This document contains an answer filed by defendant Aurelio Salunat in response to a civil case filed against him by Johnny C. Gaerlan et al regarding ownership of a piece of land. Salunat denies most of the plaintiffs' claims. He asserts that his father Pablo Salunat had possessed the land since 1940 and upon his death, ownership passed to his successors including Aurelio. Aurelio also files a counterclaim seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees from the plaintiffs for the malicious case. The document provides Salunat's defenses and requests that the complaint be dismissed and his counterclaim be granted.
This document contains an answer filed by defendant Aurelio Salunat in response to a civil case filed against him by Johnny C. Gaerlan et al regarding ownership of a piece of land. Salunat denies most of the plaintiffs' claims. He asserts that his father Pablo Salunat had possessed the land since 1940 and upon his death, ownership passed to his successors including Aurelio. Aurelio also files a counterclaim seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees from the plaintiffs for the malicious case. The document provides Salunat's defenses and requests that the complaint be dismissed and his counterclaim be granted.
This document contains an answer filed by defendant Aurelio Salunat in response to a civil case filed against him by Johnny C. Gaerlan et al regarding ownership of a piece of land. Salunat denies most of the plaintiffs' claims. He asserts that his father Pablo Salunat had possessed the land since 1940 and upon his death, ownership passed to his successors including Aurelio. Aurelio also files a counterclaim seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees from the plaintiffs for the malicious case. The document provides Salunat's defenses and requests that the complaint be dismissed and his counterclaim be granted.
This document contains an answer filed by defendant Aurelio Salunat in response to a civil case filed against him by Johnny C. Gaerlan et al regarding ownership of a piece of land. Salunat denies most of the plaintiffs' claims. He asserts that his father Pablo Salunat had possessed the land since 1940 and upon his death, ownership passed to his successors including Aurelio. Aurelio also files a counterclaim seeking moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney fees from the plaintiffs for the malicious case. The document provides Salunat's defenses and requests that the complaint be dismissed and his counterclaim be granted.
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully allege that:
1. The allegations in paragraph 1 are admitted;
2. As to paragraphs 2 and 3, the same are admitted that Eligio
Gaerlan declared the land for taxation purposes and is the registered owner but only insofar as the title and the tax declaration show;
3. Paragraph 4 is denied, the truth of the matter being those in the
special and affirmative defenses;
4. Paragraph 5 is vehemently denied as there was no demand to
surrender possession, oral or written received by the defendant nor his relatives from any of the plaintiffs;
5. Paragraph 6 is partly admitted that indeed he has long been in
possession and occupation of the subject land after the death of his father, Pablo Salunat, but only until the year 2000 since from said date, it is now his brother, Rogelio S. Salunat who has been occupying and in possession of the subject land. As to the claim that defendant Aurelio designated Moises Abella to personally cultivate the land, the same is denied as he never appointed him nor anyone as such and that from the year 2000 up to the present, it is his brother who has direct control and supervision over the said land;
6. Paragraph 7 is likewise denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to
from a belief as to its truth;
7. The averments in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 are denied for lack of
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments made thereto;
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
8. The plaintiffs have no cause of action and are not entitled to any relief because of the following narration of facts:
9. The public road right of way had been in existence in as early as
1952 as in fact, Pablo had no means and was not the proper person to cause its construction he being then an ordinary citizen. If indeed it was Pablo, then plaintiff nor his father could have questioned and filed this case long before when Pablo was still alive to afford him of his right to defend himself;
10. Since the early year of 1940, Pablo Salunat has been in open, continuous, and peaceful possession of the subject land. Such possession is in the concept of an owner;
11.That upon his death, his succesors-in-interest, including
defendant Aurelio Salunat became the lawful owners thereof;
12.As defendant at that time was a farmer and an ordinary school
teacher while his other siblings were already successful in their chosen careers, they all made an agreement to just waive their right over the subject land in favor of defendant Aurelio, thus defendant Aurelio Salunat occupied and possessed the same in the early years of 1980s;
13. Defendant Aurelio Salunat’s possession over said land including
the years of possession by his father were never disturbed by anyone, not even the plaintiffs herein;
14. That in fact, it was admitted by plaintiffs that defendant Aurelio
has long been in possession of the subject lot, his possession thereto is in the concept of an owner and if ever plaintiffs’ father was able to secure title in his name over the subject land, that was made in violation of the rights of Pablo Salunat and his children who succeded them in the property;
15.Plaintiffs have no cause of action as against defendant. While it
is admitted that defendant Aurelio Salunat possessed and cultivated the subject land, it was only since the year 1980’s up to year 2000 as from said date (2000), it is his brother, Rogelio Salunat who is now cultivating and possessing said land up to the present while Moises Abella never set foot on the subject land nor was ever designated to cultivate it even for a short period of time;
16. That, granting, but without admitting, that plaintiffs’ assertions
were true, the long period of years had already lapsed since the cause of action accrued, thereby rendering the same unenforceable due to prescription and/or laches;
BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM
17. The present action was filed maliciously and totally without basis, for on the contrary, plaintiffs are the ones who violated the rights of the defendant which led him suffer serious anxiety and besmirched reputation, and for which reason, plaintiffs are liable for moral damages in the amount of no less than P50,000.00;
18.As example to others who are maliciously inclined as the
plaintiffs, the plaintiffs should also be condemned to pay exemplary damages in the amount of no less than P25, 000.00;
19.Defendant was forced to engage the services of counsel for the
sum of P20, 000.00 by way of attorney’s fees, and likely to spend on miscellaneous matters, all of which should be reimbursed by the plaintiffs.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
the complaint be DISMISSED for lack of cause of action and the prayer for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction be denied.
As regards the defendant’ counterclaim, it is respectfully prayed
that: 1. Plaintiffs be ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of no less than P50,000.00; exemplary damages of no less than P25,000.00; attorney’s fees in the amount of P20,000.00 and such other amount as proved by the defendants by way of miscellaneous expenses; and
2. Plaintiffs be ordered to pay the costs of suit.
Defendant further prays for such other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises.
Bayombong for Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, November 15, 2013.
VOLTAIRE B. GARCIA Counsel for Defendant Attorney’s Roll No. 51166 IBP No. 928046. 02/06/13 PTR No. 0073391. 04/08/13 MCLE IV Complied (03/22-25/2013) 2nd Flr., Esmedina Bldg.Nat’l Rd., Cor. San Jose St., District IV Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Nueva Vizcaya) Municipality of Bayombong)
VERIFICATION
I, AURELIO SALUNAT, under oath hereby declare and state that:
1. I am the defendant in the above-mentioned Civil Case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer and that
we have read and understood the allegations contained therein; and
3. The allegations in the answer are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and based on authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of November 2013 at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
AURELIO SALUNAT Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
