Sample Answer

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BUKIDNON

10th Judicial Region
Branch 10
Malaybalay City
XXX CIVIL CASE NO. 5086-18

& YYY,
Plaintiffs,
- versus - FOR: RECOVERY OF

OWNERSHIP AND
POSSESSION
ZZZ
Defendants.
x-------------------/
ANSWER
(with Affirmative Defenses)
COMES NOW, the Undersigned Counsel, to this Honorable Court,

most respectfully state THAT:
1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 concerning Plaintiffs’

personal circumstances and their address are DENIED for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof;
2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint, in so

far as they relate to the personal circumstances of the Defendants are
admitted;
3. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint are admitted,

with the qualification that Defendants have no knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the veracity of the title and the exact
area to which Plaintiffs are entitled to;
1
4. The allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint are specifically
DENIED for lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as to
the truth thereof;
5. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint are admitted;
6. The allegations in paragraph 6 and 7 of the Complaint are

specifically DENIED for lack of knowledge to form a belief as to the
truth thereof;
7. The allegations in paragraph 8 and 9 of the Complaint are

admitted;
8. The allegations in paragraph 10 are specifically DENIED for

lack of knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE/SPECIAL DEFENSES
Defendants replead all the foregoing statements as part of their

affirmative defense/s and in support thereof further state that:
9. Defendants bought Lot ________ which is the northern portion

of the whole Lot __________ from the co-owners
_____________________ by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed on
August 15, 1990, through which defendants were subsequently
issued TCT No. ______________.
(A copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. _______________ are
hereto attached and made as an integral part hereof as Annexes “1” and
“2”, respectively);
2
10. The intent of the parties in the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale
over a portion of registered land was to sell and to buy the whole
property on the northern part of the existing concrete fence,
including the whole house erected thereon, without regard to the
exact area in square meters as stated in the Deed of Sale;
11. All parties were aware that there exists a fence, built by the
defendants’ predecessor, which separates the northern and southern
portions of Lot ___________. In fact, Defendants were already in
possession of the adjacent northern portion of the land when
Plaintiffs bought the southern portion from the Manatads, being
lessees of the latter prior to the sale;
12. Plaintiffs and Defendants have been in possession of their

respective areas since the mid-1970s, and both have bought the exact
portion that each have been separately occupying since the time they
had become neighbors. Plaintiffs did not make any inquiry as to the
exact metes and bounds of their lot, and it was only on May 18, 2018
when they allegedly conducted a relocation survey to ascertain the
exact metes and bounds of the property;
PLAINTIFFS ARE GUILTY

OF WILLFUL AND
DELIBERATE FORUM
SHOPPING
3
13. On August 7, 2009 Plaintiffs initiated the same complaint
docketed as Civil Case No. __________ before the Municipal Trial
Court of Quezon where their allegations were merely adopted on this
present complaint;
(A copy of the Complaint dated August 7, 2009 is hereto attached and made
as an integral part hereof as Annex “3”)
14. In both complaints, the Plaintiffs alleged that they are the
owners of Lot ________ covered by TCT No. ________ being a portion
of Lot __________. Adjacent to Lot ________ is Lot ____________
registered under the name of herein Defendants;
15. Further, both complaints averred that an alleged relocation

survey was conducted and allegedly it found that Defendants had
encroached and illegally occupied eighteen (18) square meters of
Plaintiffs’ land. Thus, both Civil Case No. ____________ and this
present complaint involve the recovery of ownership and possession
of the said eighteen square meters (18 sq. m.) of lot;
16. Accordingly, in both complaints, Plaintiffs sought a judgment

“ordering Defendants to vacate and remove any improvements
within the title and land of the plaintiff and further pay Plaintiffs
actual, exemplary, moral and such other damages as the Plaintiffs
may be entitled thereto”;
17. Therefore, the present Complaint merely mirrors Civil Case No.
_________ previously filed by the Plaintiffs. A juxtaposition of both
complaints, alone, manifests that Plaintiffs willfully and deliberately
committed a violation on the rule against forum shopping.
4
18. In Guerrero v. Benitez1 the Supreme Court ruled that a party to
an action commits forum shopping:
“Whenever a party repetitively avails of several

judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in,
or already resolved adversely by, some other
court. Forum shopping is an act of malpractice as
the litigants trifle with the courts and abuse their
processes. It degrades the administration of
justice and adds to the already congested court
dockets. An important factor in determining its
existence is the vexation caused to the courts and
the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases
to claim substantially the same reliefs.”
19. The reliefs sought by plaintiffs will brook the possibility of

conflicting decisions on different tribunals and, thus, disturb the
judgment the Regional Trial Court rendered on May 11, 2011, which
had become final and executory on May 27, 2011;
(A copy of the Certificate of Finality and Decision are hereto attached and
made as an integral part hereof as Annex “4” and Annex “5”)
20. The decision of the Regional Trial Court dismissed Plaintiffs’

appeal from the decision of the Municipal Trial Court. The latter
decided the merits on the issues presented by the parties and
dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint;
(A copy of the Decision is hereto attached and made as an integral part

hereof as Annex “6”
21. As enunciated in Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo2:
1
G.R. No. 183641, April 22, 2015
2
G.R. No. 136228, January 30, 2001
5
“Nothing is more settled in law than that once a
judgment attains finality it thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable, it may no longer be
modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court rendering it or
by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing
party has the right to file an appeal within the
prescribed period, the winning party also has the
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of
judgment is grounded on fundamental
considerations of public policy and sound
practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors,
the judgments or orders of courts must become
final at some definite time fixed by law;
otherwise, there would be no end to litigations,
thus setting to naught the main role of courts of
justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the
rule of law and the maintenance of peace and
order by settling justiciable controversies with
finality”;
22. Therefore, the Complaint must be summarily dismissed with

prejudice in accordance with Rule 8, Section 5 of the Rules of Court
which provides:
“Sec. 5. Xxx if the acts of the party or his counsel

clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice xxx”
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS

NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER
6
23. It is worthy to reiterate that Plaintiffs, in their Complaint,
sought to exercise their alleged ownership of eighteen (18) square
meters lot allegedly encroached by Defendants. Plaintiffs prayed
therein that this Honorable Court render judgment in their favor
ordering Defendants to vacate and remove any improvements within
the title and land of the plaintiff;
24. Therefore Plaintiffs’ present complaint involves the issue of

recovery of possession, ownership, and interest on the eighteen (18)
square meters lot;
25. Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, amending Batas

Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction on
the following actions:
“Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial

Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or

possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (Ph20,000.00) or, for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (Ph50,000.00) xx”
26. On the other hand, Section 3 of RA 7691 expanded the

jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over all civil actions which
involve title to or possession of real property, or any interest, outside
Metro Manila where the assessed valued does not exceed Twenty
thousand pesos (Ph20,000.00).
7
27. A careful examination of Plaintiffs’ attached Tax Declaration
No. H-000765 shows that the assessed value of the lot with an area of
226 sq. m. is Ph44,770.00 based on 17% assessment level. Thus, the
assessed value is pegged at Ph198.00 per square meter. Hence, the
eighteen (18) square meter disputed area has a total assessed value of
Ph3,564.00, being way below Ph20,000.00. Therefore, it is clear as day
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case;
28. All told, the Honorable Regional Trial Court has not acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case calling for the
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint.
COUNTER-CLAIM
Defendants replead all the foregoing statements as part of their

Counter-claim/s and in support thereof further states that:
29. In defending themselves against this baseless Complaint, the

Defendants have retained the services of undersigned counsel in
order to preserve and protect their rights, for an agreed fee of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) Pesos, plus an honorarium of
THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) for every attendance in court
or in any matter requiring the presence of counsel.
30. The Defendants would be constrained to spend for litigation

expenses, for which they are entitled to be reimbursed for such
amount as may be proved hereon.
Cagayan de Oro City, (for Malaybalay City), February 08, 2019.
by:
Tel. +63 (88) 850 1668; Email: info@robnlaw.com
8
9

Sample Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Answer

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

Sample Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BUKIDNON

XXX CIVIL CASE NO. 5086-18

- versus - FOR: RECOVERY OF

COMES NOW, the Undersigned Counsel, to this Honorable Court,

1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 concerning Plaintiffs’

2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint, in so

3. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint are admitted,

5. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint are admitted;

6. The allegations in paragraph 6 and 7 of the Complaint are

7. The allegations in paragraph 8 and 9 of the Complaint are

8. The allegations in paragraph 10 are specifically DENIED for

Defendants replead all the foregoing statements as part of their

9. Defendants bought Lot ________ which is the northern portion

12. Plaintiffs and Defendants have been in possession of their

PLAINTIFFS ARE GUILTY

15. Further, both complaints averred that an alleged relocation

16. Accordingly, in both complaints, Plaintiffs sought a judgment

“Whenever a party repetitively avails of several

19. The reliefs sought by plaintiffs will brook the possibility of

20. The decision of the Regional Trial Court dismissed Plaintiffs’

(A copy of the Decision is hereto attached and made as an integral part

21. As enunciated in Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo2:

22. Therefore, the Complaint must be summarily dismissed with

“Sec. 5. Xxx if the acts of the party or his counsel

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS

24. Therefore Plaintiffs’ present complaint involves the issue of

25. Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, amending Batas

“Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or

26. On the other hand, Section 3 of RA 7691 expanded the

Defendants replead all the foregoing statements as part of their

29. In defending themselves against this baseless Complaint, the

30. The Defendants would be constrained to spend for litigation

Cagayan de Oro City, (for Malaybalay City), February 08, 2019.

You might also like