REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Office of the President

HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
EXPANDED NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION FIELD OFFICE
Kalayaan Avenue cor. Mayaman St., Diliman, Quezon City

ESTACIO-PAGKALINAWAN
HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
JOSEPHINE T. RILLERA
Complainant,

-versus- CASE NO. NCRHOA-040819-2990

FOR: Confirmation of Declaration of
Default and Recovery of
Possession

ROSALIE D. MARARAC, GINA ANTIGUA,

JOSEPH BALLARAN, GLORIA CANDILAS,
DANILO FAMILARA, JENNIFER GENITA
PABLO LAURON, MATRANILLO
ALOYON, FE ABONTIE and any and all
Persons claiming right under them
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER
Defendants, Rosalie D. Mararac, Gina Antigua, Joseph Ballaran, Gloria Candilas, Danilo
Familara, Jennifer Genita, Pablo Lauron, Matranillo Aloyon, Fe Abontie and any and all
Persons claiming right under them, by counsel and unto this Honorable Office, respectfully
states:

1. On __ May 2022, Defendants, through counsel, received an Order from this

Honorable Office dated _______, directing Defendants to submit a Position Paper and a Draft
Decision within ____ (__) days from receipt of the said order.

2. Hence, Defendant has until ___ May 2022 to comply with the Order dated _____
of this Honorable Office and file the required Position Paper and Draft Decision.

II
STATEMENT OF FACTS

In support of its Specific Denials, and Special and Affirmative Defenses, respondent
respectfully states:

1. Defandants are residents of Nagpayong II, Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City and have
occupied their respective lots from as early as 1998. When they first occupied the land, it
was partly rice field, “tubigan” and abandoned land with no houses or permanent
improvements. Moreover, the government undertook land filling activities to level the
land.

On the Subdivision Plan of Land of Lot 3232, MCadm 590-D, Taguig Cad. Mapping
(PSU-235217) is the note indicating that the said survey is “inside L.C. Map No. 2623,
Project No. 27-B classified alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development,
Q.C. on Jan. 03, 1968”

2. It was represented to Defendants that the land was owned by the heirs of
Carmelita Estacio, Leocadia Mendiola, Catalino Estacio and Remedios
Pagkalinawan (hereinafter, the “Heirs”). So, initially, Samahan ng Bagong Sikat
Araw, Inc., later divided into three (3) homeowner’s association, one (1)
 of which being Estacio-Pagkalinawan Homeowners Association (EPHA),
was formed to facilitate the purchase of the land through “Community
Mortgage Program, Group Land Acquisition and Development Self-
Help and Other Land Tenurial Programs” as provided for in Art. XI of
the Amended By-Laws (Annex __).

3. The Defendants allege to be members of said Association since 2003, and

started paying dues to it since then, as evidenced by receipts Annex __).
However, the Association was only registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 13, 2003 (Annex___), and with the
HLURB on September 6, 2017 Annex __.

4. Moreover, On May 2, 2013, the EPHA and the Heirs entered into a
Contract to Sell, under which EPHA manifested its intention to
buy the land through the “government’s Community Mortgage
Program but due to numerous requirements needed, they now
entered into Direct Installment Negotiated Purchase (DINP) through
RA 10023” concerning Free Patents ( A n n e x _ _ )

5. Transfer or Waiver of Rights (Annex__) was entered into by the Association

and the Heirs on August 23, 2013.

6. In said contracts, the Heirs were described as the “registered owner” of the
“unregistered/untitled land” as evidenced by a Tax Declaration No. B-018-
0160. However, this tax declaration is not on file or attached by the
Association to its Complaint. Instead, the Association merely attached the
Heirs’ Tax Declaration No. GL-018-02353 dated 2017.

7. Upon having gathered more information, Defendants suspended

making payments to the Association because: (a) doubts arose as to the
legitimacy of the Association, and (b) more importantly, the Association
failed to give them, despite repeated demands made personally and
coursed through the HLURB (Annex ___ and Annex ____ and the Task
Force Pabahay ng Pasig (Annex ___), a contract/agreement which stated
clearly the terms of purchase, transparent accounting of the funds
collected, and the important documents related to the purchase of the
land.
8. Later, doubts arose as to the legitimacy of the Association, when in
2013, some of the Defendants inquired with the HLURB the
Association registration and found that it was not registered. Hence,
they refused to continue making payments.
 8.1 In fact, the receipts being issued to the Defendants by the
Association did not bear any Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).
8.2 The Association also refused to produce receipts proving payments
made by the latter to the Heirs, and other documents relating the
purchase of the subject parcels of land. Said refusal was in fact
admitted by the Association’s President during the 2nd Meeting
facilitated by the Task Force Pabahay ng Pasig (Annex___).
8.3 Such refusal raised alarm on the part of the Defendants that the
payments remitted to the Association are not paid for their intended
purpose. Said fear was realized when the President of the Association
claimed during the 1st Meeting Facilitated by the Task Force
Pabahay ng Pasig that Php 500,000 was paid to the DENR “under-
the-table” to expedite the application process filed with the latter
(Annex ___).

9. Hence, Defendants stood their ground and refused to continue

making payments unless they were provided with a contract and other
necessary documents/record proving the validity of the sale. This
resulted in EPHA’s illegal issuance of Resolutions dated 2018,
removing Defendants from the Roll of Members for delinquency
pursuant to Sec. 10, Art. 3 and Sec. 1, Art.of their Amended By-Laws
(Annex ___)

10. This removal prompted the Defendants to file a letter/complaint before

the HLURB on December 12, 2018, raising the argument that their refusal
to pay was justified and consequently, they cannot be declared in default.
Moreover, they prayed that the EPHA execute a contract with them,
stating the terms and conditions of their purchase, and that they be
given reasonable time or extension to comply with their bonafide
obligations.

11. Likewise, EPHA filed a complaint with the HLURB against Defendants
on January 23, 2019 with Case No. NCRHOA-012319-2946 (Annex ___)

12. On February 13, 2019, conciliation proceedings were held wherein

the Association was represented by its President Josephine T. Rillera. The
parties then entered into an amicable settlement of their issues and agreed
 that: (1) a new contract would be executed, and (2) a two-year extension
would be given to allow Defendants to settle their liabilities.

13. However, on February 17, 2019, EPHA reneged on its obligation and
sent a letter to the HLURB claiming that the President was
supposedly not authorized by the Board to enter into such an agreement
(Annex __).

14. On April 8, 2019, a second complaint with Case No. NCRHOA-040819-

2990 was filed by the Association, which substantially reproduced the first
complaint filed on January 16, 2019 but this time with Annexes and served
to some of the Defendants.

15. On September 24, 2021, the Respondents filed their Answer ad Cautelam
and Entry of Appearance to the HSAC.

16. On September 30, 2021, HSAC (formerly HLURB) held a Mandatory

Conference via Zoom. It was manifested that the Association is willing to
enter a Compromise Agreement and will facilitate the transfer of ownership
to the respondents. However, after conferring with the Defendants that
afternoon, it was clarified that there was only an Order and that there is no
contract, and consequently no terms and conditions agreed upon, that can be
enforced. They also expressed that the Association has never shown any
statement of account that can serve as the basis of a Compromise
Agreement.

17. On October 12, 2021, another Mandatory Conference was held, where we
requested for a statement of account, and manifested our proposed
amendments to the Compromise Agreement.

18. On October 15, 2021, upon our request, Atty. Castillo sent scanned copies
of a handwritten statement of account and Residential Free Patents issued in
favor of residents and members of EPHA.

19. On October 25, 2021, the Defendants raised an issue where a certain
Victoria Malubay Rodriguez was claiming to be the sole heir of the
Hermogenes estate and was alleging ownership of the subject land.
Defendants also raised contentions on the computations and measurements
of the properties.
20. After a series of Mandatory Conferences held on October 26, November 9,
November 23, December 1, December 14, and December 28, further
discussions on negotiations were raised.

21. During a Mandatory Conference on January 19, 2022, the parties came to
an agreement regarding the terms and conditions of the Compromise
Agreement to be executed. Significant of which is the extension of payment
from three years to five years.

22. The Compromise Agreeement was drafted and submitted to EPHA’s counsel
a day before the Mandatory Conference set on March 01, 2022, however
said conference was reset to ___________.

23. During the Mandatory Conference on _____________, the Complainant

manifested that it cannot agree to the Compromise Agreement proposed by
the Defendant.

24. The factual allegations made by Complainant categorically and

unequivocally prove and show that Complainants do not have any cause of
action against respondents. Necessarily, the instant complaint must be
dismissed.

III. ISSUES

A.
WHETHER OR NOT HEREIN DEFENDANTS SHOULD
BE REMOVED FROM THE ROLLS AS THEY ARE NO
LONGER IN GOOD STANDING AND CONSIDERED
AS DELINQUENT MEMBERS OF THE ESTACIO-
PAGKALINAWAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
(EPHA) FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DUES.

B.
WHETHER OR NOT HEREIN DEFENDANTS ARE
JUSTIFIED TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF THIER DUES
TO EPHA

C.
WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS CAN BE EVICTED
FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS THE SAME
RESPECTIVE HOMES ARE RIGHTFULLY OWNED
BY THE ESTACIO-PAGKALINAWAN
 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (EPHA)

D.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD
BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS OF FORUM
SHOPPING.

E.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.

F.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COLLECTION OF
PAYMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANTS BY
THE COMPLAINANT IS UNJUST
ENRICHMENT FOR HAVING ACQUIRED NO
RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT LOTS

IV. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The removal of
defendants from the
roll of members of
the association
was not warranted
as they could not
have been
considered
delinquent members.

26.1 In any event, even assuming without admitting that the Transferor-Heirs
were actually the rightful owners of the subject land, Defendants were
 justified in refusing to pay their “dues” because of numerous badges of
fraud, and the failure of the Transferee-Complainant to perform its
obligations. Hence, they could have not been declared as delinquent
members and removed from the Association.

26.2 First, Defendants were simply being vigilant in the protection of their
property rights given the numerous badges of fraud attendant to this case.
26.2.1. The Contract to Sell/of Sale, Deed of Assignment, and
Transfer/Waiver of Rights were executed between the
predecessors- in-interest and the Complainant-Association only in
2013 when in fact, the Members have been making payments to
the Complainant- Association as early as the year 2003. (Annex
__ and Annex __)
26.2.2 Moreover, the Defendants, in 2013, verified with the HLURB
the
registration of the Association. And, it was discovered that from
the time the Association has been collecting fees, the Association
has not yet been registered with the HLURB. The Association
only acquired its Certificate of Incorporation from the HLURB
on September 6, 2017. (Annex__)
26.2.3. Also, the receipts issued by the Association for earlier payments
made
by the Defendants failed to state any Taxpayer Identification
Number (TIN), which further cast doubts as to the
legitimacy of the Association and its ability to enter into a
contract.
26.2.4. That the payments being made to the Association by the
members
thereof were not being made pursuant to the intended purpose
thereof, which was to facilitate the payment to the landowners on
behalf of the members of the Association, was confirmed by no
less than EPHA’s President Rillera when she admitted during the
1st Meeting Facilitated by the Task Force Pabahay ng Pasig to
making a Php 500,000 “under- the-table” payment to the DENR
in her dealings therewith. (Annex__)
26.2.5. Finally, despite repeated demands, either made personally
or through
 the barangay, the Association failed to be transparent
with the Defendants regarding the purchase of the land
from the alleged landowners. First, the Association
failed to provide receipts evidencing its payment by
installment to the landowners. Second, it continually
refuses to execute a contract/agreement with the
homeowners clearly indicating the terms and conditions of
the latter’s purchase of lots.

26.3 Second, the Defendants cannot be held delinquent in paying their fees
because the agreement between the Association and members that the
former shall facilitate the transfer of ownership to the latter is a
reciprocal obligation. The obligation of a member is to pay the purchase
price and other membership fees. On the other hand, it is incumbent upon
the Association, being the owner of the rights over the land, to provide for
a contract specifying the terms of the purchase (actual purchase price of
the subject land and the share of the member in said purchase price).
26.3.1 "Reciprocal obligations are those which arise from the same
cause,
and in which each party is a debtor and a creditor of the other,
such that the obligation of one is dependent upon the obligation of
the other. They are to be performed simultaneously, so that the
performance of one is conditioned upon the simultaneous
fulfillment of the other.”1 Moreover, in reciprocal obligations,
neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not
ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon
him.2 In this case, the Defendants did not incur delay for non-
payment of fees because the Association failed to perform its
obligation to issue a contract specifying the terms of the
purchase.
26.4. Third, pursuant to Art. 1357 in relation to Par. 1 of Art. 1358 of the New
Civil Code, the Defendants have the right to compel Complainant-
Association to observe the proper form for contracts involving the sale of
real property.
26.4.1. Art. 1357 provides that:

1 IV ARTURO TOLENTINO , CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 175 (1991)

2
CIVIL CODE, art. 1169
 “Article 1357. If the law requires a document
or other special form, as in the acts and
contracts enumerated in the following article,
the contracting parties may compel each
other to observe that form, once the contract has
been perfected. This right may be exercised
simultaneously with the action upon the
contract.”
26.4.2. Par. 1 of Art. 1358 provides that:
“Article 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the
creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real
rights over immovable property; sales of real property or
of an interest therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2,
and 1405...”
26.4.3. In Cenido v. Sps. Apacionado, the Supreme Court ruled that:
“The requirement of a public document in Article 1358 is not
for the validity of the instrument but for its efficacy.
Although a conveyance of land is not made in a public
document, it does not affect the validity of such
conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the
accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public
instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only
to insure its efficacy, so that after the existence of said
contract has been admitted, the party bound may be
compelled to execute the proper document.”

26.4.4. In this case, the existence of the agreement of sale

between the
Complainant-Association and the Defendants has
been admitted/proven. Hence, the former may be compelled to
execute the proper document for said sale.

26.4.4.1. First, there are receipts evidencing the

payments installments for the Defendants respective lots (Annex
___).
26.4.4.2. Moreover, Art. 1 of the Amended By-Laws provides
that:
“Article 1. Declaration of Purpose. The purposes
of this association are those set forth in its
 Articles of Incorporation. Its primary concern is
to facilitate the ownership of lots or houses, or
both, by its members and to e nhance the delivery
of adequate social services or advantages for the
association to improve the quality of life and well-
being of its members.”

The defendants’
refusal to continue
payments was done in
good faith.

27.1 In any event, even assuming without admitting that the complainant has
the right to demand payments, the Defendants’ refusal to continue
payments was done in good faith. In fact, there was never any doubt as
to the Defendants’ willingness to pay. They merely insisted on the
issuance of a written agreement setting for the specific terms of
payment, so that there can be a fixed amount of dues collectible from
them, with the intention of faithfully complying with the same once so
fixed. Hence, they should not be deemed delinquent members and,
consequently, removed from the Association.
27.1.1. This is evidenced by the December 12, 2018 complaint filed by no
less than the Defendants before the HLURB, ventilating their fear
of “back to zero” payments to the Complainant-Association because
of the failure to issue by the latter of any written agreement
providing for fixed terms of their payments. Despite such fear,
such Complaint states, nonetheless, that the Defendants are still
willing to pay their dues, provided the terms fixed be reasonable
in the eyes of the HLURB.

27.1.2 Moreover, Defendants attended multiple Barangay

conciliation proceedings where they expressed their willingness to
pay, provided the Complainant execute a written agreement
covering the terms of their payments. In fact, it was admitted
during the 1st Meeting Facilitated by the Task Force
Pabahay ng Pasig that theDefendants made attempts to
pay their dues through counsel. However, the President
 refused to meet with the counsel for receipt of payment (Annex
__).

27.1.3. Furthermore, on February 13, 2019, in a conciliation proceeding

held before the HLURB between the Defendants and
Complainant, represented by no less than its President Rillera,
the parties agreed that: (1) a new contract will be executed, and
(2) a two-year extension will be given to allow the Defendants to
settle their liabilities. Such displayed the Defendants’ willingness
to pay their respective dues, as long as the same are made under
reasonable terms, and that such agreement merely needs be
expressed in writing.

The subject lots are

alienable and
disposable public
lands over which the
defendants, having
actually and
continuously
possessed and
occupied the same
for at least 10
years under the
concept of an
owner, are the
rightful possessors
and applicants for
free patent.

28.1 The lots in question form part of an unregistered public land which
was declared alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forest on January
3, 1968. Annotated on the Subdivision Plan of Land of Lot 3232,
MCadm 590-D, Taguig Cad. Mapping (PSU-235217) is the note
indicating that the said survey is “inside L.C. Map No. 2623,
Project No. 27-B classified alienable/disposable by the Bureau of
Forest Development, Q.C. on Jan. 03, 1968” (Annex __).

28.2 The only proof of ownership over the subject land presented by the Heirs,
the predecessors-in-interest of the Complainant was a Tax Declaration
 No. GL- 018-02353 dated 2017 (“Annex B” of the Complaint, herein
attached as (Annex __). Moreover, the Tax Declaration No. B-018-0160
indicated in the Contract to Sell, Deed of Assignment, and
Transfer/Waiver of Rights was not attached to the Complaint. In any
event, said tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership.

28.2.1. It is established in jurisprudence that tax declarations are not

conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not
supported by any other evidence. “The fact that the disputed property may
have been declared for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for
registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove
ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.”3

28.3 Thus, in this case, the Heirs’ sole proof of ownership, a tax declaration,
cannot serve as the basis to oust the Defendants who have been in
actual and continuous possession of the subject property for more than
10 years.

28.4 The executed Transfer or Waiver of Rights, Contract to Sell, and Deed
of Assignment did not transfer any right or title over the same to the
transferee- Complainant given that the transferor-Heirs have no right
over the lots in question. Hence, the Complainant, stepping into the
shoes of the Transferor- heirs, likewise has no right or title over the
subject lots.
28.4.1. In the case of Palali v. Awisan, the Court ruled that “such
publicdocuments merely show the successive transfers of the
property covered by said documents. They do not conclusively prove
that the transferor actually owns the property purportedly being
transferred, especially as far as third parties are concerned. For it
may very well be that the transferor does not actually own the
property he has transferred, in which case he transfers no better right
to his transferee. No one can give what he does not have – nemo dat
quod non habet.”4
28.4.2. Moreover, in the case of Pen Development Corporation and Las
Brisas Resort Corporation v. Martinez, Leyba, Inc., the Court
had occasion to rule that “the general rule is that the vendee of

3 Republic of the Philippines v. Manimtim, G.R. No. 169599, March 16, 2011.
4 Palali v. Awisan, G.R. No. 158385, February 12, 2010.
 land has no greater right, title, or interest than his vendor, that he
acquires the right which his vendor had, only.”3

28.5. On the other hand, the Defendants, having actually resided on

and continuously possessed and occupied, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, the land for at least ten years, thereby
qualifying for Free Patent application under Sections 1 and 3 of RA
10023, have a better right to said land.
28.5.1. Firstly, Article 433 of the New Civil Code provides:

“Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership

raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true
owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of
the property.” (Emphasis supplied)

28.5.2. Secondly, it is established in jurisprudence that “a person

occupying a parcel of land, by himself and through his predecessors-in-
interest, enjoys the presumption of ownership. Anyone who desires to
remove him from the property must overcome such presumption by relying
solely on the strength of his claims rather than on the weakness of the
defense.”

28.5.3 Hence, the Defendants, having actual and continuous possession of

the land under a bona fide claim of ownership enjoy the presumption of
ownership which may not be defeated by mere a tax declaration and
unsubstantiated claim of ownership by the Complainant and its transferors.

28.5.4 Moreover, RA 10023 (“An Act Authorizing The Issuance of Free

Patents To Residential Lands”) provides the qualifications for an
applicant to a free patent to residential lands, to wit:

28.5.4.1 Section 1. Qualifications. - Any Filipino citizen who is

an actual occupant of a residential land may apply for a
Free Patent Title under this Act : Provided; That in
highly urbanized cities, the land should not exceed
two hundred (200) square meters; in other cities, it should
not exceed five hundred (500) square meters; in first class
and second class municipalities, it should not exceed seven
hundred fifty (750) square meters; and in all other
municipalities, it should not exceed one thousand (1,000)
square meters; Provided, further, That the land applied for is
not needed for public service and/or public use.
 28.5.4.2 Section 3. Application. - The application on the land
applied for shall be supported by a map based on an actual
survey conducted by a licensed geodetic engineer and
approved by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and a technical description of the land
applied for together with supporting affidavit of two (2)
disinterested persons who are residing in the barangay of
the city or municipality where the land is located, attesting
to the truth of the facts contained in the application to the
effect that the applicant thereof has, either by himself
or through his predecessor-in-interest, actually resided
on and continuously possessed and occupied, under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, the land
applied for at least ten (10) years and has complied
with the requirements prescribed in Section 1 hereof.
(Emphasis supplied)

28.5.4.3. Hence, the Defendants, having actually resided

and continuously possessed and occupied the lots for at least 10
years, are the qualified applicants for Free Patent over the same.
28.6 Further proof of Defendants superior claim over the land as compared to
Complainants can be found in the Certification dated 27 August 2020
issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
National Capital Region, which indicates that the Defendants are the
Listed Survey Claimants of their respective lots for the purposes
of Free Patent Application (Annex_).

The collection of
payments from the
defendants by the
complainant is unjust
enrichment for having acquired
no right over the subject lots

29.1 The principle of unjust enrichment is enshrined in Art. 22 of the New

Civil Code which provides that:

“Article 22. Every person who through an act of

performance by another, or any other means, acquires
or comes into possession of something at the expense of
 the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same
to him.”

29.2 Moreover, the main objective of the principle against unjust enrichment
is to prevent one from enriching himself at the expense of another
without just cause or consideration. It requires two conditions:
(1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and
(2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another. 5

29.3 In this case, the Defendants having actual possession of the lots enjoy
the presumption of ownership which the Complainant failed to overcome.
Having failed to substantiate the ownership of its transferor-Heirs, the
Complainant failed to prove its better right over the subject lots and
consequently, its right to collect payments.

29.4 Furthermore, the Complainant also failed to apply the amortizations paid
by the Defendants to the purpose agreed upon, which was the acquisition
of the lots occupied by them. Not only did Complainant admit to using
payments made for “under the table” dealings, the Certification from the
DENR-NCR also indicates that, aside from the lot of Defendant
Mararac, no public land applications are pending over the lots of
Defendants. Thus, it appears that the Complainants had not even
attempted to acquire the land on behalf of Defendants despite the
payments previously made.

29.5 The failure of the Complainants to prove its right to collect payments
from its members and worse, its failure to apply said payments to the
acquisition of the land, necessarily results in said collection being
tantamount to unjust enrichment.

29.6 Hence, the Complainant is under the obligation to make full

reparation or compensation to the Defendants in the following amounts
to:

29.6.1. ROSALIE D. MARARAC, sixty-nine thousand, nine

hundred thirty-five pesos (₱ 69,935);

29.6.2. To GINA ANTIGUA, Thirty-nine thousand, four hundred

pesos (₱ 39,400);
5 P.C. Javier & Sons, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 129552, June 29, 2005.
 29.6.3. To JOSEPH BALLARAN, sixty-two thousand, eight hundred
twenty pesos (₱ 62,820);

29.6.4. To GLORIA CANDILAS, twenty-nine thousand, seven

hundred forty pesos (₱ 29,740);

29.6.5. To DANILO FAMILARA, one thousand pesos (₱ 1000);

29.6.6. To JENNIFER GENITA, fifteen thousand, eight hundred fifty

pesos (₱ 15,850); and

29.6.7. To PABLO LAURON, forty-seven thousand, one hundred

pesos (₱ 47, 100).

The complaint should be

dismissed as the complainant is
guilty of forum shopping.
30.1 Complainant is guilty of Forum Shopping.

29.1.2 Under Rule 5, Sec. 16 (f) of the HLURB 2019 Revised

Rules of Procedure:

“Certification Against Forum Shopping--The complainant

shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleadings asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith that:

(1) The complainant has not theretofore

commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of the
complainant's knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein;

(2) If there is such other pending action or claim,

the complainant shall state the status thereof; and,
 (3) If the complainant should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, the complainant shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
HLURB.
If it is proved that the complainant has engaged in deliberate
forum-shopping, the complaint shall be dismissed with
prejudice .”

30.1. Forum shopping has been defined as “the filing of multiple suits involving
the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.”

30.2 Prior to the institution of the present case (Case No. NCRHOA-040819-
2990) on April 8, 2019, the Association had already filed another case
before the HLURB (Case No. NCRHOA-012319-2946) on January 23,
2019 (Annex __). Both cases involve the identical parties and causes of
action.

30.2 Under the 2nd paragraph of Sec. 16, 2019 Revised Rules of Procedure of
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, in case the complainant
has been engaged in deliberate forum-shopping, the complaint shall be
dismissed with prejudice.

The complaint should be

dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction.

31.1 Long-settled is the rule that all civil actions which involve title to,
or possession of, real property, or any interest therein are vested with the
regular courts. The same is easily ascertained through a reading of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No.
7691 which vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Regional Trial
Courts:

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property exceeds ₱20,000.00 or, for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds ₱50,000.00.
 31.2 For property falling below the foregoing threshold amounts,
exclusive jurisdiction lies with the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, or MTCC.

31.3 The instant case necessarily involves questions of ownership and rights
to possession of real property and in fact goes into the legitimacy
of the Complainants’ predecessor-in-interest’s claim over the land.
It also necessarily involves questions as to the validity of the Contract to
Sell/of Sale, Deed of Assignment, and Transfer/Waiver of Rights entered
into by the Complainants and the Heirs.

31.4. The resolution of the instant case requires a determination of whether or

not the Complainant’s predecessors-in-interest had an actual right to the
property as well as who, between the Complainants and the Defendants,
possesses the right to acquire the land through Free Patent application.
The fact that the dispute is between a homeowners association and its
members is merely incidental. Thus, the instant case is outside
HLURB’s jurisdiction over “[d]isputes or controversies between the
association and the homeowners or other beneficial users relating to the
exercise of their respective rights, duties and obligations” 6

31.5 Furthermore, the land in question is public land, as evidenced by the

notation in the Subdivision Plan that said lots have been
classified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development
(Annex 16). This classification is further strengthened by the Certification
from the DENR that the Defendants are the listed survey claimants of
their respective lots (Annex 18).

Complainants themselves, by indicating in the Contract to Sell/of Sale that

the land was to be acquired through RA 10023, impliedly admit that the
same are public land as only residential areas as defined under the Public
Land Act may be the subject of a Free Patent Application under said law7.

31.6 Nowhere is it stated that the HLURB may rule on issues regarding the
right to possession of public land nor has the HLURB been given the
power to determine who is the rightful applicant for Free Patent under
RA 10023, the latter being the sole province of the appropriate Office of
the DENR .8 Thus, the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

6 Rule 2, Sec. 62.2., Revised Rules of Proceedings Before Regional Arbiters.

7 Section 2, Republic Act 10023. An Act Authorizing the Issuance of Free Patents Over Residential Lands.
8 Section 6. Republic Act 10023
 V.
RESERVATION

Respondent reserves the right to adduce and present additional exhibits, annexes,
affidavits, and other documentary evidence in the course of the proceedings as may
be necessary.

VI.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Honorable Office that judgment be rendered in favor of the Defendants and
against complainant Association:

I. Dismissing the case and recognizing the right of the Defendants to

possession and application for Free Patent over the subject lots;

1. Ordering restitution by the Complainant for payments made by the

Defendants;
2. Declaring void the Board Resolutions removing from the roll of
members the Defendants;
3. Denying the Complainant’s prayer for eviction of the Defendants for
lack of legal basis.

II. In the alternative, ordering the Complainant-Association to execute a

written agreement with the Defendants for the payment of their dues
under such terms and conditions as the Honorable Office may deem
just and reasonable;

1. Ordering the complainant Association to perform all its

obligations pursuant to the abovementioned written agreement,
including the grant of a reasonable period of extension for the
payment of dues by the Defendants;
2. Declaring void the Board Resolutions removing from the roll of
members the Defendants;
3. Denying the complainant Association’s prayer for eviction of the
Defendants for lack of legal basis;

Herein complainant prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable under
the premises.
Mandaluyong City for Quezon City, 22 December 2014.

ROSALIE D. MARARAC GINA ANTIGUA

Defendant Defendant

GLORIA CANDILAS JOSEPH BALLARAN

Defendant Defendant

DANILO FAMILIARA JENNIFER GENITA

Defendant Defendant

PABLO LAURON
Defendant

VERIFICATION OF PLEADING
We, ROSALIE D. MARARAC, GINA ANTIGUA, JOSEPH
BALLARAN, GLORIA CANDILAS, DANILO FAMILARA,
JENNIFER GENITA, and PABLO LAURON, all of legal age, Filipinos,
and with postal address at Estacio- Pagkalinawan, Nagpayong 2,
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, after being sworn in accordance with law, depose
and say that:

1. We are the defendants in the above-entitled case and have caused the
above Answer to be prepared; and

2. We have read and understood all the allegations therein and all are true
and correct based on our personal knowledge and on the authentic
records in our possession.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto set our hands this ______
day of ________ 2020 at ___________.

ROSALIE D. MARARAC GINA ANTIGUA

Defendant Defendant

GLORIA CANDILAS JOSEPH BALLARAN

Defendant Defendant

DANILO FAMILIARA JENNIFER GENITA

Defendant Defendant

PABLO LAURON
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of ______

2020 at ________, affiants exhibiting to me as competent proof of their
identity:

Name Competent Proof of Identity/ ID Number Date Issued

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____

Book No. _____
Series of 2020