REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
ITOGON BENGUET
SPS. RODY BATAY BELINO and
No. 574
ANNALIZA BELINO,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Civil Case

For: Forcible Entry

an
d Damages

SPS. MARISSA BALTAN and

FIDEL BALTAN et.al.
Defendant,
x--------------------x

ANSWER with COUNTER-CLAIM

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
The Defendants, by and through the undersigned counsel,
and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this
Answer in compliance with the Rules of Court and respectfully
allege that:
1. Answering Defendants admit Paragraph 1 of the complaint.
2. Defendants Deny all the allegations in Paragraph 2,3 and 4
thereof, and specifically deny the validity of Tax Declaration
No. 2010-01-02-02721 (Attched as Annex Ain the
complaint), the Survey plan (attached as AnnexB
inthecomplaint the truth being that these documents were
issued in their names from an illegal/invalid mode, which will
be explained more in the affirmative defenses hereof.
3. Answering Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 3,
and specifically deny the validity of the Deed of Sale
(Attached as Annex Cin the complaint), the truth being
that the Spouses Hilda and Julian Patalan never owned the
property they were selling and were able to acquire a Tax
Declaration in their names through Fraudulent Means.
4. Answering Defendants admit the existence of Tax
Declaration No. 4381 in the name of ELso Adawe but deny
the rest of the allegations in paragraph 4 that the spouses
1

Patalan were able to acquire the land from Elso Adawe, and
specifically deny the validity of the Deed of Sale (Attached
as Annex D in the complaint), the truth being that the land
was never sold by Elso Adawe to the spouses Patalan and in
fact filed a complaint against the spouses Patalan for
illegally transferring the same into their names, a copy of
the Affidavit of Elso Adawe is hereto attached as Annex 1
and the Complaint Affidavit is hereto attached as Annex 2
hereof.
5. Defendants Deny all the allegations in Paragraph 5 thereof
for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof, and specifically deny the History of the Tax
Declaration (Attached as Annex F in the complaint), and
the Succeeding Tax Declarations (attached as Annex G in
the complaint, for the reasons stated in the next preceding
paragraph and the truth being that these documents were
issued in their names from an illegal/invalid mode, which will
be explained more in the affirmative defenses hereof.
6. Answering Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 6
of the complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof and for being mere conclusions
of facts.
7. Answering Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 7
of the complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof the truth being that it was the
defendants and their predecessors in interest have been in
Open, Continuous, Exclusive and Notorious occupation of the
same since ______ and it was them who introduced
improvements over the same, moreover while complainants
are describing the land and improvements of the defendants
in this complaint, the lot they allegedly acquired from the
Patalans who in turn allegedly acquired the same from
Adawe, refers to another parcel of land different from the
land of the Defendants which will be explained further in the
affirmative defenses hereof, and it was in only this time that
they were being asked to vacate the same by complainants.
8. Answering Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 8
of the complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof and for being mere conclusions
of facts, and the truth being that it had always been the
Defendants who were in prior and actual possession thereof.
9. Answering Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 9
of the complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof and for being mere conclusions
2

of facts, and the truth being that it had always been the
Defendants who were in prior and actual possession thereof.
10.
Answering Defendants admit the
paragraph 10 and 11 of the complaint.

allegations

in

11.
Defendants partially admit the allegations in paragraph
12 of the complaint with a qualification that it was a
certain Pedro Isican who is building the same after
purchasing the area from the defendants through a verbal
agreement.
12.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13 of
the complaint for being mere conclusions of facts and law.
13.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of the
complaint for lack of personal knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof.
14.
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 15 of the
complaint for lack of personal knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof and for being mere conclusions
of facts and law.
By way of
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant re-pleads the foregoing allegations insofar as
they are material and further alleges that
15.
The lot subject of this case is in fact owned by the
defendant MARISSA BALTAN which is covered by Tax
Declaration No. 2010-01-02-01604 a copy of which s hereto
attached as Annex 3 hereof, they and their predecessors
in interest have been in Open, Continuous, Exclusive and
Notorious occupation of the same since ______ and it was
them who introduced improvements over it.
16.
The lot described in the tax declaration of the
Complainants refers to another lot, different from the lot of
the defendants.
17.
As already alleged their acquisition of the lot they
purchased from the spouses Patalan were acquired
fraudulently by the latter from Elso Adawe, and were in fact
warned by the defendants and Pedro Isican not to buy the
same when they went to them to inquire about the status of
the land they are going to buy from the Patalans.
3

18.
The lot was declared for tax purposes since (attach
evidence)
19.
Defendants were never disturbed in their possession
and occupation of the land and it was only this time that
they were suddenly asked to vacate a land they own.
By way of
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant repleads the foregoing allegations insofar as they
are material and further alleges that:
20.
As a result of this baseless complaint, defendants herein
were unnecessarily dragged into court and were constrained
to engage the services of counsels Law Office to assist them
and have agreed to pay PhP40,000.00 as attorneys fees and
PhP2,000.00 per hearing as appearance fee;
21.
Because of the reckless filing of this baseless complaint,
done in bad faith the defendants suffered sleepless nights,
besmirched reputation, mental anguish and great anxiety,
social humiliation and wounded feelings for which plaintiffs
should be made to indemnify the defendants in the amount
of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 100,000.00).
22.
Further, because of the foregoing complaint, defendants
incurred litigation expenses, the amount of which is to be
proven during the trial;
23.
Finally, to serve as deterrent to others who are similarly
inclined to follow the footsteps of the plaintiffs who is bent
on unjustly enriching herself at the expense of another, and
for the good of the public in the future, plaintiffs should be
required to pay exemplary damages IN THE AMOUNT FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 50,00.00);
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
that the Honorable Court resolve to:
a. Dismiss the complaint for lack of merit;
b. Order the plaintiffs to pay the defendants moral
damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (PHP 100,000.00).
c. and exemplary damages IN THE AMOUNT FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 50,00.00);
4

d. Order the plaintiffs to reimburse the litigation expenses

incurred by the defendants;
e. Order the plaintiffs to pay the amount of PhP40,000.00
as attorneys fees and PhP2,000.00 per hearing as
appearance fee;
Defendant prays for such other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.
Baguio City, Philippines, this 13th of SEPTEMBER, 2016.