REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 22
IMUS, CAVITE

MARIO BATINGAL,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 0004-04

-versus- FOR: Damages

Spouses Carlos and Divina

Gatchola, Heirs of Mateo Gatchola,
Sebastian and Simeona Larosa,
Sps. Simon and Erlinda Panganiban,
Heir of Alejandro Pastolero,
Sps. Dominador and Ma. Concepcion
Panganiban, Heirs of Avelino Toledo,
Heirs of Ciriaco Hembrador, Felix
Hembrador, Pablo Hembrador,
Atty. Eleonor A. Maravilla-Ona,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, Defendants through counsel to this Honorbale

Court respectfully states: that- -

1. Defendants admits the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2

with sub-paragraph a to e;

2. Defendants denies the allegation in paragraph 3 for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, as they not
privy to said transaction;

1
 3. Defendants denies the allegation in paragraph 4 since the
real property subject of the litigation has never been planted with crops
by the plaintiff. Moreover, they are not aware of the taxes allegedly
imposed by Gloria Legaspi;

4. Defendants denies the allegation in paragraph 5 as to the

payment taxes to Gloria Legaspi but they admit that the Samahang
Magbubukid ng Kapdula was granted a mass of Land by virtue of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1025892. A photo-copy of said
Transfer Certificate of Title is hereto attached as Annex “A” forming part
of this answer;

5. Defendants qualifiedly admits the allegation in paragraph 6

that the Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula were no longer required to
pay taxes to any one, as they are now the owners of a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1025892, but denies that
the plaintiff is included therein. The truth, as the Transfer Certificate of
Title would show, did not include the name of the plaintiff;

6. Defendants admits the allegation in paragraph 7 that Gloria

Legaspi has ceased collecting taxes from the defendant, but then plaintiff
has no right to claim ownership of a piece of land over which he has no
title;

7. Defendants admits the allegation in paragraph 8 that the

plaintiff erected a concrete house and a two door apartment on a portion
of the land subject matter of this case but are not privy as to the credit
acquired by the Plaintiff nor as to the mode of payment to be made by
the latter;

2
 8. Defendants admits the allegation in paragraph 9 that
plaintiff structures were demolished pursuant to a Court Order in Civil
Case No. 2776-03, but as to whether or not he is made a party thereof is
of no moment since it is already fait accompli;

9. Defendants denies the allegation in paragraph 10 for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

10. That paragraphs 11 and 12 are admitted as to the riling of a

case against Vicente Lim for Quieting of Title with Damages and
declaration of Nullity of Memorandum of Agreement and Deed of
Subdivision with Sale but plaintiff has no interest whatsoever in said
case so much so that any amicable settlement that may be reach by the
parties therein will not in any way prejudiced the plaintiff;

11. That paragraph 13 is qualifiedly admitted that plaintiffs

structures were demolished but denies that he incurred damages in the
amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00);

12. That paragraph 14 is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

13. That paragraph 15,16 and 17 is a blatant live as it was never

Atty. Eleonor A. Maravilla-Ona who invited the plaintiff and offered him
Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00). This is just simply ridiculous
considering that Atty. Eleonor A. Maravilla-Ona has not been granted
any authority to negotiate with the plaintiff;

14. That paragraph 18 is glaringly impossible since Atty. Eleonor

A. Maravilla-Ona cannot negotiate for an amount she was never
authorized. The alleged document can never be prepared by Atty.

3
Eleonor A. Maravilla-Ona, since she only acquired knowledge of its
existence upon roading the complaint in which said document was
attached;

15. That paragraph 19 is a vain attempt to show the alleged

participation of Atty. Eleonor A Maravilla-Ona in a document she has
never seen before. Such document can just be prepared by anybody and
hastily attached to this complaint to give a semblance that indeed
plaintiff has a cause of action against defendant. But it is nothing more
than that. For the defendants, it is a mere scrap of paper with no
probative value;

16. That, paragraph 21, 22 and 23 are grossly unconscionable,

unjustified and under serving considering that the amount of damage
and attorney’s fees being asked by the plaintiff are by products of his
imagination since there has an interest to the parcel of land subject
matter of this case.

AND BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGES THAT

17. That plaintiff has clearly no cause of action against herein

defendants considering that he has no interest to protect. He was never
been a member of the Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula and his name
does not appear to be one of the co-owners in Transfer Certificate of Tile
No. T-1025892. As such there can be no factual or legal basis to sue
defendants for damages;

18. That by reason of the acts and conduct of the plaintiff in

asserting a right which is non-existent, defendants were forced to litigate
and incurred expenses to the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00);

4
 19. That the unjust conduct of the plaintiff compelled them to
hire the services of a lawyer which they agreed to pay Twenty Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) per court appearance;

20. That the unwanted filing of this suit has brought the
defendants to serious anxieties, worries and burdens over a non existent
cause of action justify the award of exemplary damages to the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) to deter other from filing
nuisance suits;

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully beseeched that the complaint

for damages be outrightly dismissed and plaintiff to pay:

1. P50,000.00 as actual expenses.

2. P25,000.00 as Attorney’s fees.
3. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
4. Cost of the suit.

Further, defendants prays for other relief’s just and equitable in

the premises.

Dasmariñas, Cavite for Imus, Cavite

April 26, 2004