Answer Accion Reivindicatoria

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Muntinlupa City SPOUSES NINO PRESCO and JACKIE PRESCO, Plaintiffs, versus PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLID,

CIVIL CASE No. _______________ For: Accion Reivindicatoria

Defendant. x------------------------------------------x ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS COMES NOW the Defendant PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLID, represented by the undersigned counsels, before the Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Answer with Counterclaims, averring that: ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS 1. The allegations in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the Complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria as to the personal circumstances of the Plaintiffs Spouses Presco and the Defendant Princess Diana Villadolid are ADMITTED; 2. The allegations in paragraph 3, 4, 5, and 6 insofar as the ownership and the details of the respective properties of both the plaintiffs and the defendant are concerned are likewise ADMITTED;

3. However, the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 8 that the apparent overlap only existed in 2009 when the defendant had introduced improvements over the portion of the property is specifically DENIED. The improvements that the plaintiff was referring to that caused that overlap actually began in May 2005 when the defendant constructed a dirty kitchen in the said area and even with the consent and help of then owner Mrs. Ruby Ryza Mae Lee Kum Kee to whom the plaintiffs bought the property from. Attached herewith as “ANNEX A” is the copy of construction permit evidencing the date of completion of the improvements made by the defendant over the disputed portion of the property; 4. The allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 9 is likewise DENIED. Contrary to the assertion of the plaintiff, the defendant did not receive any demand letter with respect to the alleged encroachment of the portion of the said property. In fact, there was no way that the defendant and the plaintiff could have confronted in the day when the alleged demand letter was delivered as the former was in fact in Japan on the day of November 30, 2017. Attached herewith as “Annex B” is the Philippine Airlines ticket and boarding pass of the defendant evidencing the trip to Japan on the said date; 5. Lastly, the allegation of the plaintiff in paragraph 10 of the complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria is DENIED. Aside from the fact that there was no demand letter to speak of as earlier stressed by the defendant, there was neither any Barangay conciliation and intervention and that the Certificate to file an action presented by the plaintiff is forged and falsified. Attached herewith as “Annex C” is the certification from the Punong Barangay of Poblacion, Munitinlupa City that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were never parties in any proceedings before the Barangay for purposes of conciliation or mediation; 6. The foregoing are subject to the special and affirmative defenses hereunder presented.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Defendant replead and incorporate by way of reference the allegations from paragraphs 1-10 and further state as follows: 1.

The claim of the plaintiff under Accion Reivindicatoria is already BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION.

It is settled that the remedies of accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria must be availed of within 10 years from dispossession. Under Article 555(4) of the Civil Code, the real right of possession is lost after the lapse of 10 years. Similarly, in Cruz v. Court of Appeals which an action for recovery of possession and ownership of lands was brought only after 26 years had elapsed, this Court ruled: “And secondly, whether we consider the complaint of private respondents to recover possession of the property in question as accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, the same has prescribed after the lapse of ten years. After private respondents had abandoned for 26 years the property which is unregistered land, the law as well as justice and equity will not allow them "to lie in wait and spring as in an ambush" to dislodge and dispossess petitioners who during said period made and constructed residences, buildings and other valuable improvements thereon, and enjoying the fruits therefrom.” It is to be noted that the construction and the improvements which allegedly caused the overlap were introduced by the defendant on the disputed portion of the property on May of 2005 or 12 years from the filing of the complaint of Accion Reivindicatoria. Hence, insofar as the defendant os concerned, private plaintiffs cause of action was already barred by extinctive prescription. 2.

The Plaintiff has NO CAUSE OF ACTION against the defendant;

Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as:

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. The remedy of Accion Reivindicatoria must be availed of within 10 years from dispossession and since the improvements that caused the overlap was effected in 2005 and even with the consent of its former owner, the defendant had already effectively acquired such portion after May of 2015 by way of prescription. Hence, the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants as the latter is the owner of the disputed portion. 3.

The Plaintiffs complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria is not properly verified.

Rule 7, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended by A.M No. 00-2-10, provides: Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit . A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief", or upon "knowledge, information and

belief", or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. A perusal of the VERIFICATION/ CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING for Accion Reivindicatoria which the affiant-complainants Spouses Presco signed will show that they are residents of Brgy. Villamonte, Makati City, however, as above mentioned, a closer look at the complaint under paragraph 1, the complainant’s alleged residence is Justice Village, Muntinlupa City. Had the affiant-complainants Spouses Presco read the verification and attested to the allegations as true and correct to the best of his personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records, Spouses Presco would have corrected or at the least noticed the inconsistency as between his Verification and the complaint. As stated above, a complaint is deemed verified when the affiant executes an affidavit that he has read the pleading and the allegations contained thereat. However, the mere fact that the affiant failed to even notice an inconsistency of his own residence in his complaint and verification, cannot be considered as proper verification. Lack of proper verification shall be deemed as an unsigned pleading. Being an unsigned pleading, it is a mere scrap of paper. With the foregoing premises, the defendants respectfully submit that the Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the grounds cited above. COUNTERCLAIMS In the rare event that the Honorable Court shall resolve to proceed with the trial of the case despite the above special and affirmative defenses, the Defendant submit the following compulsory counterclaims and for this purpose, hereby restate and repleads all the allegations in the preceding paragraphs by way of reference and incorporation:

1. Due to the plaintiff’s willful and patent disregard of the defendants’ rights, the defendants suffered inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation thereby causing them mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages for which the plaintiff should be held liable in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency; 2. To deter others from following after the plaintiff’s wanton acts and evident bad faith, she should be held liable to pay the plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency, by way of example or correction for the public good;

PRAYER

that –

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed

1. The Special and Affirmative Defenses shall be immediately set for preliminary hearing; 2. After the said preliminary hearing, to issue an Order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria, with prejudice; 3. In the remote event that the Honorable Court shall proceed with the trial, the defendant pray for a judgment denying the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff for lack of merit; 4. On the compulsory counterclaims- to order the plaintiff to pay the defendants -

a. Moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00), Philippine currency; b. Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency; c. Attorney's fees in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), Philippine currency; d. Appearance fee of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), Philippine currency, per court appearance; e. Other litigation expenses as may be proved during trial. for.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed Muntinlupa City, Philippines this 4 day of April 2018. COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENDANT

Bronny James Jr. IBP No. 12345/1-6-2012/Muntinlupa City PTR No. 12345/1-6-2012/ Muntinlupa City Roll No. 3456 MCLE Compliance No. III-12345/1-25-2011 LeBron James IBP No. 12345/1-1-1111/ Muntinlupa City PTR No. 12345/1-1-111/ Muntinlupa City Roll No. 12345 MCLE Compliance No. III-12345-11 Jesus James IBP No. 12345/1-6-3444/ Muntinlupa City PTR No. 123456/1-6-4455/ Muntinlupa City

Roll No. 532233 MCLE Compliance No. III-012334/1-25-2011

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLID, Filipino, legal age, Filipino, and is currently residing at Lot 2, Block 2, Hukom Street, Justice Village, Muntinlupa City, Philippines, under oath, depose and say that: 1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case; 2. I caused the Counterclaims;

preparation

of

the

foregoing

Answer

with

3. I read all the allegations thereof and that the same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic records; 4. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. 6. If I should hereafter learn that of any other similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable Court. SIGNED this 4 April 2018 at Muntinlupa City, Philippines.

Princess Diana Villadolid

Republic of the Philippines) CITY OF MUNTINLUPA )s.s. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on _________________ at Bacolod City by Princess Diana Villadolid who is personally known to me, hence, no need to present a competent evidence of identity.

Doc. No._____; Page No._____; Book No._____; Series of 2018.

Copy furnished to: ATTY. KATRINA BIANCA DIPLOMA Counsel for the Plaintiffs Poblacion, Muntinlupa City