant
disputes Plaintiff’s claim that the act of fencing is based on his claim of
ownership after having validly acquired the land;

9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is specifically denied due to lack of knowledge

or sufficient information on the whereabouts of the Plaintiff;

10. The truth of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is specifically denied. Defendant

claims that her possession of the subject land cannot be considered as
intrusion, said possession being exercised under a claim of ownership, as
evidenced by the OCT P-621, which was never transferred to Plaintiff
Alfonso dela Cruz;

11. The truth of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is specifically denied. Defendant

avers that no demand to vacate was ever made by the Plaintiff, and any
demand in writing was not received by them, and assuming arguendo that
demand was in fact made, the same is without legal basis;

12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is admitted;

 13. The allegation in Paragraph 13 and 16, in relation to Paragraphs 14 and 15
of the Complaint, are specifically denied by Defendant; the truth of the
matter is that Defendant is lawfully correct in asserting her right to possess
the subject property under a claim of ownership evidenced by a Title
registered under her name. The exercise of possession, being an attribute
of ownership, is proper and legal. The ownership over the subject land was
never transferred to the name of the Plaintiff by virtue of an invalid Deed of
Sale and spurious Title. The Plaintiff, having no right of ownership or right
of possession over the subject land, cannot be deprived of the same;

14. The truth of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint is likewise specifically denied,

in as much as Defendant had not once received a notice from the Lupong
Tagapamayapa on the scheduled Barangay Conciliation, hence, Defendant
was not apprised of such meeting, and was not given the opportunity to
present her defense before the Lupong Tagapamayapa;

15. Defendant specifically denies the truth of Paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21, and
adduces evidences to prove that her claim of right to possess the land and
construct a house thereon is based on an authentic Certificate of Title over
the same;

16. Plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment should
not be granted because the subject parcel of land was not unjustly or
fraudulently taken.

Sec.1(c), Rule 57, of the Rules of Court provides that Preliminary

Attachment may be availed of in “ xxx an action to recover the possession
of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the
property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of
to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person”.

The Complaint is bereft of allegations and commission of the acts which

would justify the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant reiterates the foregoing allegations and further states THAT:

Due to the filing of the Complaint, Defendant’s reputation have been tarnished,
for which reason, Plaintiff should be held liable in the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00) by way of moral damages;

By way of example and in the interest of public good so that others may be
deterred from filing a similar Complaint, Plaintiff should be held liable for exemplary
damages in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00);

In order to protect her rights and interests, Defendant was constrained to

engage the services of a lawyer whom they paid the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00) as Attorney’s fee plus FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000.00) honorarium per court appearance.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed for

that the Honorable Court DENY the issuance of writ of Preliminary Attachment and
render judgement in favor of the Defendant by DISMISSING the Complaint for
Recovery of Possession, and thereafter award to the Defendant the damages as
set forth in the Counterclaim.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted. 14 June 2021, Tacloban City.

The Clerk of Court

RTC - Tacloban City

Please submit to the Honorable Court the foregoing Answer immediately upon
receipt hereof for favorable action. Thank you.

ROMNICK CANONA

Copy furnished via registered mail:

ATTY. LOVELY MAE SABALBERINO

Sabalberino Law Office, Room 12, XYZ Building
6500, Tacloban City, Philippines