Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Davao City, Branch 5

Glcklich Corporation, Incorporated

Plaintiff

-versus- Case Number: R-DVO-

12345-CC
Petition for Unlawful
Detainer
Case

Sarah H. De Los Reyes

Defendant
X-------------------------------------/

ANSWER
Defendant, through counsel respectfully states that:
1. Paragraph 1 is admitted.
2. Paragraph 2 is admitted.
3. Paragraph 4 is denied for lack of knowledge.
4. Paragraph 5 is likewise denied for lack of knowledge.
5. Paragraph 6 is likewise denied for lack of knowledge.
6. Paragraph 7 is likewise denied for lack of knowledge.
7. Paragraph 8 is likewise denied for lack of knowledge.
8. Paragraph 9 is admitted since the defendant remains to be the lawful
owner of the said disputed property.
9. Paragraph 10 is denied for lack of knowledge.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and ALLEGATIONS

10. Sometime in May 1960, defendant applied for free patent of the subject
property and was awarded such by the DENR of Region 11. Attached
herein is the Owners Duplicate Copy of the Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No 12345 as Annex 1.
 11. Since then, she has been in continuous, open, exclusive,
uninterrupted and notorious possession of the said disputed property.
12. Defendant has been religiously paying her real property tax. Attached
herein is the tracer of the paid tax declarations as Annex 2 and the
latest tax declaration as Annex 2-A
13. Plaintiff made an offer to purchase subject property from the defendant,
but the offer was not perfected due to disagreements between the
parties regarding the purchase price.
14. Due to failure to prefect said offer, no Deed of Absolute Sale was
executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff corporation. In fact,
the Deed of Sale presented by the plaintiff was unsigned by the
defendant.
15. Moreover, the alleged authority of the plaintiff-corporation is defective
because there is nothing in the board resolution that authorizes the
said corporation to purchase the property of the defendant.
16. With the knowledge that the subject property was owned by the
defendant, without the proper authority to purchase the subject land,
and without a legitimate Deed of Sale executed in its favor, plaintiff
fraudulently acquired a Transfer of Certificate of Title in its name.
17. The owner of the property has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,
without other limitations than those established by law.1
18. Being the legal owner of the subject property, defendant has the right
to remain in the premises whenever and however he pleases subject
only to the limitations provided by law.

COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant repleads the above allegations and by way of compulsory
counterclaim alleges that:
19. Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud within a year after the date
of the issuance of the decree of registration.2
20. The Transfer of Certificate of Title under the name of plaintiff-
corporation was issued on May 25, 2017, which is well within the
abovementioned one-year requirement.
21. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law.3

1
Article 428 of the Civil Code
2
Largosa v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil 238 (1999)
 22. A counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the title. A
counterclaim is considered a complaint, only this time, it is the original
defendant who becomes the plaintiff.4
23. The Transfer of Certificate of Title issued in favor of the plaintiff-
corporation must be cancelled for the legal and rightful owner thereof is
the defendant, and that plaintiff-corporation merely acquired the said
title through the use of fraud.
24. The act of the plaintiffs are against the law, public morals and public
policy, and is contrary to justice and equity since they did not observe
honesty and good faith in their dealings with the defendant.
25. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations.5
26. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.6
27. Because of the fraud, bad faith, and gross ill-will committed by the
plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to damages as provided in the Civil
Code.
28. Because of plaintiffs act of defrauding and exploiting the defendant, it
has caused her wounded feelings, humiliation, embarrassment, moral
shock, serious anxiety, and sleepless nights. She is entitled to moral
damages in the amount of not less than one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00).
29. By reason of evident bad faith, ill-will, and fraud committed by the
plaintiff as shown above, exemplary damages should be granted by the
Court to set an example to the public. The amount of which should not
be less than one hundred thousand pesos (P100,00.00).
30. Because of the filing of this baseless action, the defendant has been
constrained to secure the services of counsel in order to protect her
rights and interest, thus, it is but just and reasonable that the plaintiff
should pay the attorneys fees of not less than one hundred thousand
pesos (P100,00.00) and the litigation cost of not less than one hundred
thousand pesos (100,00.00).

3
Section 48 of PD 1529
4
Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, 452 Phil 238 (2003)
5
Article 1171 of the Civil Code
6
Article 21 of the Civil Code
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court to grant the following:
1. The complaint be dismissed for lack of merit;
2. The Transfer of Certificate of Title issued in favor of the plaintiff be
cancelled.
3. The defendants compulsory counterclaim be granted: moral damages
in the amount of not less than one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), exemplary damages in the amount of one hundred
thousand pesos (100,000.00), attorneys fees of not less than one
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), and the litigation cost of not
less than one hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00).
The defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Cebu City, Philippines, August 11, 2017.

GROUP 2 LAW OFFICE

21-F Don Ramos Rodriguez St.,
Fishing Site, Cebu City, Philippines

By:

ATTY. ______________________
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0008105
Sept. 26, 2016
Roll No. 54798
PTR No. 4376105, Jan. 2, 2017,
Cebu City
IBP No. 882818 Lifetime
Tel. No. (6332)2548005
Email: lawyer@law.com

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this August 2, 2017, by

Sarah De Los Reyes who exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate No.
123456678 issued at Davao City on January 25, 2017.
 Atty. __________

Notary Public
Davao City Until December 31, 2018
PTR No. 361254 Feb. 10, 2008
IBP No. 573362 Lifetime
Roll No. 98765
MCLE Compliance No. IV-00081798
Toril, Davao City

Doc. No. 3;
Page No. 1;
Book No. II;
Series of 2017;

Copy furnished:

Atty. Cristine D. Belocura

PEPCLAB LAW FIRM AND ASSOCIATES
Unit 5, Raintree Mall, Davao Avenue
Davao City
Registry receipt: __________
Date: ________________

EXPLANATION

Service of pleading is not done personally but through registered mail

due to the distance and due to the lack of office personnel.

Atty. _________________