Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION

Quezon City

Branch 11

MATA LINO AND MO LINO,

Plaintiffs,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 2565

For: RECONVEYANCE DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF EXTRA - JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT
OF ESTATE, SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AND DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND
DAMAGES

MARCE LINO, JR. AND AGRI

KORPORASYON,
Defendants.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
Defendant RPRP Ventures Management and Development Corporation,
through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submits
its Answer in the above-entitled case which is as follows:
 I. ADMISSIONS
The following allegations in the Complaint are admitted:

1.1 Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 1 and 2 insofar as the legal standing of the
parties in the above-captioned case is concerned subject to the qualification that Defendant RPRP
Ventures Management and Development Corporations (RPRP, for brevity) new address is Quezon City
but for purposes of service of summons, notices, orders and other legal processes of this Honorable
Office, service may be through counsel on record, Zulueta, Puno and Ferrer Law Offices, with address at
Unit 6/F, Vernida 1 Condominium, 120 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village, Makati City.

1.2 Paragraph 9 is hereby admitted but only insofar as to the sale of the property covered by TCT
No. T-1139201.

II. SPECIFIC DENIALS

2.1 Paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are denied for lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth and veracity of such;
2.2 Paragraph 9 as to the allegation that there is the need to reconvey the title to
the property is hereby denied for being utterly baseless.
2.3 Paragraph 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are denied for lack of knowledge and
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth and veracity of such;

III. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant RPRP hereby reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference
all the foregoing averments insofar as they are material;
3.1 Sometime in early 2007, Defendant Macario Asistio (Macario for brevity) approached the officers
of Defendant RPRP and offered to sell the subject property;

3.2 RPRP took interest in the property, seeing that the purchase of the property is a good investment for
the corporation;

3.3 Macario presented to RPRP the original copy of the title to the Property. RPRP found that the said
title was clean and was not subject to any lien and/or encumbrance.

3.4 In June 2007, RPRP purchased the property for the amount of Forty Five Million Pesos (P45, 000,
000.00). The purchase was evidenced by a Deed of Sale designed by both parties.
3.5 The sale was made in good faith and that Macario was duly paid by RPRP.

3.6 After the sale, the title to the property was immediately transferred to RPRP under Transfer
Certificate of Title no. T- 139201.

3.7 Prior to the sale, and until a demand was made, RPRP had no knowledge of any controversy
between Macario and herein Plaintiffs, his sisters.

3.8 In fact, upon receipt of the demand letter form Plaintiffs Counsel, which is attached as Annex G of
the Amended Complaint , RPRPs Counsel sent a reply letter, dated 02 June 2009, assuring Plaintiffs that
it is not privy to any fraud being claimed, asked how the fraud was committed. RPRP even went to the
extent of offering reconveyance of the property provided that it will be reimbursed of its expenses.

3.9 Instead of proving their allegations, Plaintiffs simply filed the instant case.

3.10 A perusal of the Amended Complaint will show that Plaintiffs never alleged any cause of action
against the RPRP. The allegation they made against RPRP is that it is the current owner due to the sale
agreement it entered with Macario.

3.11 It needs to be stressed that RPRP, for value , bought a clean title from Macario, and since the
allegations in the Complaint has no mention that at the time of the sale, RPRP was aware or given notice
that the title of Macario, Jr. is defective, or that Plaintiffs are claiming for the said property, RPRP cannot
be faulted for such sale.

3.12 RPRP should be considered as an innocent purchaser for value not only because there is no
evidence that the property was acquired fraudulently, but more importantly, Plaintiff never alleged the
same.

3.13 It is RPRPs stand that if there is any problem between the Macario and his sisters, the issues should
be threshed out among themselves. If without admitting, Macario indeed committed fraud , then the
Plaintiffs should recover their share of the sale from Macario.

3.14 Based on the foregoing , the Complaint against RPRP should be dismissed for lack of merit.

COUNTER-CLAIM
Defendant RPRP reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing averments
insofar as they are material.

4.1 In order to protect and defend itself against the unwarranted and baseless complaint filed by
Complainant, Respondent had to retain the services of a legal counsel for whose legal services, the
Respondents has agreed to pay attorneys fees in the following amounts:

Retainer fee ------------- P11, 500.00 per month for the duration of the case

Appearance fee-------- P5,000.00 per appearance of counsel before any court , tribunal
or agency, or meeting with clients, witnesses, or others in relation to this case.

All of these must be paid by Plaintiffs.

 PRAYER

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that, after hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of Defendant
RPRP and against Plaintiffs:

(a) Dismissing the instant complaint for lack of cause of action and/or lack of merit;
(b) Payment of the sum of P11, 500.00 per month as retainer fee and P5,000.00 per appearance
as attorneys fees
(c) Other reliefs that are just and equitable are also prayed for.

Makati City for Ligao City, 18 February 2011.

ZULUETA , PUNO and FERRER LAW OFFICES

6th Floor, Vernida 1 Condominium
120 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City
Tel. Nos.: (2) 8128849; (2) 8929994

By:

JOSE POCHOLO R. DEL ROSARIO

Roll Number 51880
IBP No. 770563, 08 January 2009, PPLM
PTR No. 1570455, 09 January 2009, Makati City
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. II-0005559

Copy furnished:

ATTY. WILIAM B. BALAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff
913 Riosa St.,
Tabaco, Albay
4511

ATTY. PETER S. VEGA II

Counsel for Defendant Asistio
Colon St., Bagumbayan,
Ligao City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Rafael P. Puno, of legal age, with address at