Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch V
Baguio City

PETER B. OYAMI,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 8096-R

For: Recovery of
Possession and
Damages
Spouses Esteban and
Margarita O. Addon,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

EX PARTE MOTION AD CAUTELAM

COMES NOW Spouses Esteban and Margarita O. Addon, by

and through the undersigned counsel, and unto the
Honorable Court most respectfully asseverates and
moves that:

1. A Notice requiring the attendance of herein

Defendants for purposes of Court-Annexed Mediation
has been served the Cortes & Associates Law Offcie

PREFATORY

a. This Answer is being filed within the reglementary

period as provided for in the Revised Rules of Court
or fifteen days from Defendants’ receipt of the
Summons on March 25, 2015. Considering that the last
day within which to file the following falls on the
“Araw ng Kagitingan”, the same is being submitted on
the next working day or April 10, 2015.

BY WAY OF ADMISSIONS

b. Defendants admit paragraphs 1 and 2 of the

Complaint in so far as they refer to the personal
circumstances and addresses of the parties.

[1]
c. Defendants admit that Margarita O. Addon is the
sister of the Plaintiff.

d. Further, Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s wife

is Defendant Margarita’s first cousin.

e. Defendants admit that Lot 13 Block 4 measures an

area of One Hundred Fifty (150) square meters more
or less and is part of the realty covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-5129 owned by LR Pascual
and Company.

f. Defendants admit that Lot 9 Block 5 measures an

area of One Hundred Fifty Eight (158) square meters
more or less and is part of the realty covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5129 owned by LR
Pascual and Company.

BY WAY OF NEGATIVE DEFENSES

d. Defendants deny the averments in paragraph 3 of

the Complaint. Plaintiff has the temerity to claim
ownership of a property not yet his. The truth is
Lot 13, Block 4 which he alleges to be with an area
of more or less one hundred fifty square meters is
owned by L. R. Pascual and Company. The attachments
referred to and appended by Plaintiff himself revels
such fact. Plaintiffs has not, based on his Annex
“A” submitted any adverse claim, lien, encumbrance,
conveyance or the like to prove his allegation of
ownership.

e. Defendants vehemently deny the allegation in

paragraph 4 of the Complaint that: “Sometime in the
late 1980’s, Plaintiffs started clearing and
improving the adjacent portion of their lot, such
that it became suitable for residential purposes”.
This is an ultimate lie. Plaintiff came to the area
only sometime 1990. Prior to that Plaintiff has not
resided in the said area popularly referred to as
“Crystal Cave”. Be it within the Fifty One Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Three (51,753) square meters land
owned by LR Pascual and Company or anywhere near it.

f. Similarly Defendants deny the statement of facts

made in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. They do not
[2]
have knowledge or information as to the intent of
the Plaintiff or his alleged clearing of the lot
sufficient to form a belief as to its truth or
falsity. Better yet the same does not relate facts
Defendants can either confirm or deny.

g. The phrase “adjoining property owners” in

paragraph 5 of the Complaint is being objected to by
the Defendants because it draws a picture totally
disregarding a road lot 5 which effectively separate
the properties now put in issue.

h. Defendants deny the assertions made in paragraph

6 of the Complaint for being false and misleading.
The truth is, sometime in 1990 Plaintiff was evicted
from his boarding house in Pinsao, Baguio City. He
then sought the permission of the Defendants to stay
at the latter’s house erected upon Lot 9, Block 5.
Defendant Margarita Addon, admitted Plaintiff to her
house where they would stay for more than five years.

i. Defendants deny the illusion of magnanimity

ascribed by Plaintiff to himself in paragraph 7 of
the Complaint. The truth is the lot upon which
Defendants occupied and built there house was a land
known to them to be a disposable and alienable public
land thus they went on to introduce improvements
thereon. Plaintiff have no hand whatsoever in the
decision of Defendants and the fact of building
thereat. They have started building thereon and when
nobody opposed they have gradually built a house made
of concrete from the money being sent by their second
child.

j. Defendants deny the allegations contained in

paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Complaint for being untrue
and an imagine tell-tale. They have never left Baguio
City for Ifugao. Instead, they have left the house
in Lot 9 Block 5 because they were able to build
their own house upon Lot 13 Block 4. Plaintiff and
Defendant Margarita’s mother has always been under
the care of the latter.

k. Defendants admit that there have been cases and

disputes between them and the Plaintiff. But these
were not about the land now in issue. Long has been
the internal family issues between Plaintiff and
Margarita Addon. In fact, Plaintiff has always been
aggressive and combative.
[3]
l. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 11
of the Complaint. They have openly declared their
application and membership to the St. Francis
Neighborhood HOA Housing Project. They have long been
recognized as members thereof. Likewise their open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
the parcel of land is known to the homeowners
association and is recognized by them. A copy of the
Certification from the National Housing Authority is
hereto made integral part of and appended as Annex
“1”.

m. Defendants admit with clarification the

allegations in paragraphs 12 and 13. Truthfully,
Plaintiff instead of honoring their previous
understanding to put an end with their differences
to allow the spirit of neighborliness, went on to
agitate herein Defendants. He did so by excavating
an area within the land lawfully possess and bought
by Defendants. This prompted the Defendant to seek
counsel thus, the written demand letter alluded to
by Plaintiff. In turn, Plaintiff went on to seek yet
again recourse from the barangay justice system
knowing fully well that it is his dishonesty and ill-
motive that led to the demand letter.

n. In 2012 Plaintiff went on to excavate and to build

a small dwelling place even after having been denied
his request to at the back of Defendants’ residence.
He thought that since this is yet to be under the
name of the Defendants that he can still build
thereon. Plaintiff boldly went across the road lot
which divides the land upon his house was built to
Defendants’ property and at the back thereof started
his excavation.

o. Despite pleas of her sister (Defendant Margarita

Addon), he furthered because all the while he thought
Defendants do not have papers to show ownership over
said portion. Thus his dismay when during the
Barangay Mediation proceedings he was shown pieces
of evidence that it is part of Defendants’ lot.
Copies of the Minutes of the Mediation are hereto
made integral part of and attached as Annexes “2”
and “3”.

BY WAY OF REFUTING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

[4]
m. Plaintiff is not entitled to moral damages just
because Defendants do not recognize him as a “valid
owner”. Plaintiff admits that he is not the owner
thereof by introducing the certificate of titles to
his very Complaint. If at all he had anxiety,
humiliation, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights
or agonies he cannot even particularize, they were
all because of his doing. Defendants should not
compensate Plaintiff’s self-flagellation.

n. Plaintiff is not entitled for rentals whatsoever.

He cannot be paid for claiming ownership over a land
not his and one he did not actually possessed.

o. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim the better good is

best served when those that seek the cover of our
judicial system to hide their fraudulent and
malicious thoughts are denied readily of their
attempt.

p. The very allegations of the Complaint reveal that

Defendants were not thoughtless or unjustified in
their occupancy and building. They have respected
the real owners. As for the Plaintiff, Defendants
did not even pursue further from the Demand Letter.
Plaintiff went on to secure the services of counsel
to ensure his way of taking from people property
because surely he can tell a story.

BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE AND OR SPECIAL DEFENSES

q. Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by

prescription. It is a settled rule that the remedies
of accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria must
be availed of within ten (10) years from
dispossession. Under Article 555 (4) of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines, the real right of possession
is lost after the lapse of ten years. Culled from
the Complaint is the allegation that Plaintiff has
been allegedly deprived of his right of possession
over Lot 9 Block 5 prior to 2003. Plaintiff is thus
bound by this admission in his Complaint. An
admission that is judicial in nature. Reckoning from
a year past late 1990’s, Plaintiff has not taken
action despite opportunity for more than ten years.

[5]
r. Plaintiff has not complied with the required
condition precedent prior to the filing of this case.
Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court
the non-compliance of a condition precedent is a
ground for the dismissal of a case. The parties in
this case are family members within the purview of
Articles 150 and 151 of the Family Code of the
Philippines. Thus, it is necessary that earnest
efforts toward a compromise have been made, but the
same have failed. The rule is even stricter, it
requires that such fact should appear in the
pleading. A careful reading of the Complaint does
not reveal such fact and the underlying facts suggest
that no earnest effort was made at all. Perforce,
this case should be dismissed.

BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTER CLAIM

s. The prayer for moral, exemplary, and actual

damages including litigation costs and attorney’s
fees is exorbitant, ostentatious and utterly
baseless.

t. If anyone at all is entitled to damages, it is

the answering Defendants, innocent purchasers for
value and in good faith and longtime open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possessors who
have been unjustly hauled to court after legally
acquiring properties which have shown no badges of
irregularity, who are now inconvenienced and
constrained to hire the services of counsel.

u. As a result of this unjust harassment suit,

answering Defendants expect to incur P200, 000.00 as
actual litigation expenses to be proven during the
course of the trial.

v. To protect their rights and interests from this

frivolous and stale suit, answering defendants were
likewise compelled to employ the services of counsel
whom they engaged to pay P50, 000.00 as attorney’s
fees in addition to P2, 000.00 per appearance as
counsel’s appearance fees.

PRAYER

[6]
WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed,
after due notice and hearing, that the Honorable
Court:

w. Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 16 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to comply
with condition precedent and for having been barred
by the statute of limitations;

x. In the event that the instant case goes to trial,

after hearing the case on the merits, render judgment
dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint for utter lack
of merit and reaffirm just and legal titles of the
answering defendants to the properties in question;

y. Direct the Plaintiff to pay the answering

defendants’ attorney’s fees in the amount of P 50,
000.00, in addition to the amount of P2,000 per
appearance as appearance fees which the defendant
promised to pay counsel, and P 200,000.00 litigation
expenses which amount will be proven during the
proceedings, as well as to pay the costs of suit;
and

z. Award such further reliefs as may be deemed just

or equitable under the law.

Respectfully submitted:
9 April 2015, Baguio City, Philippines.

JADO RAFAEL ADDON BOGNEDON

Counsel for herein Defendants
Roll No. 57876: 30 April 2010:
Manila
IBP O.R. No. 0980573: 5 Jan.
2015: Baguio-Benguet
PTR O.R. No. 2009677: 5 Jan.
2015: Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-
0021593: 5 Aug. 2013: Pasig
City
11-G 2nd Floor, Pua Building
Magsaysay Avenue
Happy Homes Barangay
2600 Baguio City, Philippines

[7]
Copy furnished:

ABENES, ABENES and ABENES LAW OFFICE

ATTN:
Attorney Servillano A. Abenes, Jr.
B-202 Lopez Building., 40 Session Road
2600 Baguio City, Philippines

[8]