CLIENTS COPY

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 147
City of Makati

Juana Dela Cruz, et. al

Plaintiffs,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 15-123

For: Partition

Petra Dela Cruz, et. Al

Defendants.
x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

(to the Complaint dated 29 July 2015)
Defendant Petra dela Cruz (Pedro or Defendant for
brevity), by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states - THAT:
1.0 On 03 September 2015, Petra received a summons from
this Honorable Court requiring her to file an Answer within fifteen
(15) days after service or until 18 September 2015. However, due to
financial constraint, Defendant was not able to timely secure the
services of counsel to represent her in the instant case.
1.1 It was only on September 30, 2015, when the services of
the undersigned counsel was engaged. Forthwith, this
representation carefully evaluated the Complaint and all related
documents necessary to draft an intelligent Answer. However, it,
still, took him more than three (3) days to complete this Answer.
1.2 Thus, Petra, through a Motion to Admit Answer, to which
this pleading is attached, prays for the admission of this Answer in
the interest of substantial justice.

P a g e | 2 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

1.3

Hence, this Answer.

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

2.0 Petra admits the personality of Juan Dela Cruz and
Juana Dela Cruz to institute the instant case. On the other hand,
she denies the authority of Manuel to represent his mother, due to
the invalidity of the special power of attorney, for non-compliance
with the requirements of the 2004 Rule on Notarial Law.
2.1 Petra admits paragraph 2 with qualification. Her codefendant Peter may be served with summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court, through his address at 251 D.
Macapagal Street., Purok Magsaysay, City of San Pedro, Laguna
4023, in connection with the instant case.
2.2 She denies paragraphs 3. There exists no co-ownership
among the parties. While the alleged property was previously
owned by Adela (Adela for brevity), Petras grandmother and
mother of Peter and the Plaintiffs, all parties have already actually
occupied a definite portion and in accordance with the
instructions of Adela.
In fact, the property subject of the instant case was already
a subject of a Deed of Donation executed by Adela on 1 June
2010. Copy of which is hereto attached and made integral part
hereof as Annex 1.
Consequently, by virtue of said Deed of Donation, the said
property had long been transferred and registered in the name of
all the parties to this case as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 227750, registered in the Registry of Deeds of the City of
Makati. Copy of which is attached as Annex B of the Complaint
and herein adopted by reference as Annex 2.

P a g e | 3 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Particularly, out of the total area of One Hundred Eighty Six

(186) square meters, Eleonor has already occupied the Thirty
Seven (37) meters portion on which a three (3) storey building built
of strong materials now stands.
2.3 She admits paragraph 4 with qualification. The
residential building being referred to by the plaintiffs is physically
segregated from the portion on which Petras three storey building
stands. Additionally, each of the plaintiffs, including defendant
Peter, has already occupied a particularly area.
2.4 She denies paragraphs 5 to 7, the truth of the matter
being that the same property, by mutual agreement of the parties,
had already been partitioned and occupied by all of them as
early as 2013 as evidenced by an Agreement prepared by all the
parties dated 12 May 2013 together with a handwritten sketch
showing physical segregation of the property. Copy of which is
hereto attached and made integral part hereof as Annexes 3 and
3-A.
Unfortunately though, it is the Plaintiffs who do not want to
honor the said Agreement and now want to partition the said
property, share and share alike, and contrary to what were stated
in the Agreement and the Deed of Donation.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3.0 The foregoing allegations are hereby re-pleaded by

reference in the succeeding discussion of special and affirmative
defenses.

P a g e | 4 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

ONE - THE ACTION SHOULD BE

DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
CLAIM CONSIDERING THAT:

[a] The assessed value, which

is P 19,600.00, of the property
based on the Tax Declaration
attached to the Complaint
clearly shows that the subject
matter
falls
within
the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Trial Court and not with the
Regional Trial Court.

3.1 [I]n order to determine which court has jurisdiction over

the action, an examination of the complaint is essential. Basic as
a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of
a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in
the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an
action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint
of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled
to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The
averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in
the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
of the claims asserted therein.1

Padlan vs. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013; citing City of Dumaguete v. Philippine
Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 102, 119. Emphasis is Ours
1

P a g e | 5 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

3.2 A careful examination of the Complaint filed by the

Plaintiffs reveals that they are seeking for partition of the property
subject matter of the instant case. An action for partition is a real
action. Real actions are actions affecting title to, or possession of
real property, or interest therein.

In real actions, in order to determine which court has

jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is necessary to determine the
assessed value of the property in dispute.

Here, Plaintiffs did not allege in their Complaint the assessed

value of the property subject of the instant case. What was
alleged is the market value which is one hundred ninety six
thousand pesos (P 196,000.00). However, a closer look at the Tax
Declaration attached as Annex D shows that the property in
question has an assessed value of only nineteen thousand six
hundred pesos (P 19,600.00).

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,2 as

amended, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts (MeTC, MTC, and MCTC,
respectively, for brevity) which has exclusive jurisdiction over real
actions wherein the assessed value does not exceed Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P 20,000.00) or in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P
50,000.00).

Clearly, based on the foregoing, the instant case does not

fall within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the assessed
value being not more than fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) or
only Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P 19,600.00), which is
well within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MeTC. Consequently, [i]f
the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of an action, it may
dismiss the same ex mero motu or motu proprio. A decision of the
2

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 33[3]

P a g e | 6 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

court without jurisdiction is null and void; hence, it could never

logically become final and executory. Such a judgment may be
attacked directly or collaterally.3

TWO - PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR

PARTITION HAS NO BASIS IN FACT
AND IN LAW CONSIDERING THAT
CO-OWNERSHIP HAD ALREADY
BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY PRIOR
PARTITION MADE BY THE PARTIES.

4.0

The regime of co-ownership exists when the ownership

of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.4 By the

nature of co-ownership, a co-owner cannot point to any specific
portion of the property owned in common as his own because his
share in it remains intangible and ideal.5

Every act intended to put an end to indivision among coheirs is deemed to be a partition.6

Here, while the property is still embraced in one certificate of

title,7 the particular portions pertaining to plaintiffs and defendants
had been ascertained and they in fact already took possession of
their respective parts. To stress, aside from a separate three (3)
storey building which Petra had constructed on a thirty seven (37)
square meters portion which was donated to her by Adela,
Plaintiffs and defendant Peter have, among themselves, physically
Citing Laresma vs. Abellana, G.R. No. 140973, November 11, 2004
Avila et. Al. vs. Sps. Barabat, G.R. 141993, March 17, 2006 citing Vda. De Ape vs. CA, G.R.
133638, 15 April 2005
5 Id., citing Salatandol v. Retes, G.R. No. L-38120, 27 June 1988, 162 SCRA 568
6Article 1082, CIVIL CODE
7 T.C.T. No. 227750 registered in the Registry of Deeds of Makati and attached as Annex B
in the Complaint
3
4

P a g e | 7 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

occupied a definite portion of the residential building which also

stands on the disputed property. It is evidenced by parties
agreement8 executed on May 12, 2013, as further amplified by a
sketch attached to the same agreement.

4.1 To stress, [t]here is no co-ownership when the different

portions owned by different people are already concretely
determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically
described.9

COUNTERCLAIM

RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS FEES AND

LITIGATION COSTS.

Because of the indiscriminate and malicious filing of this

unfounded suit, the Defendant was constrained to engage the
services of counsel to protect his title to and/or interest on the
property for an agreed attorneys fees of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PHP 50,000.00), including litigation expenses.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendant most

respectfully prays of this Honorable Court, after due hearing, to
grant the following reliefs and issue an order:

1.

Dismissing the instant Complaint;

Annexes 3 and 3-A

Sps. Si vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122047, October 12, 2000; citing De la Cruz vs. Cruz, 32
SCRA 307, 311 (1970)
8
9

P a g e | 8 of 8 pages
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

2.

Requiring Plaintiffs to pay defendant

Petra an amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PHP 50,000.00) as Attorneys fees and
litigation costs and;

Such other just and equitable reliefs or remedies under the

premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Sta. Rosa, Laguna for Makati City, 05 October 2015
[Attorneys Box]