Sample Answer To Civil Complaint
Sample Answer To Civil Complaint
Sample Answer To Civil Complaint
2. Paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3c, 3e are denied for lack of
Plaintiffs took possession of the areas that are described as Lot Nos.
5350-N and 5350-K in a manner that was in the concept of owner,
belief thereof;
of the resulting survey plan was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint,
the same is denied because the said survey plan was conducted only for
and for no other purpose, as a direct offshoot of civil case no. 157-M
entitled, Martin Roberto G. Tirol vs. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes
Tirol-Sanson;
5. Save for the legal provisions quoted in paragraph 3c, the rest
Contact of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) was entered into by the
parents of Plaintiffs and the late Roberto Tirol, Jr., the rest of the
allegations is denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and
2
8. The allegations in par. 5 (actually, the second par. 5 on page
Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) was executed by the late
the rest of the allegations is denied, the truth being that stated in the
(note that there are three (3) paragraphs in the Complaint that have
been numbered “5”) in that Defendants have claimed that Plaintiffs have
encroached on lots 5350-N and 5350-K are denied, the truth being that
acquisitive prescription thereby making their total land area 10, 578
square meters are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative
decision was rendered, copy thereof was attached as annex “C” of the
3
13. The allegations in paragraph 7 on page 6 (actually this is the
second paragraph erroneously numbered as “par. 7”) are denied the truth
No Cloud of Title
15. Too, no cloud of title exists nor is there a need for a quieting
of title that affects all the lots mentioned by Plaintiffs in the Complaint
which are lots nos. 5350-B, 5350-F, 5350-N and 5350-K. The first two
(2) lots (5350-B and 5350-F) are not being contested by any of the
possession thereof. The second two (2) lots (5350-N and 5350-K), on
the other hand, were the subject of the Deed of Donation (annex “F” of
the Complaint) by the late Roberto Tirol, Jr. to Defendants and were the
Plaintiffs’ parents on one hand and Defendants’ late father on the other.
As a result of the said donation, tax declarations over the said parcels of
from the allegations therein that what Plaintiffs seek from the Honorable
4
Case No. 157-M, titled, Martin Roberto G. Tirol vs. Spouses Gregorio and
17. Said decision in the aforesaid eviction suit has reached the
in toto;
are simply all-out to restrain Defendants from taking over the possession
of lots nos. 5350-N and 5350-K. In fact, Plaintiffs and their parents have
tried every trick in our books just to frustrate the rightful and legal claim
19. While the instant complaint is one titled for quieting of title or
possession of lots nos. 5350-N and 5350-K from the parents of Plaintiffs,
the latter having entered into the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of
20. It will be noted that Plaintiffs’ parents have filed a case for the
5
affecting the same parcels of land, docketed as Civil Case No.: 7342,
was as follows:
filed another lawsuit against Defendants this time assailing the said
Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) docketed and titled, Civil
6
Case No. 7956 and titled, “Spouses Gregorio and Ma. Lourdes Sanson vs.
annexes “B” to “B-4”) and the prayer of plaintiffs therein is quoted herein
verbatim, to wit:
December 7, 2006.
22. Realizing that they were losing ground and with the
order of demolition of the said building they used to occupy and erected
on one of the subject lots, 5350-K. The following was their prayer in their
petition, to wit:
“PRAYER
7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, to render
judgment, as follows:
Judge Montalid Patnubay Jr., where the said Petition was dismissed for
injunctive reliefs and insinuating that one of the Plaintiffs herein, Rita
court;
Third-Party Claim
Lease was valid, regular and legal, and that Plaintiffs’ parents were in
8
in vain, the execution of the decision upholding said lease contract and
the right to repossess the said lots, by filing a Third-Party Claim dated
which was rejected by the ejectment court. The full text of the said third-
(Sgd.)
MARIA RITA GLORIA T. SANSON
Third-Party Claimant”
(Boldface printing for emphasis)
Plaintiffs’ parents challenged the legal title of Defendants and the latter’s
9
right to possession over the said lots. Stated otherwise, Plaintiffs and
their parents and the corporation they own, who incidentally have been
one agenda, which is to stop at all cost Defendants’ attempts to take over
the possession of said lots, particularly lot 5350-K where a bigger portion
of one of the buildings of The Pearl of the Pacific Resort is erected on.
Said resort is owned by the Pearl of Boracay Landholdings Inc., where the
title to land or any interest therein, “the plaintiff must have legal or
equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject
hardly qualifies for a quieting of title because they have not established
Forum-shopping
10
29. By filing this legal action, it is crystal clear Plaintiffs have only
the issues in this case are also bound by the principle of res judicata, as
have used all legal remedies available just so they will not be booted out
31. Not only have they attacked the Deed of Donation, the
from their grandfather, Roberto H. Tirol, Sr. but also the Contract of
Lease that Plaintiffs’ parents entered into with Defendant’s late father,
32. This time around, they have filed this suit for alleged quieting
of title in the hope that what they were not able to get from the courts
through all those legal maneuvers they have resorted to thus far, they
actions and prayers are really no different from the previous legal actions
they have already filed so far and have been unsuccessful. For Plaintiffs,
legal victory has been elusive as they really have no reason to continue
11
being in possession of the subject lots much less own the lots that have
By Way of Counterclaim
have hired the services of the undersigned counsel for an agreed amount
PRAYER
pray for the dismissal of the complaint and the award of counterclaim to
EXPLANATION
12
C E B A L L O S
L A W F I R M
PONCEVIC M. CEBALLOS
PTR No. 3212580 / 01-06-2010 / Quezon City
IBP LRN 02224 / 1-16-2001 / Caloocan City
Roll of Attorneys 33018
MCLE Exemption no. III-00827
Copy Furnished:
NOEL C. DUCUSIN
Unit 2311, 23rd Floor Herrera Tower
Valero corner V.A. Rufino Sts.
Salcedo Village, City of Makati
13