REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 10 11th Judicial Region Davao City HEIRS OF AGUSTIN BATACAN

namely Lydia Quibod and Manny Galas Plaintiffs, -versusCIVIL CASE NO. FOR: QUIETING OF TITLE AND/ORRECOVERY OF POSSESSION/OWNERSHI P WITH PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) AND APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MELISSA ROMANA SAGMIT and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY Defendants. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

VERIFIED ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, Defendant MELISSA ROMANA SAGMIT, through undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver THAT: ADMISSIONS 1. Defendant admits the following allegations in the Complaint, namely, Paragraphs 1, 2, 15, and 19. DENIALS 2. For lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth and accuracy thereof, the following allegations in Paragraphs 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 as stated in the Complaint are likewise specifically denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DEFENDANT IS AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE AND IN GOOD FAITH 3.1. Prior to the execution of the Extra-judicial Settlement with Partition and Sale with the surviving heirs of Spouses Espejo on June 12, 2004, the latter showed the Defendant a certificate of title (TCT No. P-54321) of the subject property; 3.2 The Defendant relied in good faith with the correctness of the certificate of title issued under the Torrens system and is not obliged to go beyond the certificate.

3.3 The Defendant is an innocent purchaser for value for she merely relied on the absence of any burdens or claims on the res as noted in the certificate.

3.4 Furthermore, there is absence of any circumstance to arouse suspicion and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry since the heirs of Spouses Espejo was in actual possession of the said property at the time of purchase.

3.5 That when the defendant bought the property and paid in full price, she had no knowledge that some other person had a right to or an adverse interest in the property.

3.6 By virtue of such sale in her favor, defendant acquired possession of the property. In Spouses Chu, Sr. v. Benelda Estate Development Corporation1, the Supreme Court pronounced that it is crucial that a complaint for annulment of title must allege that the purchaser was aware of the defect in the title, so that the cause of action against him or her will be sufficient. Failure to do so, as in the case at bar, is fatal for the reason that the purchaser is presumed to be in good faith in

G.R. No. 142313, March 1, 2001, 405 Phil. 936, 947 (2001)

acquiring said property due to the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his or her title.

CONCLUSION 4. In sum, to reiterate herein defendants position that she is an innocent purchaser for the following reasons: 4.1 First, at the time of the execution of the Extrajudicial settlement Defendant merely with Partition and Sale relied on the with of the the surviving heirs of Spouses Espejo on June 12, 2004, the correctness certificate of title; 4.2 Second, there is an absence of any circumstance to arouse suspicion and it is important to note that the certificate of title shown to the Defendant has no burden or claims on the res noted in the certificate of title. 4.3 Third, aside from relying to the correctness of the certificate of title, the Defendant acted in good faith when she made inquiries relating to the possession of the lot and has found out that the seller was the one who is in actual possession of the property. OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION To be entitled to a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction, complainants must show, with clear and convincing evidence, that the following requisites are present: (a) their right is clear and unmistakable; (b) the invasion of their right sought to be protected is material and substantial; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. These requisites are not present.

First, complainants have not alleged, much less proven, the existence of any legal right on their part to the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief. Defendant, being the sole owner of the land, has every right to exercise all acts of ownership. Thus, defendant has the clear and unmistakable right to construct an apartment building and demolish the ancestral house in her property. Otherwise, complainants would straightjacket defendant and limit the enjoyment of her rights as owner. Second, the acts of the defendant do not materially and substantially invade any legal right of complainants. Defendant has the right to enjoy and dispose of her property, without other limitations than those established by law. Otherwise, her rights as owner will be curtailed and diminished. There can be no invasion of rights when there is no right to speak of. Third, there is no urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. The ownership of property gives right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.2 Since defendant bought the property in good faith, she has every right to the accessions. While sentimental value of the ancestral house is one of the factors to be looked into, it is not the only factor. Thus, if an injunctive relief is granted, defendants plans to construct an apartment building and demolish the house would place her plans in jeopardy, thereby, preclude her from enjoying her clear right. It is therefore incumbent upon the Honorable Court to exercise judicial restraint and refrain from issuing any injunctive relief. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court dismiss the instant complaint in view of the fact that defendants are legally entitled to the possession of the property as innocent purchaser for value. 1. Acting on the affirmative defense, a JUDGMENT be rendered dismissing the complaint;
2

Art. 440. NCC.

2. An order denying the relief of ORDER and as well as the

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING WRIT OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION within the lifetime of the TRO, o ENJOIN Defendant from performing construction works on the subject parcel of land; 3. Plaintiff must likewise be held liable to pay herein defendants moral damages amounting to not less than TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 200,000.00) and exemplary damages amounting to not less than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00).

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this December 8, 2012 at Davao City, Philippines.

ASONG, PANGANDAMAN, & VILLA-AGUSTIN LAW FIRM Counsel for Defendant Rm. 305, 3nd Level, Lee Business Corner Bldg. Corner Juan Luna & Juan Dela Cruz Sts. Davao City Tel. Nos. (082) 500-0825; (082) 305-2309 By: J.P. LEO ASONG

Roll No. 45678 PTR No. 9815812; Jan. 9, 2012; Davao City IBP No.245677; Jan. 5, 2012; Davao City MCLE Compliance No. I-0053473 MCLE Compliance No. II-0037453

ALAMIAH PANGANDAMAN
Roll No. 42422 PTR No. 1024525; Davao City; Jan. 4, 2012 IBP Lifetime Member No. 010260 MCLE Compliance No. I 0015296 MCLE Compliance No. II 0013951 MCLE Compliance No. III 0020206

Roll No. 60001 PTR No. 1418629; Davao City; Mar. 26, 2012 IBP No. 894575; Davao City; Mar. 19, 2012 MCLE Compliance No. I 0017766 MCLE Compliance No. II 0046745 MCLE Compliance No. III 0075324

HANNA PEARL D. VILLA-AGUSTIN

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel for defendant hereby states that copies of the foregoing ANSWER are hereby filed before the Honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Davao City, and served to the plaintiffs, by registered mail, due to distance and time constraints and for reason of lack of manpower and officer personnel, which makes it impractical to have the same served by personal delivery. J.P. LEO ASONG ALAMIAH PANGANDAMAN HANNA PEARL VILLA-AGUSTIN

Copy furnished by registered mail: ATTY. JOSE PAOLO EVANGELISTA ATTY. KRIZZA KINTANAR Counsels for Plaintiff Registry Receipt No.: ________ Date: _____________________