Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMES NOW, Plaintiff assisted by the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
and a resident of Kalawag III, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, where he may be served
legal age, married and a resident od Busok, Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat where
3. That on April 12, 2005, plaintiff acquired possession over lot No. 60 CAD1126-D
Reymundo A. Sillo, the transferor and the plaintiff as the transferee. The Absolute
of Right and the Certification of Rodillo S. Castillo, the Municipal Assessor are
plaintiff subdivided said area into Five (5) lots and assigned Lot 60-C with an area
Ebith C. Letrero indentified as Lot 60-A; and Lot 60-B consisting an area of
Rights executed by the plaintiff on their favor on March 12, 2009 are hereto
attached as Annexes “C”, “D” and “E”, respectively. Lot 60-D, with an area of
9,999 square meters is allotted to as nature reservation. Plaintiff retains Lot 60-E
with an area of 41,561 square meters. The subdivision plan of Lot 60 is hereto
5. That before the survey was conducted on Lot 60, a joint Agreement dated August
11, 2006 was executed by Kagawad Areil Fano and Edilberto Falsario of
Barangay Busok; Kagawad Rene Robles of Kinayao; Merlina Benal and Col
“G”;
6. That even before the properties were assigned to the above-mentioned transferees,
the latter and the plaintiff had already planted African Palm Oil and introduce the
improvement thereat;
7. That on April 14,2009, Renato S. Sinahan, D.P. Land Inspector of the Office of
Community and Natural Resources Office XII-5A submitted a report of his ocular
xxxxxxxx
That during the time of Ocular inspection conducted by the undersigned
(Sinahan) in the premises of the Lot, it was found out that Remegio Letrero is in
improvements thereon by planting Palm Oil; and water reservoir was then
constructed within his are.And the same also to the transferees Pedro Letrero,
Jr., Ebith C. Letrero and ERustom C. Letrero they are one in actual possession
and occupation over their distinct portion and developed the same for
agricultural purpose.
8. That on October 29, 2009, original certificate of titles were issued to Pedro
Letrero, Jr.; Ebith Letrero; Rustom Letrero and to the plaintiff, copies of which
are hereto attached as Annexes “I”, “J”, “K”, and “L”, respectively;
9. That on January 15, 2009, at around (:00 o’clock in the morning at Lot 60-E,
owned by the plaintiff, a subdivided portion of Lot 60, situated at Brgy. Kinayao,
Jerry Armada, Eddie Madera, Marlon Juadiong with direct instruction from Brgy.
the plaintiff inside the African Palm Oil Plantation without judicial order or
consent of the latter. The pictures of the destroyed tub as Annex ‘M” and “M-1”
Annex “N”;
10. That after destroying the drinking tub, Barangay Busok, through its Brgy.
the residents of Barangay Busok without the consent of the plaintiff or judicial
order;
11. That when the plaintiff summoned Glicerio Benal, Jerry Benal, Epifanio Mirasol,
Jerry Armada, Eddie Madera, Marlon Juadiong and James Hallegado before the
the area where the drinking tub was built has been the target location for the water
system project of Barangay Busok. A copy of the minutes of the meeting before
12. That the plaintiff found ‘out lately that Brgy. Busok on December 2, 2001 passed
Resolution No. 18-02 for the spring development or for Potable Water System
(PWS) at San Jose, Brgy. Busok, Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat. On July 10, 2008,
and/or ordinance are hereto attached as Annexes “P” to “P-1” and “Q” to “Q-
2”;
13. That it is clear that the Potable Water System should be constructed at San Jose,
Busok and not at Kinayao, Baygumbayan, Sultan kudarat based on the Municipal
Castillon;
14. That that said concrete water tank is issued as storage of potable water for the
residents of the Brgy. Busok and the same potable water system project
mentioned in the barangay resolution and municipal ordinance and said project
Hallegado;
15. That the area on which the drinking tub was situated and the concrete water tank
or the Potable Water System Porject of Barangat Busok was constructed at the
fact the ordinance clearly show that the same should be constructed at san Jose,
16. That Barangay Busok took possession of a portion of the property of the plaintiff
17. That the surreptitious and stealthy entry and occupation and possession of a
18. That on the same date they destroy the drinking tub of animals, Florentina letija
actually saw them. The affidavit of the former is hereto marked as annex “R”.
Said drinking tub of animals was constructed by Rolando Lentija, hereto attached
compensation prior to the taking and occupation of the property nor there has
been a just compensation tendered to the plaintiff, neither there has been any
20. That the Barangay Chairman of Busok, James Hallegado gravely abused his
21. That the stealthy entry, possession and occupation of the property has crated an
and enjoyment of thereat, which likewise made him to suffer loss of income by
reason that, prior to the deprivation of the area, the plaintiff have been the same as
22. That the plaintiff losses right opf enjoyment and possession over the property
which should be rightfully enjoyed by the plaintiff and the security of the African
Oil Plantation is at stake by reason of the ingress and egress of some residents of
23. That the constructed of the water tank at the plaintiffs property gives much weight
on his shoulder by reason that blames and cases may be directed to him should
there be an incident or cases of illness resulted from the drinking of the water
derived thereat;
24. That due to the malicious and stealthy entry of the Officers of Barangay Busok
and the taking of possession, it has caused the plaintiff to suffer sleepless nights,
serious anxiety, which if rebounded into monetary consideration as moral
25. That the value of the drinking tub that was destroyed which cost the plaintiff in
26. That the defendant should be corrected to serve as antidote against the
commission of similar acts in the future and for his purpose, as exemplary
27. That due to the grave ignorance of the law and grave abuse of power and
28. That due to the utter violation of the rights of the plaintiff, the latter were
PRAYER
1. Ordering the defendant to vacate from Lot 60-E located at Brgy. Kinayao,
2. Ordering the defendant to refrain from operating the potable water system
project constructed thereat and supplying water to the resident of Brgy. Busok;
3. Ordering the defendant to remove the concrete water tank at their expense;
7. Ordering the Brgy. Chairman of Busok to pay the plaintiff in the amount of
Other relief as are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
ANSWER
COMES NOW the defendant in the above-entitled case, through counsel, most
respectfully files this answer before this Honorable Court and avers that:
1. The defendant, thru its representative, received the summons dated December 16,
2009 for the above captioned case on January 4, 2010 giving it ten )10) days from
receipt of the summons or until January 14, 2010 within which to serve its
answer to the Plaintiffs complaint and file the same to the Honorable Court;
3. The defendant denies the allegations set Forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 for lack of
Benal and the Plaintiff, the Kagawads mentioned therein were witnesses to such
agreement, however, the survey made subject of the agreement was executed
the averment in paragraph 6 of the complaint that the plaintiff had already planted
African Palm Oil and introduced improvements thereat, and therefore, denies it’
6. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are also denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief;
the Brgy. Chairman James Hallegado had given instruction to the persons named
destroying the drinking tub, but admits the construction of a concrete water tank
to supply water to the residents of Brgy. Busok, but the same is within the Land of
Merlina E. Benal situated in San Jose, Barangay Busok, and outside plaintiff’s
property;
confrontation at the office of the Brgy. Chairman of Brgy. Kinayao where the
right of Brgy. Busok was asserted to construct concreter water to the residents of
Barangay Busok as the site being located in the land owned by Mrs. Merlina
Benal situated at Sitio San Jose, Barangay Busok, Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat;
10. Defendant admits allegations contained in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, about the
water tank project and maintained that the water tank was constructed outside the
property of Plaintiff and hereby adopts Annexes “P” to “P-!” and “Q” to “Q-2” of
the complaint as its Annexes “1” to “1-A” and “2”, “2-A” and “2-B”,
respectively;
11. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 15 of the complaint, the fact being
that the constructed concrete water tank or Potable Water System of Brgy. Busok
is within Sitio San Jose, Barangay Busok and outside the property of Plaintiff as
Bayan of Bagumbayan, I its report No. 01 dated March 10, 2009, copy of which is
hereto attached and marked Annexes “3-A” and “3-B”, being the action taken on
the compliant of Brgy. Chairman James Hallegado dated February 3, 2009 filed
with the aforesaid committee, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “4” to
complaint for lack of knowledge to form a belief, the truth of the matter being that
the proposed and agreed relocation survey on April 4, 2009 was not done to
disagreement and a conference was set on April 21, 2009 to possibly patch up the
misconception and disagreement but nothing was reach because plaintiff stood
pat on his position as reported by the committee in its second report dated April
21, 2009, copy of which is hereto attached and marked Annexes “5”, “5-A and
13. Defendant admits allegation in paragraph 19 of the compliant and hold that no
need to do the same considering that the location of the water tank is in Sitio San
Jose, Busok within the declared public land and watershed protection and due to
the adamant attitude of the plaintiff the Brgy. Chairman James Hallegado filed a
very Urgent Request for Assistance dated may 18, 2009 with the public
Assistance Office, Office of the deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao at Davao City
copy of which is hereto attached and marked Annexes “6-A” and 6-B” to form
part hereof
14. defendant denies the allegation contained in the paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23 for
15. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 24,25, 26, 27 and 28 for being
COUNTERCLAIM
The defendant incorporates by way of reference all foregoing allegations
16. Due to this baseless and malicious complaint, defendant’s representative suffered
which him to an award for moral damages in the sum of One Hundred Thousand
(P100,000.00) pesos;
17. In order to deter others form further doing similar acts in the future, the plaintiff
(P50,000.00) pesos;
18. Defendant had already spent an initial sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) pesos
RELIEF
1. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of P10,000.00 as moral
damages;
incurred; and
4. Defendants prays for such relief’s as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises.
REPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Isulan (for Bagumbayan), Sultan Kudarat, January
14, 2010.