REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
LAOAG CITY – BRANCH 16

ANUNCIACION PIEDAD-
SCHREINER represented by JAMAICA
KAY S. DELA CRUZ ,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. 17235-16
-versus- For: Annulment/Cancellation of
Title, Declaration of Nullity
LILIA APOSTOL, ESPERANZA of Deed of Adjudication
IGNACIO and SPS. NELSON and with Sale and
MARIA FE OCAMPO, Reconveyance of the
Defendants. Property with Damages

x--------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
COMES NOW, Defendants Sps. Nelson and Maria Fe Ocampo, thru Counsel, by
way of Answer to the Amended Complaint, unto this Honorable Court respectfully aver
that:

1. The allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint are hereby

admitted in so far as the same state the personal circumstances of the parties;

2. The allegations in paragraphs 5 to 20 are hereby denied for lack of sufficient

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the matter thereof;

3. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and the rest of the allegations in the Amended
Complaint, being interrelated with each other, are jointly rebutted and expounded,
with prayer to dismiss the complaint: (1) defendants are purchasers in good faith
and for value; (2) defendants enjoy a superior right over the subject property; and
(3) the Amended Complaint states no cause of action against herein defendants.

DEFENDANTS ARE PURCHASERS IN

GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE
4. Herein defendants are purchasers in good faith and for value.
 5. Jurisprudence defines “innocent purchaser for value” as one who buys the property
of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in,
such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such
purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person
in the property.1

6. Here, plaintiff claims that herein defendants have knowledge of the sale between
Lilia G. Apostol and Esperanza Q. Ignacio covering the Nine Hundred Sixty Seven
square meters (967sqm), more or less, of TCT T-33024.2 Plaintiff proceeds to claim
that defendants negligently fail to inquire on the ownership of the improvement
built on the subject lot.3 With these, it is the position of the plaintiff that herein
defendants cannot be considered as buyers in good faith.4

7. However, such claims are bare and unsubstantiated allegations without any
probative value. While complainant sought to annul defendants’ TCT No. 021-
2017000646 on the ground that the same was fraudulently and maliciously bought
and registered,5 it failed to prove that the Spouses’ title was indeed fraudulently
and maliciously bought and registered. Such allegations are mere sweeping
statements without evidentiary support.

8. It is not disputed that the One Thousand Five Hundred square meters (1,500sqm)
which was sold to herein defendants contains a two-story house.6 However,
plaintiff failed to show any convincing evidence that said house is owned by her
and her husband Ulrich. Notwithstanding the lack of such evidence, plaintiff went
on to claim that herein defendants are fully aware of such alleged ownership.7

9. If, indeed, herein defendants have notice or knowledge that some other person
has a right to, or interest in the subject land and its improvement, then defendants
would have not bothered themselves to buy such house from Esperanza Q. Ignacio
for a consideration of One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00), in addition to the
Three Hundred Seventy Three Thousand One Hundred Pesos (Php373,100.00)
they paid for the One Thousand square meters (1,000sqms) parcel of land under
TCT No. T-33024. Copy of Deed of Adjudication with Sale covering the subject
land and Deed of Adjudication with Sale covering its improvement (house)
executed by Esperanza Q. Ignacio in favor of herein defendants are hereto
attached as Exhibits “1” and “2”, respectively, and made an integral part hereof.

1
Sandoval vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 283 [1996]
2
Par. 22, ibid.
3
Par. 22(2), ibid.
4
Par. 22(2), Amended Complaint.
5
Paragraph 22, Amended Complaint.
6
Par. 21(2), ibid.
7
Par. 22, ibid.
 10. Contrary to the sweeping allegation of the plaintiff that defendants solely relied on
an old tax declaration in executing the Deed of Adjudication with Absolute Sale,8
herein defendants relied in good faith on the correctness and regularity of the TCT
No. T-33024.

11. Basic is the doctrine that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely
on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no
way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the
property.9

12. Moreover, plaintiff must be recapped with the elementary principle that tax
declarations and realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of
ownership.10

13. Hence, whether or not herein defendants relied on a tax declaration, as plaintiff
has overemphasized, does not certainly have any legal repercussion to the fact
that defendants have no knowledge of any alleged conflicting right or interest of
Lilila G. Apostol to divest them of the presumption of good faith.

14. A perusal of the alleged Deed of Adjudication with Sale executed by Ignacio and
Apostol on January 12, 2012 shows that it is the agreement of the parties to
register the instrument at the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Laoag City in
accordance with provisions of P.D.1529. Copy of the Deed of Adjudication with
Sale allegedly executed by Esperenza Q. Ignacio in favor Lilia Apostol is hereto
attached as Exhibit “3” and made an integral part hereof. Even the Special Power
of Attorney, hereto attached as Exhibit “4”, shows that it was executed by Lilia
Apostol in order for Atty. Mariano R. Nalupta, Jr. to, among others, register the
Deed of Sale in the name of Lilia Apostol.

15. However, from the date of the alleged execution of the Deed of Adjudication with
Sale between Ignacio and Apostol, 12 January 2012, and prior to 01 June 2016
which is the date of execution of the Deed of Adjudication with Sale between
Ignacio and herein defendants, there was no showing of any annotation or
encumbrance reflected on TCT No. T-33024 to the effect that Apostol is the new
owner of TCT.

16. Further in the instant case, plaintiff has not shown any evidence that on 12 June
2012 or thereafter and prior to 01 June 2016, a sufficient warning and notice were
given to the public that the Nine Hundred Sixty Seven square meters (967 sqm),
more or less, of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 021-2017000646 is in the

8
Paragraph 21, Amended Complaint.
9
Gloria R. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 492 [1997].
10
Republic vs. Gielczyk, G.R. No. 179990, October 23, 2013.
 name of Lilia G. Apostol as its registered owner by having annotated therein of the
same.

17. There was nothing in the title which would indicate the presence of any defect in
the issuance thereof and neither was there any adverse claim over said property
registered with the Register of Deeds of Laoag City or annotated at the back of
the title, nor was there any adverse information whatsoever regarding the
authenticity and/or genuiness of the vendor's title.

18. Likewise, there was no blemish whatsoever on the said certificate of title of the
seller upon which title the defendants, as purchasers, had every right to rely.

19. In the absence of any encumbrance or infirmity appearing in the tile of the subject
land, herein defendants acquired the said property in utmost good faith and for
the too valuable consideration of Three Hundred Seventy Three Thousand One
Hundred Pesos (P373,100.00).

20. TCT No. T-03324, being clear of any encumbrance or infirmities as of 01 June
2016 when the defendants purchased the same in good faith and for value, the
new TCT No. 021-2017000646 issued to them is therefore valid and should be
given full faith and recognition by the Court and the government pursuant to Sec.
39 of Act 496.11

21. Given the foregoing, herein defendants are without doubt, a purchaser in good
faith and for value.

DEFENDANTS ENJOY A SUPERIOR

RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY

22. Defendants enjoy a superior right over the subject property by reason of its valid
registration in their name.

23. The law provides that the act of registration shall be the operative act to convey
or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under
this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds
for the province or the city where the land lies.12

24. The Deed of Adjudication with Absolute Sale by and between Esperanza B. Ignacio
and herein defendants was duly registered in the Registry of Deeds of Laoag City

11
An Act to Provide For the Adjudication and Registration of Titles to Lands in the Philippine Islands.
12
The Property Registration Decree.
 as evidenced by its true electronic copy of the document on file in the said Registry
of Deeds unlike the Deed of Adjudication with Absolute Sale by and between
Ignacio and Apostol.

25. Herein defendants, being innocent purchasers for value and in good faith, have
acquired a title over the property in question which is perfectly valid and legally
unassailable and indefeasible.

26. Defendants are fully protected in its ownership and possession of the property
covered by TCT No. 021-2017000646, for being a purchaser in good faith and for
value and for the reason likewise.

27. In addition, plaintiff must be reminded of jurisprudentially acknowledged principle

that a defective title may be the source of a completely legal and valid title in the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value.13

28. In a long line of cases, it is settled that where innocent third persons, relying on
the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the
property the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of
the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public
confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered
under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance whether the title
has been regularly or irregularly issued. This is contrary to the evident purpose of
the law. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way
oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.14

29. It is, as well, well-settled that even if the procurement of a certificate of title was
tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, such defective title may be the source
of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value.15

AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO

STATE CAUSE OF ACTION

30. Taking into consideration the above premises, plaintiff failed to allege that
defendants were purchasers in bad faith or with notice of a defect in the title.

13
Philippine National Bank vs. Heirs of Estanislao Militar, et al., G.R. No. 164801, June 30, 2006
14
Gloria R. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 492 [1997]
15
Cabuhat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122425, September 28, 2001, 366 SCRA 176, 182
 31. In the absence of such an allegation, the presumption that defendants are
purchasers in good faith prevails.

32. Hence, the cited circumstances alleged in the Amended Complaint are not
sufficient to overthrow the presumption that defendants are purchasers in good
faith and for value;

33. It is axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to
the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to
sufficiently prove such allegation. Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption
of good faith prevails.16

34. In view of these, the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action; hence,
such should be dismissed outright.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, and as specified in defendant’s Answer, it

is most respectfully requested and prayed that the Amended Complaint be DISMISSED
and BRUSHED ASIDE for lack of merit.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Laoag City, Philippines, 23 February 2018.

ATTY. ERME S. LABAYOG

Provincial Legal Officer
Counsel for the Defendants
IBP No. ___________________/Laoag City
PTR No. __________________/Laoag City
Roll No. 48312/MCLE No. V-0005295

Copy furnished:

Bonador-Gumiran, Gapuzan, Dela Cruz, Tejada Law Offices

Counsels for the Plaintiff
Rm. 203, VJJCS Ulep’s Commercial Bldg.
San Jose Ave. Brgy. 3, 2901, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte

16
Heirs of Gregorio vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 117609, December 29, 1998.
 EXPLANATION

Pursuant to the Rules, service is done by registered mail with return card owing
to the distance.

ATTY. ERME S. LABAYOG

Provincial Legal Officer
Counsel for the Defendants