Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


11th Judicial Region
BRANCH 4
PANABO CITY

EDWARD MENDEZ, EDDIE MENDEZ, CIVIL CASE NO. 25-2018


And ROLLY MENDEZ, represented
By: EDWARD MENDEZ,
Plaintiffs,

-versus- -for-

AGAPITO MUCHLACH, SR., NENE ACCION REINVICATORIA


MUCHLACH, AGAPITO MUCHLACH, AND/OR PUBLICIANA
JR., RURAL BANK OF SILAHIS, THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAGUM
CITY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM (DAR),
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Come now the defendants through Counsel and unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully allege:

1. That the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are admitted with


the qualifications that defendants AGAPITO MUCHLACH SR. and his
wife NENE MUCHLACH are now deceased;

2. That paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 under Antecedent Facts are admitted;

3. That the averment in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are denied the truth being
that which will alleged in the Affirmative Defenses;

4. That paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 are admitted;

1
5. That paragraph 11 is admitted with the qualification that said demand
is too whimsical and capricious;

6. That paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Complaint under Causes


of Action are denied the truth being the allegations later in the
Affirmative Defenses; and

BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. The defendants AGAPITO MUCHLACH JR. and his co-heirs hereby


reiterate the forgoing paragraphs and incorporate the same as part
hereof;

8. That the plaintiffs are barred from instituting the present complaint on
the ground of litis pendentia. By their own admission the plaintiffs
through their parents filed an action before this Court for Redemption,
Damages and Attorney’s Fees with Preliminary Injunction. The said
case, Civil Case No. 91-20 was dismissed on August 21, 1992.
Although the plaintiffs therein filed a Motion for Reconsideration they
have practically abandoned their case and forgot about it until the
children now the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Resolve their Motion for
Reconsideration which has been abandoned and forgotten for 24
years. The Honorable Court denied their Motion for Reconsideration in
an Order dated November 7, 20161;

9. That the said Order was appealed by the plaintiffs to the Court of
Appeals;

10. That the said case, Civil Case No. 91-20 is now pending appeal
and contained practically the same allegations as in the present case
involving the same subject matter and the same parties. It is a bar to
the present action on the ground of litis pendentia;

11. That still the plaintiffs filed a case at the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
DARAB Case No. 1103-0043-ON-2014 for CANCELLATION OF
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD CLOA NO.
006359032;

12. That again the said petition contains the same allegations in the
present complaint involving the same parties and subject matter and
therefore is a bar to the present complaint on the ground of litis
pendentia;

1 Annex “A”
2
Annex “B”
2
13. That the plaintiffs only filed the present action to denominate the
same act as supervening event and utilize the same as ground in their
strong resistance to the Writ of Execution issued by the Honorable
Court Judge MINERVA P. PEPINO-ESTREMOS of Carmen-Sto.
Tomas, Davao del Norte, 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court in a Forcible
Entry case filed by herein defendants against the plaintiffs who by force
and intimidation entered the property on May 31, 2014, a copy of the
Writ of Execution hereto attached3 and the Motion to Lift Writ of
Execution hereto attached4;

14. That to their own malice the plaintiffs have already utilized the
instant complaint as their ground in an Opposition to defendant’s
Motion to Cite them in Indirect Contempt with the MCTC, Carmen,
Davao del Norte, a copy hereto attached5;

15. That the defendants have bought the property in suits in good
faith, assured by the Rural Bank of Silahis represented by ATTY.
ROEL VILLAMOR a prominent lawyer and part owner that the
transaction was regular;

16. That for the plaintiffs to file the present action after 27 years when
the defendants have been in possession for 30 years and equipped
with a document of sale and the land titled in the names of AGAPITO
MUCHLACH SR. and NENE MUCHLACH and AGAPITO MUCHLACH
JR., the plaintiffs’ complaint clearly barred by laches;

17. That in view of the two pending Complaints mentioned above,


this complaint ought to be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia;

18. That the present complaint ought to be dismissed likewise, on


the ground of Violation against Non-Forum Shopping;

19. That the defendants are suffering worries, anxieties and


sleepless nights due to the baseless complaint of plaintiffs for which
the latter are liable for moral damages;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:

3 Annex “C”
4
Annex “D”
5
Annex “E”
3
1. Dismissing the instant Complaint.

2. Declaring AGAPITO MUHCLACH JR and the other heirs of AGAPITO


MUCHLACH SR. and NENE MUCHLACH as the true, rightful and
lawful owners of the property in suit.

Other Reliefs just and equitable under the premises.


Tagum City, for Panabo City, Davao del Norte, Philippines, May 10,
2018.

ATTY. WINDY MALAPIT


Counsel for the Defendants
Roll No. 62378
IBP No. 1020042-01/30/2017
PTR No. 8269877-01/28/2017
MCLE 230485-06/04/2018

Copy furnished:

Atty. Gigi R. Ticar


Panabo City