Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch 6
Baguio City

JOAN FELIPE, LIZA LAEYAN,

MARY D. CAPUYAN, and JOAN
UYAMMI,
Plaintiffs,

- versus - Civil Case No. 8192-R

For: CANCELLATION OF TITLE
WITH A PRAYER FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY
INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES

HEIRS OF REBECCA MATABA,

THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF
BAGUIO CITY AS
REPRESENTED BY THE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS, and the
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,
Defendants.

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

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most

respectfully file their Answer in response to the Complaint of the
plaintiffs, to wit:
 ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

I. PARTIES

1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint are admitted;

II. FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Complaint are denied for lack of

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being matters
only known to, and are within the control of the plaintiff;

3. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied insofar as the

allegations that the subject lot is outside any ancestral land
claim. The truth of the matter is there was a Resolution issued
by the NCIP with the recommendation of the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources that the subject lot is
within ancestral land claim. The Resolution and
Recommendation are hereto attached as Annex “1” and “2”,
respectively;

4. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the Complaint are denied for lack

of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being known
only to, and are within the control of the plaintiff;

5. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are partially denied. While it is true that

there was posting and publication in an accredited newspaper,
the plaintiffs failed to comply with one of the indispensable
requirements of publication of the notice of sale, which is to
state in the notice the description and improvements on the
land, location of the property, time, date and place of bidding;

6. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Complaint are
denied for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein
being known only to, and are within the control of the plaintiff;
7. Paragraph 22 is partially denied. While it is true that the
plaintiffs paid the real property taxes as evidenced by tax
declarations, there was an internal agreement between the
parties that the real property taxes paid by the plaintiffs are
subject to reimbursement by the defendant. The agreement is
hereto attached as Annex “3”;

8. Paragraph 23 is denied because there was no waiver of such

right. The truth of the matter is they were merely occupying the
lot by mere tolerance and such can ripen into ownership;

9. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Complaint are denied for
lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
thereof;

10. Paragraph 28 of the Complaint is admitted;

11. Paragraph 29 is denied insofar as the exclusion of Capuyan’s

property. The subject lot sought to be excluded forms part of the
twenty-five hectare (25-ha) ancestral lot, which is covered by a
certificate of title, which implies that the title is quiet and that it
is perfect, absolute, and indefeasible;

12. Paragraph 30 is denied insofar as to the following allegations:

13. Paragraph 30(a) is denied. The truth of the matter is the

defendant, Rebecca Mataba, already obtained a certificate of
title over the subject lot which presupposes that there was an
existing application for the ancestral land. The application of
ancestral land is hereby attached as Annex “4”;

14. Paragraph 30(b) is partially denied. While it is true that there

was an approved survey plan with an area of eighty-five
thousand and fifty-eight square meters (85,058 sq m), there are
other approved survey plans attached hereto as Annex “5” and
“6”. One survey plan (Annex “5”) covers an area of sixty-four
thousand and seven hundred fifty-five square meters (64,755
sq m). The other survey plan (Annex “6”) covers an area of one
 hundred thousand and one hundred eighty-seven square
meters (100,187 sq m), totalling to more or less two hundred
and fifty thousand square meters (250,000 sq m) or twenty-five
hectares (25 ha);

15. Paragraph 30(c) is denied as the same is an erroneous

conclusion made by plaintiffs;

16. Paragraph 31 is denied. The fact that there were improvements

in the area when the survey was conducted is immaterial as the
possession of the plaintiffs was tolerated by the defendants;

17. Paragraph 32 is partially denied. While it is true that there was

a supplementary deed of absolute sale, the same cannot be
given legal effect because of vitiated consent. The truth of the
matter is, during the execution of the deed of absolute sale,
Komising Tugley was already of old age suffering from
Alzheimer’s disease; hence, the consent obtained was likely
vitiated. The medical certificate evidencing Tugley’s medical
condition is attached hereto as Annex “7”;

18. Paragraph 33 is denied as the same is an erroneous conclusion

made by the plaintiffs. The certificate of title issued covers the
area of twenty-five hectares (25 ha) evidenced by the certificate
of title, as well as the three survey plans covering the area
totalling to 25 ha;

19. Paragraph 34 is partially admitted insofar as the inconsistencies

with the areas published in 2007 and in 2009. However, these
inconsistencies were the result of mere inadvertence on the
part of the defendants due to lack of technical knowledge;

20. Paragraph 35 is partially admitted as to the date of the issuance

of title and the promulgation. However, the assumption that the
title already existed at the time of the promulgation is merely
conjectural, speculative, and hypothetical. The Register of
Deeds should not be faulted for performing its duty promptly
and efficiently;
21. Paragraph 36 is admitted;

22. Paragraph 37 is deemed admitted since the subject lots being

claimed by the plaintiffs are being occupied by mere tolerance;

23. Paragraph 38 is denied. Without substantial evidence, the

presumption of regularity of performance of duties by the
Register of Deeds shall prevail and cannot be defeated;

24. Paragraph 39 is denied. The Partition Agreement executed on

January 25, 2010 actually exists but is recorded under Doc. No.
96, Page No. 23, Book No. XIV and Series of 2010, and not
under Doc. No. 196, Page No. 40 as claimed. The Partition
Agreement is hereto attached and marked as Annex “8”;

25. Paragraph 40 is denied. The truth of the matter is the

defendant, Rebecca Mataba, already obtained a certificate of
title over the subject lot, which presupposes that there was an
existing application for the ancestral land. The application for
ancestral land is hereto attached as Annex “4”;
While it is true that there was an approved survey plan with an
area of eighty-five thousand and fifty-eight square meters
(85,058 sq m), there are other approved survey plans attached
hereto as Annex “5” and “6”. The survey plan attached as
Annex “5” covers an area of sixty four thousand and seven
hundred fifty-five square meters (64,755). The survey plan
attached as Annex “6” covers an area of one hundred thousand
and one hundred eighty-seven square meters (100,187 sq m)
totalling to more or less two hundred and fifty thousand square
meters (250,000 sq m) or 25 ha;

26. Paragraph 41 is denied. The existence of fraud was not fully

substantiated and it is incumbent on the plaintiff to adduce
sufficient evidence for its existence;

27. Paragraph 42 is admitted; however, it cannot be refiled before

this Honorable Court due to the failure on the part of the
plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies. The NCIP is
 vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving
rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the NCIP’s
assumption of jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties
thereto shall have exhausted all remedies provided under their
customary laws and have obtained a certification from the
Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to
settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved;

28. Paragraph 43 is admitted;

29. Paragraph 44 is partially admitted. While it is true that the

plaintiffs have been in possession of their respective lots since
the nineties, said possession was merely by tolerance of the
defendants;

30. Paragraph 45 is partially denied. Section 56 of RA 8371 cannot

apply in favor of the plaintiffs because they have no vested
rights to begin with;

31. Paragraph 46 is partially denied. While it is true that all lands

proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as
such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate legislation, prior
land rights and titles recognized before the effectivity of the Act
shall remain valid;

32. Paragraph 47 is admitted;

33. Paragraph 48 is denied. While eviction and demolition as a

practice shall be discouraged, it may be allowed when there is
a court order for eviction and demolition. This is not the first
time that plaintiffs have been issued a demolition order. This is
the second time that a demolition order was issued against
them. Attached hereto is a demolition order issued by the court
as Annex “9”;

34. Paragraph 49 is denied. Although the demolition order being

complained of has been issued by the Mayor, the court has
already issued a demolition order against the plaintiffs hereto
 attached as Annex “9”;

35. Paragraph 50 is partially denied. The jurisdictional infirmity of

DO No. 10, Series of 2014 is immaterial as the court has
already issued a demolition order against the plaintiffs hereto
attached as Annex “9”;

36. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are denied. The mandatory injunction

sought by the plaintiffs can only be granted if their right is clear
and unmistakable. In this case, however, that right is not
shown;

37. Paragraph 53 is denied. The possession of the plaintiffs is not

in the concept of an owner but merely by tolerance by the
defendants. As such, the defendants can evict them anytime;

38. Paragraph 54 and 55 are denied. The defendants are neither

intruding nor trespassing because the subject property rightfully
belongs to them. Neither are they threatening, or about too, nor
procuring to do an act in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights
respecting the subject of this complaint and tending to render
the judgment ineffectual;

39. Paragraph 56 is denied;

40. Paragraph 57 is denied. The inconvenience to be suffered by

the defendants is not negligible, much less nil;

·1 Thus, this answer.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that judgment be rendered:
 ·2 Ordering the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of non-
compliance with the condition precedent which requires that the
NCIP’s assumption of jurisdiction over disputes involving the
rights of IPs is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all
remedies provided under their customary laws and have
obtained a certification from the Council of Elders who
participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same
has not been resolved;

·3 Denying all the provisional remedies sought by the plaintiffs;

·4 Ordering the plaintiffs to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of

Php 50,000.00, damages of Php 100,000.00, and exemplary
damages of Php 30,000.00.

Defendants further pray for such other reliefs and remedies

deemed just and proper.

Baguio City, Philippines, this 20th day of October, 2018.

SAYYETH, GARA, AND PINGATH LAW FIRM

ROOM 101, NEWTOWN PLAZA BUILDING
NAVY BASE EXTENSION
BAGUIO CITY, PHILIPPINES

By:

ATTY. JORDZ IVAN RAMOS

Counsel for the Defendants
PTR No. 59406540; March 18, 2015, Baguio City
IBP OR Membership No. 4567680; May 10, 2015, Baguio City
Chapter MCLE Compliance No. 45340
Roll No. 063405; June 1, 2015; TIN: 569-457-345-000
Room 101, Newtown Plaza Building, Navy Base Extension
Baguio City, Philippines
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
DONE: IN THE CITY OF BAGUIO) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

We, the HEIRS OF REBECCA MATABA, namely Jasmine

Mataba-Taguba, Cerine Mataba-Dela Cruz, and John Michael
Mataba, all of legal ages, Filipino citizens, and residents of Loakan,
Baguio City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state that:

·5 We are the defendants in the above-entitled case and we have

caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;

·6 We have read and understood all the factual and material

allegations therein and the same are true and correct according
to our personal knowledge and based on authentic records;

·7 We hereby certify that we have not commenced any action or

filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal,
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of our knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein. If we should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, we shall report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand this

th
20 day of October, 2018 in the City of Baguio, Philippines.

AFFIANTS
 Jasmine Mataba-Taguba
VIN: 2216-0116B-B1296JMT20001-8

Cerine Mataba-Dela Cruz

VIN: 1108-0015C-D0896CMD29991-5

John Michael Mataba

VIN: 1287-0019A-B0593JMM20000-3

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 20th day of

October, 2018 in the City of Baguio, Philippines. Affiants exhibited to
me their competent proof of identity as indicated below their name
and signature.

ATTY. BEAUTY N. BRAINS

Notary Public
PTR No. 12131415; April 25, 2018, Baguio City
IBP OR Membership No. 7891011; April 29, 2020, Baguio City
Chapter MCLE Compliance No. 161718, June 24, 2015
Roll No. 093446; June 1, 2015; TIN: 897-125-886-000
3B West Burnham Place, Kisad Road
Baguio City, Philippines
Doc. No. 54; Page No. 12; Book No. V, Series of 2018