REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

6th JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH _____
Iloilo City

GOH LUMABAN CIVIL CASE NO: _____

Petitioner,
FOR:
- versus -
ANNULMENT of DEEDS of
ADJUDICATION and SALE
TAGUMPAY MAGTANGGOL, et with CANCELLATION of
al., TCT No. 229,040
Defendants. `
x-------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, Defendants TAGUMPAY MAGTANGGOL

and MAKISIG LUMABAN, by the undersigned counsel, in the
above-entitled case and before this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits this ANSWER and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is a case for Annulment of Deed of Adjudication and Sale with
Cancellation of TCT No. 226,040 founded allegedly on Plaintiffs’
claim of ownership over Lot 3571-C-1. Located at Poblacion, Sta.
Barbara, Iloilo;

2. Defendants received a copy of the Complaint and Summons on April

1, 2015 giving them until April 16, 2015 to file Defendant’s Answer.
On April 14, 2015, however, the undersigned filed a Motion for
Extension of Time before this Honorable Court and prayed for an
extension of fifteen (15) days from April 16, 2015 or not later than
May 1, 2015 within which to file Defendant’s Answer;

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

3. Defendants admit Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint in so far as
the personal circumstances of the parties involved;

4. Defendants specifically deny paragraphs 4 to 17 of the Complaint. The

truth of the matter are stated in the affirmative and special defense
hereunder;

5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is admitted with a qualification.

Defendant Tagumpay Magtanggol is the true and lawful registered
 owner of Lot No. 3571-C-1 situated in Brgy. Poblacion, Sta. Barbara,
Iloilo containing an area of Three Hundred Seventy-Two (372) square
meters and covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. T-229,040,
attached herewith as Annex “1”, the aforesaid of land was part of the
inheritance of his sister Diwata Magtanggol-Lumaban from their
deceased parents Matipuno and Maliksi Magtanggol. Maliksi
Magtanggol died first and following her death, Lot 3571-C was then
registered as inheritance under the names of her remaining heirs –
her surviving spouse Matipuno Magtanggol and her two surviving
children Tagumpay and Diwata Lot 3571-C was then registered in the
names of all three heirs under TCT No. T-132-753, attached herewith
as Annex “2”. The heirs then executed a subdivision agreement over
Lot 3571-C where said lot was subdivided into three (3) parts: to
Diwata Lot 3571-C-1 with an area of 372 sq. m was bestowed upon
and the same was registered under TCT No. T-132-754, attached
herewith as Annex “3”, to Tagumpay, Lot 3571-C-2 was given with an
area of 372 sq. m.; and to Matipuno, it was Lot 3571-C-3 with an area
of 371 sq. m. which was granted;

6. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 are specifically denied since the sale that

transpired between Diwata Magtanggol-Lumaban together with
Defendant Tagumpay Magtanggol and Payapa Lumaban was valid. In
2007, when Diwata Magtanggol-Lumaban became ill and
consequently admitted to the hospital for several times. Defendant
Tagumpay Magtanggol provided for her medical and other basic
needs such as her hospital bills, medications, and even paid for the
salaries of her personal caregiver. Since Diwata Magtanggol-Lumaban
had no other major financial resources and in order to support her
medical expenses and other basic needs, Diwata sold her part of the
inheritance to her brother Tagumpay which was the parcel of land
known as Lot No. 3571-C-1 and hence executed a Deed of
Adjudication and Sale in favor of Defendant Tagumpay. Such fact was
properly documented with the Municipal Assessor’s Office of Sta.
Barbara as evidenced by the Tax Declaration of Real Property,
attached herewith as Annex “4”, issued by the aforesaid office under
Property Index Number 041-42-001-18-037. After the sale of the
aforesaid Lot, Plaintiff Goh Lumaban, son of Diwata, and his wife
Fatima Lumaban, pleaded with Defendant Tagumpay Magtanggol to
allow them to stay in the latter’s property since they were already
staying prior to the purchase of the said aforesaid property in 2007,
not by virtue of any title or contract, but merely upon the tolerance of
the Defendant as Defendant was Plaintiff’s uncle;

7. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12 are also specifically denied. In 2009,

Maganda sought to have the Deed of Adjudication and Sale annulled
and TCT no. 229,040 cancelled. This case for nullification of sale and
cancellation of title was filed before Branch 31 of the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City and docketed as Civil Case No. 09-30308. In the
complaint of the said case, Diwata sought to have the Deed of Sale
 annulled due to the absence of the written consent and conformity of
her children including herein Plaintiff Goh Lumaban and herein
Defendant Makisig Lumaban. However, it is worthy of note that when
Diwata executed the Deed of Sale in favor of Defendant Tagumpay,
she was parting away with her exclusive paraphernal property and
not in the conjugal property with her husband Bathala Lumaban nor
the inheritance of her children. Lot No. 3571-C-1 was not the conjugal
property of Lydia and her husband Bathala Lumaban. Although TCT
No. T-132-754 mentioned the name of Bathala Lumaban, the same
was made in order to indicate the civil status of Lydia who was
married to Bathala at the time the title over the said parcel of land
was transferred to Diwata. The same title however made no
conferment of ownership to Bathala. Hence, to assume that the
consent of Bathala’s children was needed before the conveyance of
Lot No. 3571-C-1 was misplaced. Lydia, when she sold her own
paraphernal property, was parting away with her own exclusive
personal property and the consent of her children was not needed.
Furthermore, Defendant Tagumpay Magtanggol deny as well that no
undue influence or fraud was employed upon the person of Lydia
when the sale transpired since Lydia though sick was of sound mind
and still in intelligent control of her mental capacities. The Deed of
Sale was subscribed before a Notary Public and the same enjoyed the
presumption of regularity. In the end, the parties reach a settlement
and signed a compromise agreement duly approved by the Court and
the same was the basis for the Decision of Dismissal, attached
herewith as Annex “5”, that the court issued on February 2, 2012. The
same Decision reached finality as appearing in the Certificate of
Finality issued by the same Court on December 28, 2012, attached
herewith as Annex “6”;

8. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are likewise specifically denied.
Plaintiff argues that the earlier Decision of Branch 31 – Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City in Civil Case No. 09-30308 does not bind him as
he was not a signatory in the Compromise Agreement. In seeking
relief therefrom, Plaintiff instituted this instant independent action
with the same cause of action with the previous case. Plaintiff should
not have instituted this instant action and instead should have sought
to nullify the said Decision since Plaintiff is contesting the same;

9. At the same time, Plaintiff has no legal standing in instituting this

case since the rights he is claiming over the parcel of land emanates
from his supposed hereditary rights from his father Bathala’s alleged
conjugal rights over the property. It is clear from documentary
evidence herein that Lydia’s Lot No. 3571-C-1 of TCT No. T-132-754
came from Lot No. 3571-C of TCT No. T-132-753 which used to be
common inherited property of Diwata, Tagumpay and Matipuno
before the partition. Hence Plaintiff is standing on the rights which to
not exist in the first place. Moreover, Plaintiff could be held liable for
 forum shopping as he had instituted this same cause of action in the
aforesaid case before Branch 31;

10. Furthermore, this instant case of Plaintiff is in retaliation of the case

for Reivindicatoria with Damages filed by herein Defendant
Tagumpay Magtanggol through Payapa Lumaban, attached herewith
is the Special Power of Attorney, correspondingly marked as Annex
“7” and made as an integral part of this pleading, on August 19, 2014
and now pending before Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court,
Iloilo City docketed as Civil Case No. 14-32444. In view of the
settlement and dismissal of Civil Case No. 09-30308, sometime in
2013, Plaintiff asked Defendants to vacate the property since he
would need it already but the Defendants refused to do so.
Consequently, Plaintiff through then counsel Atty. Nadine Reid-
Lustre dated 8 March 2013 asking Defendant Spouses to vacate Lot
3571-C-1. However, despite numerous demands – both oral and
written, Plaintiff and his wife have remained in illegal possession of
the aforesaid land and up to the present, still retain such possession.
Plaintiff then received the summons for the said case on October 10,
2014 and three days later Plaintiff instituted this instant action;

AND BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIN

11. Due to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff with no sufficient bases, herein
Defendants both suffered mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social
humiliation. Defendants are suffering from pain – both physical and
otherwise – and though moral damages may be beyond pecuniary
estimation, these may well be assessed for each Defendant at an
amount left to the kind of discretion of this Court. Our New Civil Code
on Damages specifically provides the following legal bases for this
counterclaim of Defendants, to wit:

“Article 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental

anguish, freight, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury Xxx
(Emphasis supplied)”

12. Furthermore, as a consequence of the groundless suit of this

Complaint, Defendants were forces to engage the services of the
undersigned attorney for which Defendants agreed to pay the sum of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00), Philippine currency as
Attorney’s Fees and the amount of Two Thousand Pesos
(PhP2,000.00), Philippine currency, as Appearance Fee for each
hearing in court.

P R A Y E R
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered as follows:

1. DISMISSING THE CASE for failure to state cause/s of action and

violation of the certification against forum shopping;
2. ORDERING Plaintiff to pay herein Defendants the following, to
wit:
2.1 Attorney’s Fees since Defendants were compelled to hire the
services of the counsel for an agree sum of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00), Philippine currency as
Attorney’s Fees and the amount of Two Thousand Pesos
(PhP2,000.00), Philippine currency, as Appearance Fee
for each hearing in court;
2.2 Judicial costs and litigation expenses in the sum of Ten
Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00), Philippine Currency;
and
3. AWARDING Defendants moral and exemplary damages in the
amount left to the sound discretion of this Honorable
Court.

Defendants further pray for such other reliefs which are just and
equitable under the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Iloilo City, Philippines, April 23, 2015

GENESIS PRIMALION
Counsel for the Defendant Karla Bernardo
2nd Flr., Rm 9, Jamerlan Building
Iznart Street, Iloilo City Tel. No. 330-38-15
PTR No. 5294351/January 4, 2015/Iloilo City
IBP ID NO.1017323/January 4, 2006/Iloilo City
Attorney’s Roll No. 56433
MCLE CERTIFICATE of COMPLIANCE dated 1-20-
2015 under MCLE Compliance No. V-0005887

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF ILOILO ) S.S.
X----------------------------------------------X

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

We, TAGUMPAY MAGTANGGOL and MAKISIG LUMABAN, of legal

ages, Filipino and with residential addresses at Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat,
Cotabato, Philippines, after having sworn into in accordance with law, hereby, depose
and say:

1. We are Defendants in the above-captioned case;

2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;

3. We have read and understood the same and we affirm the truth of the
allegations thereof of our personal knowledge and these are based on authentic records
on hand.

IN WITNESS WHEREFOR, I have hereunto set my hand this April 24, 2016 at
Iloilo City, Philippines.

TAGUMPAY MAGTANGGOL MAKISIG LUMABAN

Affiant Affiant

NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE

BEFORE ME, this April 24, 2015 at Iloilo City, Philippines, personally appeared
KARLA BERNARDO, the principal to the foregoing instrument.
I certify that the principal having exhibited to me her identification card bearing
her signature, Philippine Passport No. GB3022435. The principal affixed her signature
on the foregoing document voluntarily.
I further certify that the principal has assigned the pertinent entry on my
Notarial Register.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the date and place first above written.

Genesis B. Primalion
Doc. No.: 124 NOTARY PUBLIC, CITY AND PROVINCE OF ILOILO
Page No.: 26 NOTARIAL COMMISSION REG NO 110
Book No.: XXVI ISSUED ON APRIL 21, 2015, ILOILO CITY
Series of 2016 FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2016
RM. 9, JAMERLAN BUILDING, IZNART ST. ILOILO CITY
PTR No. 5294351/January 4, 2016/Iloilo City
IBP ID NO.1017323/January 4, 2006/Iloilo City
Attorney’s Roll No. 56433

Copy Furnished

Atty. Dolly Venegas

Counsel For the Plaintiff