Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Bauang, La Union

__________________________, CIVIL CASE NO. 1111

Plaintiff,
For

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
QUIETING OF TITLE and
DAMAGES

-versus-

____________________________,
Defendants.
x--------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant by and through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully states that:

1. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the

Complaint in so far as the personal circumstances of the parties are
concerned;

2. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the

Complaint;

3. Defendants specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of

the Complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief;
4. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the
Complaint insofar as plaintiff filed a case against her brother, the
___________, the predecessor-in-interest of herein defendants, for
Forcible Entry before this Honorable Court and defendants vehemently
and specifically deny the rest of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of
the Complaint for being false and misrepresentation of fact, as the truth of
the matter is that the case that was filed by the plaintiff against the late
____________, defendants’ predecessor-in-interest, for Forcible Entry was
decided by the Regional Trial Court, Branch ___, Bauang, La Union, based
on the merits of the case. The Regional Trial Court, Branch ____, Bauang,
La Union decided provisionally the issue of ownership to determine who
has a better right of possession over the property subject of instant case.
The only issue to be resolved in forcible entry cases is who has better right
of possession over the property. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch ____, Bauang, La Union, did not cast any doubt on the ownership
and title of the plaintiff over the property she owned, copy of the said
Decision is hereto attached as ANNEX “1”, hereof and made an integral
part of this Complaint.

4.a. Further, after the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial

Settlement of Estate in 1980 by and among the children of the late
_________________ the said parcel of land which is the subject matter of
the controversy is owned by the late _________________, the
predecessor-in-interest of herein defendants, by virtue of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed sometime in 1980 by and
among the seven children of the late _____________, each heir had their
own respective share of the intestate estate of the late _______________,
copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate is hereto attached
asANNEX “2” hereof. The property claimed by the plaintiff is owned by
the defendants’ predecessor-in-interest such that during the lifetime of the
late _____________ he occupied and cultivated the same.

5. Defendants specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of

the complaint as the truth of the matter are those stated in paragraph 4 and
4.a of this Answer. Further, by way of succession, the defendants being the
compulsory heirs of the late ___________________ are now the owners
pro indiviso of the property with an area of Seven Thousand Two Hundred
Eighty Four (7, 284) square meters covered by Tax Declaration No.
____________________59 and as evidenced by the survey plan conducted
and prepared by _____________________ on October 03, 2007, copies of
which are hereto attached as ANNEXES “3 AND 4” hereof. That as
owners of the above described property, the late Vicente Ferrer and now
the defendants are religiously paying the real property tax, copies of the tax
receipts are hereto attached as ANNEXES “5, 6 and 7”, hereof. The
defendants being the compulsory heirs of the late _______________, as
the owners pro indiviso and lawful possessors of the subject property have
the right to exclude any person including the plaintiff in this case from
enjoyment and disposal thereof and they may exercise all attributes of
ownership and they may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of their property. To bolster the fact the disputed property is
owned by the defendants’ predecessor-in-interest is the Letter and
Certification issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, Bauang, La
Union, copies of the Letter and Certification are hereto attached as
ANNEXES “8 and 9”, hereof;

6. Defendants vehemently and specifically deny the allegations contained

in paragraph 7 of the Complaint as the truth of the matter are those stated
in paragraphs 4, 4.a and 5 of this Answer. Being the owners of the subject
property, the defendants have the right to introduce improvements thereon,
cultivate the same and harvest its produce as attributes of ownership;

7. Defendant specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of

the complaint as the truth of the matter are those stated in paragraphs 4, 5
and 6 of this Answer. The defendants currently living in Pasig City. The
Certificate to File Action would show that only defendants __________
and _________________ were impleaded as respondents of the case filed
by the plaintiff before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Brgy. San Agustin,
Bauang, La Union. _________________, who is one of the defendants in
this case, was not impleaded as respondent in that case filed by the plaintiff
before the LupongTagapamayapa of Brgy. San Agustin, Bauang, La
Union.

9. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants as the former
knew pretty well that the property subject of instant case is owned by the
defendants’ predecessor-in-interest by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate. That when _____________ died, his wife and
children succeeded him on the ownership and possession of the disputed
land.

10. Defendants deny all the allegations contained in paragraphs 9, 10, and
11 of the complaint as plaintiff has no right whatsoever on the property nor
is she entitled to damages of any kind whatsoever. If she incurred damages
as alleged in her complaint, she has nobody to blame but herself for
initiating this baseless and unmeritorious suit, designed primarily to harass
the defendant.

-COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM-

11. Defendants incorporate by way of reference the foregoing allegations

and by way of Compulsory Counterclaim, allege:

12. The actuations and evident bad faith of the plaintiff in always filing
this case against the defendants in insisting whimsically and capriciously
her rights over the property which does not belong to her and have no right
whatsoever has caused the defendants mental stress, sleepless nights, fear
and anxiety which would entitle them to claim for moral damages in the
amount of not less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00);

13. Defendants were constrained to hire the services of counsel to protect

them from their property and defend their rights from this malicious and
unmeritorious case for which they agreed to pay counsel the amount of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as acceptance fees and
court appearance fee of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00);

14. In order to serve as an example to the public good and deter people
with similar intentions from filing baseless and harassment suits against
helpless and innocent people like the herein defendants, plaintiff should be
slapped with exemplary damages in an amount to be fixed by this
Honorable Court but in no case will it be less than FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00);

15. Defendants will incur litigation expenses such as secretarial,

administrative and miscellaneous expenses which is estimated at
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00);

-SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES-

16. That this case should be dismissed as the same is already barred by
prior judgment (res judicata) as enunciated in Rule 16, Section 1(f) of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Rule 39, Section 47 (b) of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or order on the

merits, rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of
the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and
their successor-in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action or special proceeding litigating for the same thing and under the
same title and in the same capacity. To state simply, a final judgment or
decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of
the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in the former suit.

The requisite essential of res judicata are:

1. The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;

2. The decision must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
3. The disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits;
and
4. There must be as between the first and second action, identity of
parties, subject matter, and causes of action;

In this case, it is not disputed that the Regional Trial Court, Branch
33, Bauang, La Union, which reversed the decision dated November 02
November 2010, of the Municipal Trial Court, Bauang, La Union of the
case for Forcible Entry filed by plaintiff against the late ___________,
defendants’ predecessor-in-interest, had jurisdiction over the subject matter
and parties in Civil Case No. _________________for Forcible Entry and
its Decision dated 17 March 2011 was a judgment on the merits and that
such Decision had already become final and executory and an entry of
judgment had been made.

With that, considering that the Decision in Civil Case No.

_________________for Forcible Entry had already ruled that the late
___________, defendants’ predecessor-in-interest, was the lawful
possessor of the subject property and decided provisionally on the issue of
ownership of the subject land, then plaintiff’s claim of defendants’
possession of the subject lot is already barred. The Court and the parties
are bound by such final decision, otherwise, there will be no end to
litigation. It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to
litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated, and an
individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause. (Toledo-Banaga
v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 331)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment
berendered, ordering the DISMISSAL of the instant case for utter lack of
merit and order the plaintiff to pay defendants, the following:

a) P50,000.00 - by way of moral damages;

b) P20,000.00 - by way of acceptance fee

c) P2,000.00 - court appearance fee

d)P30,000.00 - by way of exemplary damages

e)P20,000.00 - by way of litigation expenses

Defendants further pray for other relief and remedies deemed just
and equitable under the premises.

San Fernando City, La Union, for Bauang, La Union January 15,

2018.

ATTY. PERFECTO LAGUYO

Roll of Attorneys No. _____, March 23, 2012
IBP OR No. ________; January _______, 2018; (La Union Chapter)
PTR No. _________; January _____, 2018; San Fernando City, La Union
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0123456
Issued on January 21, 2013

Copy Furnished:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

PAO-Department of Justice
Bauang District Office
Bauang, La Union