You are on page 1of 9

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Muntinlupa City



versus CIVIL CASE No. _______________

For: Accion Reivindicatoria



represented by the undersigned counsels, before the Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this Answer with Counterclaims, averring that:


1. The allegations in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the

Complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria as to the personal circumstances
of the Plaintiffs Spouses Presco and the Defendant Princess Diana
Villadolid are ADMITTED;

2. The allegations in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 6 insofar as the

ownership and the details of the respective properties of both the
plaintiffs and the defendant are concerned are likewise ADMITTED;
3. However, the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 8 that
the apparent overlap only existed in 2009 when the defendant had
introduced improvements over the portion of the property is
specifically DENIED. The improvements that the plaintiff was referring
to that caused that overlap actually began in May 2005 when the
defendant constructed a dirty kitchen in the said area and even with the
consent and help of then owner Mrs. Ruby Ryza Mae Lee Kum Kee to
whom the plaintiffs bought the property from. Attached herewith as
“ANNEX A” is the copy of construction permit evidencing the date of
completion of the improvements made by the defendant over the
disputed portion of the property;

4. The allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 9 is likewise

DENIED. Contrary to the assertion of the plaintiff, the defendant did not
receive any demand letter with respect to the alleged encroachment of
the portion of the said property. In fact, there was no way that the
defendant and the plaintiff could have confronted in the day when the
alleged demand letter was delivered as the former was in fact in Japan
on the day of November 30, 2017. Attached herewith as “Annex B” is the
Philippine Airlines ticket and boarding pass of the defendant evidencing
the trip to Japan on the said date;

5. Lastly, the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the

complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria is DENIED. Aside from the fact that
there was no demand letter to speak of as earlier stressed by the
defendant, there was neither any Barangay conciliation and
intervention and that the Certificate to file an action presented by the
plaintiff is forged and falsified. Attached herewith as “Annex C” is the
certification from the Punong Barangay of Poblacion, Munitinlupa City
that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were never parties in any
proceedings before the Barangay for purposes of conciliation or

6. The foregoing are subject to the special and affirmative

defenses hereunder presented.


The Defendant replead and incorporate by way of reference the
allegations from paragraphs 1-10 and further state as follows:

1. The claim of the plaintiff under Accion Reivindicatoria is


It is settled that the remedies of accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria

must be availed of within 10 years from dispossession. Under Article 555(4)
of the Civil Code, the real right of possession is lost after the lapse of 10 years.
Similarly, in Cruz v. Court of Appeals which an action for recovery of
possession and ownership of lands was brought only after 26 years had
elapsed, this Court ruled:

“And secondly, whether we consider the complaint of private

respondents to recover possession of the property in question as
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, the same has prescribed
after the lapse of ten years. After private respondents had
abandoned for 26 years the property which is unregistered land, the
law as well as justice and equity will not allow them "to lie in wait
and spring as in an ambush" to dislodge and dispossess petitioners
who during said period made and constructed residences, buildings
and other valuable improvements thereon, and enjoying the fruits

It is to be noted that the construction and the improvements which

allegedly caused the overlap were introduced by the defendant on the
disputed portion of the property on May of 2005 or 12 years from the filing of
the complaint of Accion Reivindicatoria. Hence, insofar as the defendant os
concerned, private plaintiffs cause of action was already barred by extinctive

2. The Plaintiff has NO CAUSE OF ACTION against the


Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as:

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in

favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or
omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to
the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery
of damages or other appropriate relief.

The remedy of Accion Reivindicatoria must be availed of within 10 years

from dispossession and since the improvements that caused the overlap was
effected in 2005 and even with the consent of its former owner, the defendant
had already effectively acquired such portion after May of 2015 by way of
prescription. Hence, the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the
defendants as the latter is the owner of the disputed portion.

3. The Plaintiffs complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria is not

properly verified.

Rule 7, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by A.M No.

00-2-10, provides:

Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically

required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit .

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the

pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of
his knowledge and belief.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based

on "information and belief", or upon "knowledge, information and
belief", or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading.


SHOPPING for Accion Reivindicatoria which the affiant-complainants Spouses
Presco signed will show that they are residents of Brgy. Villamonte, Makati
City, however, as above mentioned, a closer look at the complaint under
paragraph 1, the complainant’s alleged residence is Justice Village, Muntinlupa

Had the affiant-complainants Spouses Presco read the verification

and attested to the allegations as true and correct to the best of his personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic records, Spouses Presco would have
corrected or at the least noticed the inconsistency as between his Verification
and the complaint.

As stated above, a complaint is deemed verified when the affiant

executes an affidavit that he has read the pleading and the allegations
contained thereat. However, the mere fact that the affiant failed to even notice
an inconsistency of his own residence in his complaint and verification, cannot
be considered as proper verification. Lack of proper verification shall be
deemed as an unsigned pleading. Being an unsigned pleading, it is a
mere scrap of paper.

With the foregoing premises, the defendants respectfully submit that

the Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the grounds cited above.


In the rare event that the Honorable Court shall resolve to proceed with the
trial of the case despite the above special and affirmative defenses, the
Defendant submit the following compulsory counterclaims and for this
purpose, hereby restate and repleads all the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs by way of reference and incorporation:
1. Due to the plaintiff’s willful and patent disregard of the
defendants’ rights, the defendants suffered inconvenience,
embarrassment and humiliation thereby causing them mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social
humiliation, resulting in moral damages for which the plaintiff
should be held liable in the amount of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency;

2. To deter others from following after the plaintiff’s wanton acts

and evident bad faith, she should be held liable to pay the
plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency, by way of example or
correction for the public good;


WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed

that –

1. The Special and Affirmative Defenses shall be immediately set for

preliminary hearing;

2. After the said preliminary hearing, to issue an Order dismissing

the plaintiff’s complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria, with prejudice;

3. In the remote event that the Honorable Court shall proceed with
the trial, the defendant pray for a judgment denying the reliefs prayed for by
the plaintiff for lack of merit;

4. On the compulsory counterclaims- to order the plaintiff to pay the

defendants -
a. Moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency;
b. Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00), Philippine currency;
c. Attorney's fees in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00), Philippine currency;
d. Appearance fee of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00),
Philippine currency, per court appearance;
e. Other litigation expenses as may be proved during trial.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed

Muntinlupa City, Philippines this 4 day of April 2018.


Bronny James Jr.

IBP No. 12345/1-6-2012/Muntinlupa City
PTR No. 12345/1-6-2012/ Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 3456
MCLE Compliance No. III-12345/1-25-2011

LeBron James
IBP No. 12345/1-1-1111/ Muntinlupa City
PTR No. 12345/1-1-111/ Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No. III-12345-11

Jesus James
IBP No. 12345/1-6-3444/ Muntinlupa City
PTR No. 123456/1-6-4455/ Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 532233
MCLE Compliance No. III-012334/1-25-2011


I, PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLID, Filipino, legal age, Filipino, and is

currently residing at Lot 2, Block 2, Hukom Street, Justice Village, Muntinlupa
City, Philippines, under oath, depose and say that:

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with


3. I read all the allegations thereof and that the same are true and
correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic records;

4. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency.

6. If I should hereafter learn that of any other similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable

SIGNED this 4 April 2018 at Muntinlupa City, Philippines.

Princess Diana Villadolid

Republic of the Philippines)

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

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on _________________ at Bacolod

City by Princess Diana Villadolid who is personally known to me, hence, no
need to present a competent evidence of identity.

Doc. No._____;
Page No._____;
Book No._____;
Series of 2018.

Copy furnished to:


Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Poblacion, Muntinlupa City