Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-versus- -for-
ANSWER
WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Come now the defendants through Counsel and unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully allege:
3. That the averment in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are denied the truth being
that which will alleged in the Affirmative Defenses;
1
5. That paragraph 11 is admitted with the qualification that said demand
is too whimsical and capricious;
8. That the plaintiffs are barred from instituting the present complaint on
the ground of litis pendentia. By their own admission the plaintiffs
through their parents filed an action before this Court for Redemption,
Damages and Attorney’s Fees with Preliminary Injunction. The said
case, Civil Case No. 91-20 was dismissed on August 21, 1992.
Although the plaintiffs therein filed a Motion for Reconsideration they
have practically abandoned their case and forgot about it until the
children now the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Resolve their Motion for
Reconsideration which has been abandoned and forgotten for 24
years. The Honorable Court denied their Motion for Reconsideration in
an Order dated November 7, 20161;
9. That the said Order was appealed by the plaintiffs to the Court of
Appeals;
10. That the said case, Civil Case No. 91-20 is now pending appeal
and contained practically the same allegations as in the present case
involving the same subject matter and the same parties. It is a bar to
the present action on the ground of litis pendentia;
11. That still the plaintiffs filed a case at the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
DARAB Case No. 1103-0043-ON-2014 for CANCELLATION OF
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD CLOA NO.
006359032;
12. That again the said petition contains the same allegations in the
present complaint involving the same parties and subject matter and
therefore is a bar to the present complaint on the ground of litis
pendentia;
1 Annex “A”
2
Annex “B”
2
13. That the plaintiffs only filed the present action to denominate the
same act as supervening event and utilize the same as ground in their
strong resistance to the Writ of Execution issued by the Honorable
Court Judge MINERVA P. PEPINO-ESTREMOS of Carmen-Sto.
Tomas, Davao del Norte, 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court in a Forcible
Entry case filed by herein defendants against the plaintiffs who by force
and intimidation entered the property on May 31, 2014, a copy of the
Writ of Execution hereto attached3 and the Motion to Lift Writ of
Execution hereto attached4;
14. That to their own malice the plaintiffs have already utilized the
instant complaint as their ground in an Opposition to defendant’s
Motion to Cite them in Indirect Contempt with the MCTC, Carmen,
Davao del Norte, a copy hereto attached5;
15. That the defendants have bought the property in suits in good
faith, assured by the Rural Bank of Silahis represented by ATTY.
ROEL VILLAMOR a prominent lawyer and part owner that the
transaction was regular;
16. That for the plaintiffs to file the present action after 27 years when
the defendants have been in possession for 30 years and equipped
with a document of sale and the land titled in the names of AGAPITO
MUCHLACH SR. and NENE MUCHLACH and AGAPITO MUCHLACH
JR., the plaintiffs’ complaint clearly barred by laches;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:
3 Annex “C”
4
Annex “D”
5
Annex “E”
3
1. Dismissing the instant Complaint.
Copy furnished: