MARIAN N. ABECIA, rep by JUNARD N.

ABECIA Versus RODULFO SABADO For : UNLAWFUL DETAINER AND DAMAGES

CASE NO. 326-N

ANSWER
COMES NOW, defendant through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers; 1. That on December 14, 2011, he received a copy of the summons from the Honorable Court directing him to file his answer within ten days from receipt thereof. It was only on December 20, 2011 that Defendant was able to engage the services of counsel. And this is despite the fact that his counsel is among the many persons who have relatives that either died, disappeared or were critically injured by the great flood that devastated in Iligan City on December 16, 2011. But because of the very stringent and non-flexible Rules on Summary Procedure, counsel could not even beg the kind indulgence of the Court for at least an additional one day within which to file Defendants Answer. He could not even spend a day less in order to assist his relatives in their desperate efforts to locate and bury their dead during the Yuletide Season. Nevertheless, counting from December 14, 2011, the 10th day given the Defendant to file his answer would be December 24, 2011 which is a Saturday. Hence the last day for defendant to comply with the order of the court shall fall on the next working day, which is Monday, December 26, 2011. This Answer is filed on December 26, 2011, showing the timeliness of its filing; 2. That paragraph 1 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity thereof. Defendant however, admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint;

3. That the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the complaint are strongly denied on the ground that the Plaintiff misleads the court by claiming ownership over a parcel of land that is situated in the public market area of the Municipality of Maigo, Lanao del Norte. A serious look into the supposed title of the land in the name of Plaintiff

will easily establish that its location is within the market site of the town, hence the same is a public land. It is inalienable land. Denial of the allegations in the complaint is also based on the fact that the issuance of the subject land title (OCT No. P-18,701) was fraudulently obtained. It must be noticed that the date of issuance of the subject title was very recently, which is November 22, 2011. The requisites for the grant by the State of an Original Certificate of Title over a public and commercial lot were not fully established by plaintiff except that she claims valid title thereto. As to how and why the State issued the Original Title, remains a puzzle to Defendant, especially so that Plaintiffs ownership claim had been previously contested by Defendants father from whom Defendant succeeded possession. This simply means that fraud was evidently employed in securing an original title certificate over a public and inalienable land situated in the middle of the town of Maigo; 3.a) Assuming without admitting, that the land was not public and that Plaintiff was the owner thereof, Plaintiff cannot explain why an original certificate of title was issued to him by the DENR only in November 22, 2011. Plaintiff wants to portray that because by November 21, 2011 she was the registered owner of the property, she then allowed or tolerated Defendants fresh occupation of her property, allowed the latter to put up a barbershop and then after three weeks from there, she demands Defendant to vacate from her property. This is preposterous!!! Much more, plaintiff cannot explain why only after three weeks of fraudulently possessing said title, she now files an unlawful detainer case against Defendant, who has been in possession thereof since his birth in the late 1950s. An extensive ocular inspection of the questioned property is therefore in order. This is even as Plaintiff claimed ownership of the questioned property by virtue of a land title. It must be emphasized that the simple possession of a certificate of title does not make the possessor the true owner of all the property described therein. If a person obtains a title, which includes by mistake or oversight land that is not his, he does not, by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the lands illegally included. A Certificate of Title cannot be considered evidence of ownership where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin. This was the declaration and strong pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the cases of WIDOWS AND ORPHANS vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 165

(1991); Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590 and in the case of Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 303 (1989); 4. That paragraph 5 of the complaint is denied on the ground of lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the allegations contained therein; 5. That paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint are likewise denied on the ground that the same are mere allegations without substantiation. First, Plaintiff failed to establish when exactly Defendant occupied a portion of the property she allegedly owns. Second, Plaintiff claims that Defendant occupied SIXTY square meters of the property where Defendant erected a barbershop. But from decades past until today, defendant and his parents had been occupying only a portion about THIRTY EIGHT square meters of the public market site. Third, Plaintiff failed to show proof of the alleged Tolerance mainly because there was no such tolerance at all the subject property being a public market site. At this juncture, it is fitting to be reminded of the Supreme Court Ruling in the cases of Odsigue v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 626 and Go Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 755. In these two cases, the High Court pronounced that any person, who stays in anothers property by mere tolerance, becomes a deforciant illegally occupying the land only at the very moment he is required to leave. But it is essential in unlawful detainer cases of this kind that the plaintiffs supposed tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered. In other words, Plaintiff has to clearly state in the material averments of his complaint the EXACT PERIOD OF TIME when the alleged possession by Defendant took place, and thereafter state in the complaint that such possession was by his mere tolerance. Otherwise, the court would have to take the pains in guessing or speculating as to whether or not plaintiffs supposed tolerance was indeed right from the start of possession. But this jurisprudential requirement was never averred in Plaintiffs complaint, particularly in Paragraph 6 and 7 thereof. This is a fatal blow to the cause of action of the Plaintiff; 5.a) Be that as it may, the truth to the matter is that Defendant had been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse possession in the concept of an owner over the subject property even as early as in

1965 when his father Maximo B. Sabado Sr. first established his thereon, covering an area of only THIRTY EIGHT square meters more or less. Defendant as a child virtually grew up in that property without even the slightest protestations of any person, including Plaintiff, Maria Abecia. Said occupation was for business purposes as the location was within the market site of Maigo. Defendant would even help his parents in the simple yet decent market business they were engaged in. Sometime in 1983, defendants father started paying real property tax on the small parcel of land he claimed or declared for tax purposes. Proof of this is the real property tax declaration no. 0635 that defendants father obtained, which is attached hereto as ANNEX 1 and ANNEX 1-a which is the encircled notations contained therein as Res. Hse. Erected w/in the Market Site. It is therefore clear that the claim of Plaintiff that he merely tolerated the occupation over the property by Defendant is a misleading and baseless claim. To further prove the misrepresentations and confusing allegations in the aforesaid paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint, Defendant attaches hereto ANNEX 2 which is the ENGINEERs CERTIFICATE issued by Geodetic Engineer Odon Gomera in favor of Defendants father, Maximo B. Sabado Sr., on August 13, 1990 showing proof that a relocation survey was e conducted by said engineer over the claimed property of Defendants father, Maximo B. Sabado after the adjacent occupants, among whom was plaintiff Maria Abecia, were notified. This Certificate even proves that when the actual measurements and survey were done over the claimed property of Defendants father, there were NO OBJECTORS AND OPPOSITORS to the survey made by Engr. Gomera on request of Defendants father. These facts are established in the encircled and marked portion of ANNEX 2 and henceforth sub-marked as ANNEX 2-A and 2-B respectively; 6. That the allegations contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint are denied absolutely on the ground that the Plaintiff had no right to use the property claimed by Defendant and his father beforehand. The truth to the matter is that when a second survey was made in 1998 by Engr. Gomera, Plaintiff Maria Abecia and her entire family was notified about it and she and her family interposed no objection thereto. This can be gleaned from ANNEX 3 of this Answer, which is the Survey Notification Letter dated August 3, 1998 and attached hereto as an integral of this Answer. It can be observed from Annex

3 that Maria Abecia being an adjacent lot occupant, affixed her signature on said Notification prior to the name of Erlindo Cabug, another occupant adjacent to that area claimed by Defendants father, Maximo B. Sabado Sr. It must be noted that Defendant himself, even after getting married, remained as an occupant of the subject property together with his parents. The survey notification and actual survey made by Engr. Gomera in 1998 was the result of a letter request dated July 27, 1998 signed by Maximo B. Sabado Sr. and addressed to the CENRO Officer of Iligan City. This Letter Request is attached hereto as ANNEX 4 and made an integral part hereof. In simple analysis, there is not even an iota of truth that the Defendants occupation and possession of the property was by mere tolerance by plaintiff. Defendant and his parents among the first occupants of this portion of the market site of Maigo. If Plaintiff tolerated Defendants stay thereon, it was not the tolerance required by law as land owner but the tolerance of a neighboring occupant without title; 7. That the allegations in paragraph 10 of the complaint are denied on the ground that this conciliation meeting at the Barangay level was only among the series of conciliation meetings that have even reached the Sangguniang Bayan of Maigo, obviously because the subject property is within the public market site of the town. Hence, the Municipal Government of Maigo intervened in the controversy even as early as in the late 1990s where now the deceased Atty. Gravino was the mediation officer. Despite all efforts, plaintiff refused to heed the advice of the Municipal Government of Maigo to desist from furthering his claim. In fact, a closer look into the Annex E of the complaint will show that the certificate to file action was issued at a time and date when plaintiff was not as yet the holder of land title No. P-18,701. It must be borne in mind that the certificate from the Barangay was issued on November 16, 2011, while the questioned title was issued only on November 21, 2011. Because of plaintiffs adamant refusal to succumb to the reality prevailing, he has virtually placed the cart ahead of the horse, so to speak. For how could plaintiff throw defendant to the Baranggay Lupon sometime before November 22, 2011 without any basis to support his claim of ownership? Would the Plaintiff now insist that the Honorable Court actually obtained jurisdiction over the case based on this FATAL ERROR? In the meantime, Plaintiff has to deal with the fact that plenty of people in

the community can attest that Defendant had been in open, public, and uncontested possession over the questioned area for so long a time before November 22, 2011. Proof of this is the Joint Witnesses Affidavit of Maximo Gelic and Juan B. Pila which is attached hereto as ANNEX 5. This annex is made an integral part of this Answer. Plaintiff cannot deny the fact that even as she had demanded Defendant to vacate per her counsels letter dated December 1, 2011, she had been made aware of the fact that as early as 1998, Defendant, through his father had applied for titling purposes the subject property with the DENR Bureau of Lands. This is evidenced by ANNEX 6 to ANNEX 6-E and made an integral part hereof; 8. That paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Complaint are all denied on the same grounds as stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of this Answer. Truth to tell, as early as September 08, 1998, Defendants father had secured the Plan of Land, Miscellaneous Sales Application as surveyed after Engr. Gomera conducted and released on October 10, 1998. A photocopy of this proof is attached hereto as ANNEX 7 and made an integral part of this Answer;

9. That paragraph 14 of the complaint is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form as to the veracity thereof;

10. That due to unfounded, malicious and fraudulent filing of the instant case, Defendant suffered sleepless nights, wounded feelings and untold sufferings which if converted into monetary consideration will not be less than P100,000.00;

11. That likewise, because of the filing of this baseless case, Defendant was constrained to engage the services of counsel and agreed to pay P30,000.00 as acceptance fee plus P1,500.00 as appearance fee and P10,000.00 as cost of litigation. These amounts must be made to be reimbursed by Plaintiff for her filing a case bereft of any cause of action,

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the humble prayer of the Defendant that an Order be issued by the Honorable Court DISMISSING the case for lack of merit, lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. Said order is prayed to include Plaintiffs obligation to pay Defendant the aforesaid moral damages, lawyers fee and cost of litigation. Other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable are likewise prayed for. This 26th day of December, 2011, at Tubod, for Bacolod, Lanao del Norte.

ATTY. JONATHAN M. PUNO