Answer: Julia Estanislao Aquino CA-G.R. SP No. 148635

Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
Manila
JULIA ESTANISLAO AQUINO

Petitioner,
CA-G.R. SP No. 148635
-versus-
MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO

and JUDGE JIMMY HENRY F.
LUCZON, JR., OF RTC, BR.1,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan,
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS,
Tuguegarao Cagayan.
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Respondent MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO, through the undersigned
counsel, most respectfully files her Answer in response of the Petition for
Annulment of Judgment which states the following:
TIMELINESS OF FILING
Respondent MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO received the Resolution

dated January 16, 2017 on January 23, 2017 requiring her to file her
Answer to the Petition within fifteen (15) days from service of summons.
Respondent filed a Motion for Extension to file Answer on February 7,
2017. Hence, within the reglementary period provided for by law, the last
day within to file falls on 22 February 2017, this Answer is filed on time.
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. Paragraphs 1.0, 1.1, 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1d, 1.1e and 1.1f are admitted;
2. Paragraph 2.0 is partially denied in so far as to the allegation that

Petitioner is the real owner of the subject real estate property
covered by TCT No T-38951, consisting of 527.20 square meters.
3. Paragraph 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 being a personal circumstances

are hereby admitted;
1|Page
4. Paragraph 3.0 is partially denied as to the alleged lack of
jurisdiction by Public Respondent Honorable Judge Jimmy Henry
F. Luczon, Jr;
5. Insofar as the allegation contained in Paragraph 3.1 and 3.2 is

concerned, laches by estoppel may set in. The allegation that
Petitioner is not barred to seek the annulment of a null and void
judgment which does not prescribe is hereby denied;
6. The material allegations contained in Paragraph 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5

of the Petition are partially denied for lack of information sufficient
to form a reasonable belief thereof;
7. The allegations in Paragraph 3.5, 3.6, 3.6a, 3.6b, are denied as

the same are erroneous conclusions made by Petitioner;
8. Paragraph 3.7 is partially denied insofar as to the alleged fraud in

the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a Portion of a Registered
Land;
9. Other than the allegation that respondent cause the filing of a

Petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-
38951, the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 3.8 are denied, the
truth being stated in the discussion hereunder:
10. With respect to Paragraph 3.9 of the Petition, Respondent

multiple falsities is denied, in fact Respondent was acquitted for
the crime of Perjury filed by Petitioner;
DISCUSSION
For purposes of narration, on 20 April 2005, Respondent acquired

a portion of Lot with No. 4035-B-6-E-4, Psd-2-01-001859, with an area of
sixty nine point twenty five (69.25) square meters, and still covered by TCT
No. T-38951 by virtue of an Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a Portion
of a Registered Land executed by Quintin Aquino, the only heir of Tecla
Aquino, in favor of the Respondent.1
After the execution of the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a

Portion of a Registered Land, the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-
1 Petition for Reissuance of Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38951
2|Page
38951 was entrusted to the Respondent for the purpose of transferring to
her name the title of the portion of land she bought. She kept the title inside
the cabinet in their house, however, when she and her husband had a
misunderstanding, she transferred all her personal belongings to the house
of her mother including the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38951.
When she and her husband came to terms and had to bring back her
personal belongings to their own house, Respondent discovered that the
title which he kept was missing. With a personal belief that the same could
no longer be recover, she caused the filing of a Petition for reissuance of
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38951 on 2008.2 (Attached as
Annex “1” is the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of A Portion of a
Registered Land for your reference)
The case was subsequently raffled before the sala of Public

Respondent Honorable Judge Jimmy Henry F. Luczon, Jr., where he
ordered the publication of the Petition together with his order in
conspicuous places and likewise directing all persons who have adverse
interest on the subject lot to file their opposition within 15 days from
knowledge of the Petition.
Despite knowledge by the Petitioner of the Petition for reissuance

of lost title, she filed no Opposition. In essence, after satisfying the
Jurisdictional Requirement of Posting and after due notice and hearing, the
RTC Branch 1 granted the Petition ordering the Register of Deeds to issue
another owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38951.
Upon knowledge of the Reconstitution proceeding, Petitioner

instituted a criminal case impleading Respondent Melinda Aquino for the
crime of Perjury on 2008 asserting Respondent’s multiple falsities in her
Petition. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to know that Respondent was
acquitted on the ground that a false statement of belief is not Perjury; Bona
fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense.
Contrary to the claim of Petitioner, her testimony is quoted

hereunder to prove that she has a prior knowledge of the Petition for
Reconstitution of Title, to wit:
Q: When you ascertained the act of Melinda Q. Aquino in

filing this Petition and executing this notice of lost, what
did you do if there was any?
A: Because we are not in good terms, so I talked to my
sister-in-law Emy to withdraw that particular document
because I have the original but she refused to give it. I
made many talks with my sister-in-law but she doesn’t like
to give it so I filed a case against her.3
2 Petition for Reissuance of Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38951
3 T.S.N dated February 8, 2011 page 18 of 33
3|Page
It was superficial in the testimony of Petitioner that she had
knowledge of the Petition filed by Respondent. Yet, instead of filing an
opposition, she filed a case for perjury.
To such degree, granting arguendo that Petitioner only knew the

same after decision has been rendered, why only now, after eight (8) long
years that she instituted a Petition for Annulment of Judgement before the
Court of Appeals?
In a jurisprudential basis, the annulment of a final judgment on the

ground of extrinsic fraud prescribes within four years from the discovery of
the fraud. On the other hand, a petition for annulment based on lack of
jurisdiction may be barred by laches.4
In kind, Petitioner not instituting a case for annulment of judgment

for a period of 8 years automatically barred her for filing the same. More so
the defense for lack of jurisdiction must also fail.
The time honoured rule anchored in the case of Tijam vs.

Sibonghanoy sustains that laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect,
for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Moreover, the doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based

upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a
mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.5
Along this line is the principle that a party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against his opponent and,
after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86 A.L.R. 79). In the case
just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question
whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action
or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is
barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is
valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a
practice cannot be tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.6
Granting arguendo that the Respondent intentionally failed to give

notice of the reconstitution proceedings to herein Petitioner, still laches may
come to light.
4
Stilianopulus vs City of Legaspi. G.R No. 133913 October 12, 1999
5 G.R No. L-21450 April 15, 1968
6 G.R No. L-21450 April 15, 1968
4|Page
For fraud to become a basis for annulment of judgment, it has to
be extrinsic or actual. It is intrinsic when the fraudulent acts pertain to an
issue involved in the original action or where the acts constituting the fraud
were or could have been litigated. It is extrinsic or collateral when a litigant
commit acts outside of the trial which prevents a party from having a real
contest, or from presenting all of his case, such that there is no fair
submission of the controversy. Hence, deliberate failure to notify a party
entitled to notice constitutes extrinsic fraud.7
It is of notable reiteration that annulment of a final judgment on

the ground of extrinsic fraud prescribes within four years from the discovery
of the fraud.8 Apparently, the prescriptive period for filing an action based
thereon had already run out on the petitioner.
Petitioner after knowledge of the extrinsic fraud on the

reconstitution of title on 2008, she opted to file a Perjury case against
Respondent. It is only on January 2017 when he filed this instant Petition
for Annulment of Judgment.
In the present case, the delay of more than 8 years since

Petitioner learned the reconstituted title was unreasonable, giving rise to
the presumption that he had abandoned the idea of seeking annulment of
the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and that she had
opted to take other actions instead. Clearly, the period for raising this issue
lapsed a long time ago.
Over and above, Respondent has a legitimate interest on the

portion of a parcel of land as evidenced by the Affidavit of Adjudication with
Sale of a Portion of a Registered Land. Relying on a belief that the owner’s
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38951 was lost beyond recovery; she has all
the right to cause the filing of a Petition for issuance of lost title having a
lawful claim on the lot subject of the Sale.
Further, Respondent filed her Answer to disclaim all the material

allegations hurled against her and to ask the Honorable Court to deny due
course this instant Petition.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing consideration, Respondent

respectfully prays before this Honorable Court that the Petition for
Annulment of Judgment be denied.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
7
Stilianopulus vs City of Legaspi. G.R No. 133913 October 12, 1999
8 Article 1391 of the Civil Code
5|Page
February __ , 2017. Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
ATTY. LOUIE A. SOCRATES

Roll No. 61912
61 Annafunan West, Tuguegarao City
IBP No. 947059/12-28-16/TUG. CITY,CAGAYAN
PTR No. 1990197/01-09-17/ TUG. CITY,CAGAYAN
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0012640
(DATE OF ADMISSION: 04-25-13)
Counsel for the Respondent
Copy furnished:
ATTY. RENATO T. PAGUIO

223 zircon St., Adelina 1-A Subd.
San Pedro, Laguna
6|Page

Answer: Julia Estanislao Aquino CA-G.R. SP No. 148635

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer: Julia Estanislao Aquino CA-G.R. SP No. 148635

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer: Julia Estanislao Aquino CA-G.R. SP No. 148635

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main issue being disputed in the case?

What is the main issue being disputed in the case?

What arguments does each party make in their pleadings?

What arguments does each party make in their pleadings?

Republic of the Philippines

JULIA ESTANISLAO AQUINO

MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO

Respondent MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO received the Resolution

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

2. Paragraph 2.0 is partially denied in so far as to the allegation that

3. Paragraph 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 being a personal circumstances

5. Insofar as the allegation contained in Paragraph 3.1 and 3.2 is

6. The material allegations contained in Paragraph 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5

7. The allegations in Paragraph 3.5, 3.6, 3.6a, 3.6b, are denied as

8. Paragraph 3.7 is partially denied insofar as to the alleged fraud in

9. Other than the allegation that respondent cause the filing of a

10. With respect to Paragraph 3.9 of the Petition, Respondent

For purposes of narration, on 20 April 2005, Respondent acquired

After the execution of the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a

1 Petition for Reissuance of Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38951

The case was subsequently raffled before the sala of Public

Despite knowledge by the Petitioner of the Petition for reissuance

Upon knowledge of the Reconstitution proceeding, Petitioner

Contrary to the claim of Petitioner, her testimony is quoted

Q: When you ascertained the act of Melinda Q. Aquino in

2 Petition for Reissuance of Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-38951

3 T.S.N dated February 8, 2011 page 18 of 33

To such degree, granting arguendo that Petitioner only knew the

In a jurisprudential basis, the annulment of a final judgment on the

In kind, Petitioner not instituting a case for annulment of judgment

The time honoured rule anchored in the case of Tijam vs.

Moreover, the doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based

Granting arguendo that the Respondent intentionally failed to give

It is of notable reiteration that annulment of a final judgment on

Petitioner after knowledge of the extrinsic fraud on the

In the present case, the delay of more than 8 years since

Over and above, Respondent has a legitimate interest on the

Further, Respondent filed her Answer to disclaim all the material

WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing consideration, Respondent

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

ATTY. LOUIE A. SOCRATES

ATTY. RENATO T. PAGUIO

You might also like