REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 109, CARMONA, CAVITE
2 Floor Hall of Justice Bldg., Brgy. Maduya, Carmona, Cavite
nd

rtc2cac109@judiciary.gov.ph (046)4828527

DAIICHI PROPERTIES INC.

Plaintiff,

-versus- SC-C-GMA-2023-03
For: Declaration of Co-Ownership,
Judicial Partition, Reconveyance
and Damages with Prayer for the
Issuance of Temporary Restraining
Order and a Preliminary Writ of
Injunction

HEIRS OF SPOUSES ILDEFONSO

MANABAT AND VICTORINA
TOLENTIO-MANABAT, NAMELY
SOLEDAD MANABAT-NICDAO,
FELICIANA T. MANABAT-BANWAR,
ISIDRO T. MANABAT, CONCEPCION
T. MANABAT-SAYLON, HEIRS OF
ROGELIO T. MANABAT, HEIRS OF
CONSUELO T. MANABAT-ANCERO,
HEIRS OF FLAVIANA T. MANABAT-AMBITA,
HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO T. MANABAT,
HEIRS OF BRAULIA T. MANABAT,
HEIRS OF APOLONIO T. MANABAT,
HEIRS OF ZENAIDA T. MANABAT-NOLA,
AND THE REGISTRY OF DEED FOR THE
PROVINCE OF CAVITE
Defendants,
x--------------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED ANSWER
Page7

WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

most respectfully aver that:
TIMELINESS

1
1. Defendants received Summons together with Complaint and its annexes
on June 27, 2023. The Summons requires all the Defendants to submit
their Answer to the Complaint within a period of thirty (30) days.
However, Defendants through counsel filed a motion for extension of
time of thirty (30) days within which to submit answer or until August
26, 2023. Since August 26, 2023, falls on Saturday and Monday is a
declared national holiday, the filing of this answer today, August 29,
2023 is timely filed;

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

2. The heirs of the late Spouses ILDEFONSO MANABAT and

VICTORINA TOLENTINO MANABAT, the registered owners of the
subject properties entered a Contract of sale of Untitled Real Estate with
DAIICHI Properties, Inc., sometime in 1996;

3. Under the Contract of Sale of Untitled Real Estate, the defendant heirs
received the amount of TEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY-
FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY PESOS
(Php10,885,680.00) corresponding to forty (40) percent of the total
purchase price;

4. According to the Contract, the 60% balance amounting to sixteen million

three hundred twenty-eight five hundred twenty pesos
(Php16,328,520.00), shall be paid after title is issued over the subject
properties. Under the contract, the judicial titling of the subject property
shall be done by the SELLERS, the herein defendants;

5. However, on 31 July 1996, Plaintiff was informed of the two (2) heirs of
the late Spouses Manabat, namely, Defendants Soledad and Feliciana,
Page7

and returned the amount of Php 1,979,214.54, through Atty. Jose Estrella,
representing two-elevenths (2/11) of the 40% down payment earlier
advanced by the Plaintiff because they never consented to the sale in
favor of the Plaintiff and to the execution of the Contract;

2
 6. Thus, in December 2008, a document dominated as Amendment to
Contract of Sale of Untitled Real Estate (Amended Contract) was
executed which excluded the two heirs who returned their money;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

PLAINTIFF HAS NO CAUSE OF

ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
WARRANTING DISMISSAL OF THE
INSTANT COMPLAINT

7. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the herein defendants. The
relief prayed for in the complaint of the complainant such as (a)
declaration of the existence of co-ownership between the Plaintiff and
Defendants over the subject properties to the extent of 9/11 of the total
properties, (b) partition of the subject properties in accordance with the
terms of the Contract, and Amended contract previously entered into by
the parties, (c) cancel Original Certificate of Title Nos. 2020000025,
2020000026, 2020000027, which was issued to Soledad, and to issue
new titles in the name of the Plaintiff, (d) to pay Defendant heirs
Php1,000,000.00 for Attorney’s fees, and Php1,000,000.00 for damages,
has no basis in fact and in law;

8. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right

of another. The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the
existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal
duty of the defendant to respect such right; and (c) an act or omission by
such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting
injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an
action for the recovery of relief from the defendant. Although the first
two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence
of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in
Page7

court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief;

9. In Philippine American General Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Sweet Lines, Inc.,
(212 SCRA 194) the Supreme Court declared that:

Now, before an action can properly be commenced all the

essential elements of the cause of action must be in existence, that is,
the cause of action must be complete. All valid conditions precedent
to the institution of the particular action, whether prescribed by

3
 statute, fixed by agreement of the parties or implied by law must be
performed or complied with before commencing the action, unless the
conduct of the adverse party has been such as to prevent or waive
performance or excuse non-performance of the condition.

It bears restating that a right of action is the right to presently

enforce a cause of action, while a cause of action consists of the
operative facts which give rise to such right of action. The right of
action does not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent
to the action and may be taken away by the running of the statute of
limitations, through estoppel, or by other circumstances which do not
affect the cause of action. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions
precedent upon which a right of action depends must be sufficiently
alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a
right of action is upon the person initiating the suit;

10.Here, the Plaintiff fails to send demand letters to the defendants for the
enforcement of their last contract in 2008, Amended Contract, within ten
10 years from 2008;

11.Their only demand letters attached in their complaint allegedly sent to

the defendants was made only in 2023 before the filing of this instant
case;

PLAINTIFF IS NOT CO-OWNERS

OF HEREIN DEFENDANTS AND
JUDICIAL PARTITION IS NOT
PROPER BECAUSE THE PARTIES
ARE NOT CO-OWNERS OF UNDI-
VIDED REAL PROPERTY WHICH THUS
WARRANTS THE DISMISSAL OF THE
INSTANT COMPLAINT

12.That Plaintiff has no basis in claiming co-ownership over the subject

property formerly registered to the late SPOUSES ILDEFONSO
MANABAT and VICTORINA TOLENTINO MANABAT and now
Page7

registered under the name of SOLEDAD T. MANABAT-NICDAO;

13.Under Article 484 of the Civil Code, it states that:

Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an

undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.

4
14.Since then, there is no DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE executed between
the parties in the subject properties. The initial payment of the Plaintiff to
the Defendants corresponding to forty percent of the total consideration
does not gives rise to the state of co-ownership with the Defendants due
to resolutory condition imposed to the Defendants under their contract;

15.A co-owner has an absolute ownership of his undivided and pro indiviso
share in the co-owned property. He has the right to alienate, assign and
mortgage it, even to the extent of substituting a third person in its
enjoyment provided that no personal rights will be affected. This is
evident from the provision of the Civil Code: Art. 493. Each co-owner
shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it,
and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
personal rights are involved;

16. The said contract executed by the parties in 1996 and 2008 is pre-
dominated as a Contract of Sale, but the contract itself is only a Contract
to Sell because the purchase price shall be paid in installment, and the
Sellers will execute the REQUIRED Deed of Absolute Sale upon full
payment of the purchase price which up to now remains unpaid;

17. The Supreme Court states in many cases that “This stipulation, i.e., to
execute a deed of absolute sale upon full payment of the purchase price,
is a unique and distinguishing characteristic of a contract to sell”;

18.In Reyes v. Tuparan, G.R. No. 188064, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 283,
299, the Supreme Court ruled that a stipulation in the contract, "where
the vendor promises to execute a deed of absolute sale upon the
completion by the vendee of the payment of the price," indicates that
the parties entered into a contract to sell. According to the Supreme
Court, this particular provision is tantamount to a reservation of
ownership on the part of the vendor. Explicitly stated, the Supreme Court
ruled that the agreement to execute a deed of sale upon full payment of
the purchase price shows “that the vendors reserved title to the subject
Page7

property until full payment of the purchase price”;

19.On the other hand, in an action for partition, the court cannot properly
issue an order to divide the property, unless it first makes a determination
as to the existence of co-ownership. (Divina-Gracia v. Parilla, 753
SCRA 87 [2015]);

5
 20.Clearly, the Plaintiff cannot claim for Partition of the subject properties
as he has no right to compel the partition and they are not co-owners
thereof;

THE INSTANT COMPLAINT/ACTION

BASED ON THE CONTRACT EXECUTED
IN 1996 AND 2008 IS BARRED BY
PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES WHICH
WARRANTS THE DISMISSAL
OF THE INSTANT COMPLAINT

21.The Plaintiff filed this instant complaint based on their written contracts
executed in 1996 and 2008, only in 2023 or barely after fifteen (15) years
since 2008;

22. Since year 2008, after the execution of the amended contract, the
Plaintiff never send demand letters nor talks to the defendant heirs with
respect to the enforcement of their contracts;

23.Under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, action based upon written
contract must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of
action accrues;

24.Please take note, the Plaintiff filed this instant case only after fifteen (15)
years since 2008. And no notice or any action has been made to the
Defendants by the Plaintiff to enforce their right. Hence, their right to file
action based on written contract beyond ten years is barred by
prescription because they failed to assert their right within reasonable
time. Article 1144 of the New Civil Code is clear;

25.There is laches when a party was negligent or has failed "to assert a right
within a reasonable time," thus giving rise to the presumption that he or
she has abandoned it. Laches has set in when it is already inequitable or
unfair to allow the party to assert the right. Aboitiz vs. Po, 825 SCRA
Page7

460.

26.The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or
one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the
complaint and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in
asserting the complainant's rights, having had knowledge or notice of the

6
 defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute
a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that
the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4)
injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held barred. Villegas vs. Court of Appeals,
351 SCRA 70;

RECONVEYANCE IS NOT
THE PROPER REMEDY

27.Reconveyance is not also applicable in this case as the Plaintiff never

become the owner of the subject property they claim;

28.An action for reconveyance is a recognized remedy, an action in

personam, available to a person whose property has been wrongfully
registered under the Torrens system in another's name. In an action for
reconveyance, the decree is not sought to be set aside. It does not seek to
set aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer
open to review, seeks to transfer, or reconvey the land from the registered
owner to the rightful owner;

29.A complaint for reconveyance is an action which admits the registration

of title of another party but claims that such registration was erroneous or
wrongful. It seeks the transfer of the title to the rightful and legal owner,
or to the party who has a superior right over it, without prejudice to
innocent purchasers in good faith. It seeks the transfer of a title issued in
a valid proceeding. The relief prayed for may be granted on the basis of
intrinsic fraud - fraud committed on the true owner instead of fraud
committed on the procedure amounting to lack of jurisdiction. An action
for annulment of title questions the validity of the title because of lack of
due process of law. There is an allegation of nullity in the procedure and
thus the invalidity of the title that is issued. -Aboitiz vs. Po, 825 SCRA
457-458.
Page7

THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE

OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY WRIT
OF INJUNCTION SHOULD BE
DENIED BECAUSE THERE IS NO
URGENT NECESSITY FOR THE
WRIT

7
30.Also, the claim of the Plaintiff for issuance of Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary writ of Injunction is likewise BASELESS. There
is no necessity for the issuance of the same as there are no threat or
irreparable harm or grave injustice and irreparable injury that may occur;

31.An injunctive writ is granted only to applicants with "actual and existing
substantial rights" (Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320, 342 (2011)
[Per J. Bersamin, First Division] citing 43 CJS Injunctions 18) or rights
in esse. Further, the applicant must show "that the invasion of the right is
material and substantial and that there is an urgent and paramount
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage(Medina v. City Sheriff,
Manila, 342 Phil. 90, 96 (1997) [Per J. Romero, Second Division] citing
Syndicated Media Access Corporation v. CA, 292 Phil. 61 (1993) [Per J.
Bellosillo, First Division].56 Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320,
34~ (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division] citing 43 CJS Injunctions
18)." Thus, the writ will not issue to applicants whose rights are merely
contingent or to compel or restrain acts that do not give rise to a cause of
action;

32.Under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a preliminary injunction "is an

order granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a person
to refrain from a particular act or acts" or an order "requiring the
performance of a particular act or acts. It is an ancillary relief granted by
the court where the main action or proceeding is pending;

In order to be granted the writ, it must be established:

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the
whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or
in requiring perforn1ance of an act or acts, either for a limited
period or perpetually;

(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the

act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably
work injustice to the applicant; or
Page7

(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or

is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done,
some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding,
and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

8
 33.Clearly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to be given Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction as he has no right to be protected in this
case;

34.Finally, considering that the claim for DECLARATION OF CO-

OWNERSHIP, JUDICIAL PARTITION, RECONVEYANCE, issuance
of TRO and Preliminary Injunction, has no basis in fact and in law, the
Plaintiff is not entitled for any DAMAGES they claimed for being
baseless. In fact, it is the defendants who must claim for DAMAGES as
they suffered mental anguish, sleepless night, anxiety and social
humiliation for this UNFOUNDED CASE;

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED

The Defendants will present the following documentary evidence to support their claims:

EXHIBI DESCRIPTION PURPOSE

TS

“1” Contract of Sale of To prove that Defendants and Plaintiff

Untitled real estate entered into a contract of sale in 1996.

“2” Amendment to Contract To prove that the Contract executed in

of Sale of Untitled real 1996 has been amended.
estate

“3” Judicial Affidavit of To prove as his direct testimony.

Page7

rolando amita

“4” OCT No. 2020000025 To prove that original Certificates of

Titles is registered to Soledad Manabat-
OCT No. 2020000026
Nicdao and not registered to DAIICH

9
 OCT No. 2020000027 Properties, Inc.

“5” Tax Declaration Nos. To prove that the Tax Declaration is

registered to spouses Manabat and not to
In series 00366 and 00352
DAIICHI Properties, Inc.

The Defendants reserve the right to present other documentary evidence

during trial.

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

1. Rolando M. Amita

Purpose: He will testify to prove that he is one of the heirs of spouses

Manabat and he is one of the signatories in the said contract of sale of
untitled real estate and its amendment. He will prove also that the heirs have
received only forty percent of the total consideration in the said sale.
Likewise, he will prove that DAIICI is not co-owners of the heirs in the
subject properties left by their grandparents.

Defendants reserve the right to present other witnesses during trial.

Page7

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants most respectfully

prayed that this Honorable Court render judgement:

10
 1. To DISMISS the instant case for LACK OF CAUSE OF
ACTION;

Other reliefs and remedies that are just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed and sought for.

Silang, Cavite for Carmona, Cavite, August 29, 2023.

AMBON LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendants
128 Karsadahan Kanluran, Brgy. Kaong, Silang, Cavite 4118

BY:

ATTY. ZALDY M. AMBON

ROLL No.: 68528
PTR No.: 5745937, TMC, 01/10/2023
IBP LFM No.: 016450, 05/29/17, Pasig City
MCLE COMP. No. VII – 0018191, Valid until April 14, 2025
Email: zaldyambon20@gmail.com

Copy furnished:

MANALO VALENTON Law Offices

Counsel for the Plaintiff DAIICHI PROPERTIES INC.
7/f The Infinity Tower, Units 706 and 708
26th Street, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig
Page7

11