Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 45
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

HEIRS OF FLORENTINO CIV. CASE NO. R-2510

ZAMORA, namely: MESAC
D.R. ZAMORA, ET AL.,
Plaintiff,

-vs- for

PERCESTINA E. BACALANGCO,
ET AL., CANCELLATION OF TITLE
Defendants, RECONVEYANCE and
DAMAGES
x-------------------------------------------x

Answer with Affirmative Defenses

DEFENDANTS, by counsel and unto this honorable court,

most respectfully aver that:

Admissions and Denials

1. Defendants ADMIT paragraph 1 of the complaint insofar as the

residence of defendants is concerned but DENY the rest for lack
of sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truthfulness of
the allegations;

2. Defendants ADMIT paragraph 2 of the complaint only insofar

as the addresses of the defendants are concerned;

Page 1 of 10
 3. Defendants DENY paragraph 3 of the complaint for lack of
sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truthfulness of
the allegations;

4. Defendants DENY paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the complaint

for being utter falsehood and malicious imputations calculated
to induce this honorable court for a favorable judgment. The
truth of the matter is that, in 1973 and 1974, plaintiffs’ deceased
father, Florentino Zamora, executed four (4) Affidavits of
Relinquishment of Rights and Improvements1 in favor of Martin
Esteves, Sr., involving four portions of a parcel of land, now the
subject matter of this case, with a total area of 5 hectares. From
then on, Martin Esteves, Sr., and his successors-in-interests
who are now the defendants in this case, continuously and
peacefully occupied and possessed the subject parcel of land.
Therefore, it is erroneous to say that defendants were in
possession of the subject of parcel of land from 1938 and up to
more than 80 years;

5. In the meantime, for clarity, Martin Zamora was the father of

Florentino Zamora who was the father of herein plaintiffs on
the other hand;

6. Going back, the application for patent mentioned by plaintiffs

in this case was superseded by the Affidavits of Relinquishment
of Rights and Improvements executed by their predecessor-in-
interest, Florentino Zamora, who by doing so abandoned his
application which ultimately led to the issuance of titles to
herein defendants after the death of their father, Martin

_________________________
1
The Deed of Sale and three Affidavits of Relinquishment of Rights and Improvements
executed in 1973 and 1974, respectively, are hereto attached as “ANNEX I, I-A, I-B and I-
C” to form as integral part hereof;

Page 2 of 10
 Esteves, Sr.;

7. It is also erroneous to say that plaintiffs’ mother did not sign the
Relinquishment of Rights and Improvements which should be a
ground for its cancellation. In their complaint, plaintiffs openly
admitted that the subject parcel of land was inherited by their
father, Florentino Zamora, from their grandfather, Martin
Zamora, which made it his exclusive property. Correlatively,
plaintiffs never mentioned or alleged in their complaint that the
signature of their father was falsified nor forged;

8. Moreover, even assuming that plaintiffs were correct, those

Affidavits of Relinquishment of Rights and Improvements were
signed and executed by Florentino Zamora in 1974 which
remained unquestioned for 48 years until the filing of this case.
If there be any, plaintiffs have slept on their rights, let them
sleep on it forever following the doctrine of laches or
estoppel. On the same breath, the titles2 were issued to herein
defendants in 2009 or thirteen years ago;

9. Defendants ADMIT paragraphs 7 and 11 of the complaint only

insofar as the titles under their names are concerned and the
rest is DENIED for malicious imputations and utter falsehood.
Defendants, to reiterate, have been in possession of the subject
property since 1974. As a consequence thereof, their father,
Martin Esteves, Sr., planted 200 coconut trees, root crops like
peanut, cassava and monggo. The coconut trees that plaintiffs
were saying that they planted had long been gone because those

_________________________
2
the certified true copies of the titles are hereto attached as “ANNEX II and so on”;
“ANNEX III and so on”; “ANNEX IV and so on”; “ANNEX V and so on”; “ANNEX VI and
so on”; “ANNEX VII and so on” and “ANNEX VIII and so on” to form as integral part
hereof;

Page 3 of 10
 coconut trees got old and destroyed by several typhoons.
Defendants also erected houses thereon since 2009;3

10. Being the registered owners, defendants religiously paid

the realty taxes due on the properties 4 and secured tax clearance
in the year 2017.5 Ironically, plaintiffs who were allegedly in
possession of the property/ies never paid the realty property tax
which could prove their possession. Stand alone, plaintiffs’
allegations cannot be given credence;

11. Defendants DENY paragraph 10 of the complaint for being pure

lies and for the same reasons mentioned in the previous
paragraphs of this answer;

12.Defendants DENY paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the complaint for

lack of sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the
truthfulness of the allegations;

Affirmative Defenses

The honorable court has no

jurisdiction for plaintiffs’
failure to attach the tax
declarations of the subject
properties.

13.Defendants replead and adopt the facts alleged in the

admissions and denials;

_________________________
3
Pictures of the houses are hereto attached as “ANNEX IX and so on” to form as integral
parts hereof;
4
Copies of the official receipts showing payment of realty taxes are hereto attached as
“ANNEX X” and in series and the tax declaration as “ANNEX XI” and in series to form as
integral parts hereof;
5
A copy of the tax clearance issued by the Municipal Treasurer’s Office is hereto attached
as “ANNEX XII” to form as integral part hereof;

Page 4 of 10
 14.Plaintiffs are seeking the cancellation of the titles issued to
herein defendants and prays for the reconveyance of the subject
parcels of land to deceased Florentino Zamora. Undoubtedly,
this is a real action;

15. Real action is defined as an action affecting title to or

possession of real property, or interest therein;6
16.Relative thereto, an action for reconveyance and annulment of
title is an action involving the title to real property; 7
17. In real actions, it is a hornbook doctrine that “the assessed
value must be alleged in the complaint to determine which
court has jurisdiction over the action;”8
18. In this case, however, plaintiffs did not allege or
miserably failed to allege the assessed value of the
properties involved, not even one of them, in order that this
honourable court could attain jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
19. Worse, plaintiff did not attach any tax declaration of the
properties involved. An examination of all the voluminous
documents they attached to the complaint, defendants are quite
in a quandary why not a single tax declaration was attached,
giving the defendants a clear pathway to move for dismissal of
this case on that basis alone since such mistake is not curable
by mere amendment of the complaint;

________________________
6
Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court;
7
Sps. Aboitiz v. Sps. Po, GR No. 208450, June 05, 2017
8
Heirs of Julao v. Sps. De Jesus, GR No. 176020, September 2014;

20. In litany of cases, the Supreme Court ordered the

dismissal of cases for failure to allege the assessed value;

Page 5 of 10
 21.The assessed value must be alleged in the complaint to
determine which court has jurisdiction over the
action. Jurisdiction as we have said is conferred by law and is
determined by the allegations in the complaint, which contains
the concise statement of the ultimate facts of a plaintiffs cause
of action;9

22. A fortiori, Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Big. 129, as

amended by Republic Act No. 7691, provides:

CHAPTER II

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

“SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. -

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:

xxxx

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions

which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or any interest therein does
not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses

_____________________________
Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91, 98
9

and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not

declared for taxation purposes, the value of such

Page 6 of 10
 property shall be determined by the assessed value
of the adjacent lots. (as amended by RA No. 11576)

23. In this case, for the RTC to exercise jurisdiction, the

assessed value of the subject property must exceed ₱20,000.00
[now P400,000.00]. Since petitioners failed to allege in
their Complaint the assessed value of the subject
property, the CA correctly dismissed the Complaint as
petitioners failed to establish that the RTC had
jurisdiction over it. In fact, since the assessed value of the
property was not alleged, it cannot be determined which trial
court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case;10

24. In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held

that a complaint must allege the assessed value of the
real property subject of the complaint or the interest
thereon to determine which court has jurisdiction over
the action.11 This is because the nature of the action and which
court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is
determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the
type of relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect
when the action is filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs
are entitled to some or all of the claims asserted therein;12

25. Applying the foregoing principles and the Supreme Court

decisions in this case, this honorable court is left without any
choice but to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction;

_____________________________
10
Heirs of Julao, et al., v. Spouses De Jesus, GR No. 176020, September 29, 2014;
11
Laresma v. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 156, 172;
12
Quinarogan v. CA, et al., GR No. 155179, August 24, 2007;

Plaintiffs are guilty of laches or

estoppel.

Page 7 of 10
26. Plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest appeared to
have slept on their rights, if there be any, over the disputed
parcels of land for their own failure to institute any action to
protect their rights if it is true that defendants had been
violating their rights early on;

27. A perusal of the complaint shows that no other action was

taken by the plaintiffs or their predecessor in the past except
this one. The Affidavits of Relinquishment of Rights and
Improvements have been in existence since 1974 which were
deemed public documents being notarized and their existence
cannot be denied by herein plaintiffs and they cannot shy away
by merely alleging their ignorance of those documents;

28. This case demonstrates the legal principle that the law
aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their
rights. Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus Jura
subverniunt;

29. Plaintiffs should have been impervious in protecting their

rights and made demands when they or their predecessor-in-
interest had an opportunity as early as possible. To do it after
48 years is simply unreasonable and unjustifiable which should
now be barred by laches;

30. Laches is defined as the 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;13

Page 8 of 10
 31.The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is
applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's
right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so
would result in a clearly inequitable situation. 14 The time-
honored rule anchored on public policy is that relief will be
denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become "stale,"
or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or
who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either
by negligence, folly or inattention. In other words, public policy
requires, for peace of society, the discouragement of claims
grown stale for non-assertion; thus laches is an impediment to
the assertion or enforcement of a right which has become,
under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit; 15

32. A person, endowed with properties and entitlements, but

chose to lie quietly as decades passed by, watching his property
wither away, allowing innocent bystanders to pick the fruits of
his unguarded trees, instead of safeguarding his rights through
the accessibly and necessary legal means, does not deserve the
protection of equity. The law aids the vigilant, not those who
slumber on their rights;16

33. Undoubtedly, plaintiffs do not deserve the protection of

the law since they failed to be vigilant on their rights. Indeed,
they slept on their rights, let them sleep on it forever;

_______________________
13
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Centro Development Corporation, G.R. No.
180974, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 325, 338;
14
Salandanan v. CA, 353 Phil. 114, 120 (1998);
15
Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr., 623 Phil. 303, 327 (2009);
16
Pangasinan, et al., v. Disongloalmazora, et al., GR No. 200558

34. In a nutshell, there is no basis for the filing of this case

and this case should be dismissed for reasons stated herein;

Page 9 of 10
 Prayer

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for that, after due

notice and hearing, this honourable court would render a
judgment DISMISSING this case for reasons stated herein and
for other reasons the honourable court may deem wise;

Such other reliefs deemed just and equitable are likewise

prayed for;

San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. June 14, 2022.

DARWIN G. LUMINATE
For defendants
jdluminate18@gmail.com
Brgy. 7, Municipal Hall Cmpd.,
IBP Building, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro
Roll No. 61053
PTR NO. 4762014-I/01-04-22/SJ
IBP NO. 169877/12-07-21/Pasig City
MCLE NO. VI – 0026718/5-24-19

Page 10 of 10