Republic of the Philippines
Fifth Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
San Andres, Catanduanes
MA. BELLY LUCERO BONGON, CIVIL CASE NO. 217
Plaintiff,
- for -
- versus -
UNLAWFUL DETAINER and
DAMAGES
AIREEN BONGON and LARRY BONGON
Defendant.
x----------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS
COMES NOW the defendant, thru undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,
and in answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, most respectfully states that:
1. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint.
2. Defendants specifically deny the allegations in paragraphs 4 through 8 of the
Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof.
3. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint asserting that
negotiations regarding the purchase of the property were ongoing and that they were not
given sufficient time to comply with the plaintiff's demands.
4. The defendants refute the allegations set forth in paragraph 10. The defendants
maintain that they have lawful rights to be on the land. They have not violated or even
encroached upon the plaintiff’s rights.
5. Defendants deny the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint
alleging that the plaintiff suffered actual damages, expenses of litigation and attorney’s fees
amounting to P20,000, the truth in the matter is that no actual damages can be incurred
because the defendants were lawful owners of the contested land in the first place.
6. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. Defendants
assert that they have acted in good faith throughout the proceedings and have not made any
false promises to the plaintiff.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant repleads the foregoing allegations, and by way of Special and Affirmative
Defenses further alleges that:
7. Defendants assert that they have a right to possess the subject property based on
their continuous and peaceful possession of the property for more than 60 years under
Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration Decree. The Supreme
Court held in Spouses Anita and Honorio Aguirre vs. Heirs of Lucas Villanueva (2006), G.R.
No. 169898, that:
“Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights
through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that
the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and
adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive
prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good
faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character which
requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years.”
8. Any rights or claims the plaintiff may have had regarding the property were
waived by their actions or inactions, particularly in the context of the ongoing negotiations
for the purchase of the property. The Supreme Court held in Philippine Banking Corporation
v. Court of Appeals (2004), G.R. No. 127469, that:
“By entering into the compromise agreement, the respondents had voluntarily relinquished
any further claims they may have had.”
9. The plaintiff is estopped from asserting certain claims due to their own
actions or representations, including any alleged promises or agreements made
during negotiations.
NEGATIVE DEFENSES
10. The defendants assert that their possession of the property was not
unlawful or illegal, as they believed that they had legitimate rights to reside
based on their family’s history with the property.
11. The defendants deny causing any damages to the plaintiff and argue
that any damages claimed are not attributed to their actions or omissions.
2
12. The defendants maintain that they acted in good faith throughout the
proceedings.
13. The defendants deny making any false promises to the plaintiff and
argue that any representations made during negotiations were made in good
faith and with the intention of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.
COUNTERCLAIM
14. Defendants, by way of counterclaim, seek damages for the plaintiff's
baseless and malicious filing of this action.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of defendants, AIREEN
BONGON and LARRY BONGON, dismissing the Complaint filed by the
plaintiff, MA. BELLY LUCERO BONGON, and awarding defendants such
other and further relief as may be just and equitable under the premises.
CELINA MARIE YAP
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll of Attorneys No. 12346
IBP Lifetime Member No. 012345;
Catanduanes Chapter
VERIFICATION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ]
San Andres, Catanduanes ]
I, AIREEN BONGON and LARRY BONGON, are of legal age, Filipino, and residents
of Barangay Cabcab, San Andres, Catanduanes, after having been sworn to in accordance
with law, hereby depose and say that:
1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of this Answer;
3. I have read and understood the contents therein;
3
4. All the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of my own
personal knowledge and belief.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25 th day of May 2015 at
Masbate City, Masbate, Philippines.
AIREEN BONGON and LARRY BONGON
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 th day of February, 2014 at San
Andreas Catanduanes Philippines, affiant having exhibited to me her Social Security System
I.D. No. 05-0819800-3.
Doc. No. : _______;
Page No. : _______;
Book No. : _______;
Series of 2015.
Copy furnished:
Counsels for the Plaintiffs:
Atty. ARIS RAMONES MONTILLA
Public Attorney II
Public Attorney’s Office
Masbate City District Office
Susana Bldg., City Hall Compound
San Andreas Catanduanes
Atty. HANNIBAL A. BARRUGA, Jr.
District Public Attorney
Public Attorney’s Office
Masbate City District Office
Susana Bldg., City Hall Compound
San Andreas Catanduanes
