Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

9th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch _____
Zamboanga City

SPOUSES JUAN R. DELA CRUZ CIVIL CASE No. 41520

and MARIA C. DELA CRUZ,
Plaintiffs,

-versus- -for-

ENRIQUE R. DELA CRUZ, RECONVEYANCE OF

Defendant, REAL PROPERTY WITH
DAMAGES
X—-----------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND

COUNTERCLAIM
(DEFENDANT ENRIQUE DELA CRUZ)

COMES NOW, defendant ENRIQUE DELA CRUZ, through the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states
that:

I. PARTIES

1. Defendant, ENRIQUE DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino in

citizenship, and a resident of Block 2, Lot 10 Sto. Niño Village, Putik,
Zamboanga City, Philippines. He may be served with summons and
other court processes in the same address, or through the undersigned
counsel’s address at INFANTE AND PARTNERS LAW OFFICES,
located at 23 La Purisima Street, Zamboanga City, Philippines.

2. Spouses JUAN R. DELA CRUZ and MARIA C. DELA CRUZ

(Spouses Dela Cruz for brevity), are both of legal age, Filipinos in
citizenship, and residents of Sunriser Lane 1, Talon-Talon Loop,
Tugbungan, Zamboanga City, Philippines.

II. TIMELINESS

3. Defendant respectfully manifests that he received Summons issued by

this Honorable Court directing him to file his Answer to the
Complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Thus, this
Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim is being filed
within the reglementary period and in full compliance with the Rules
of Court.

Page 1 of 13
 III. SPECIFIC ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

4. Paragraph 1- Defendant specifically admits the personal

circumstances of the plaintiff spouses and their address. Furthermore,

5. Paragraph 2- Defendant admits paragraph 2 of the complaint;

6. Paragraph 3- Defendant admits his personal circumstances in the

complaint. Furthermore, defendant wishes to clarify his current
permanent postal address to be at La Quinta, California, United States
of America;

7. Paragraph 4- Defendant admits the allegation as to the identity of the

registered owner of that parcel of land covered and embraced under
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129-2017003211 of the Complaint
and further admits the truthfulness of the technical description of the
aforementioned property;

8. Paragraph 5- Defendant specifically denies the allegations made in

this paragraph of the Complaint for being completely unaware of the
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of BDO UNIBANK, INC.,
dated March 15, 2015 and was entered under the Notarial Register of
Atty. Ellena C. Sebastian, Doc No. 40, Page No. 82, Book No. VII,
Series of 2015.

9. Paragraph 6- Defendant specifically denies the execution of the

Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage dated April 15,
2020 for complete lack of knowledge of the execution of such
document entered under the Notarial Register of Atty. Atty. Ellena C.
Sebastian, Doc No. 120, Page No. 40, Book No. XII, Series of 2020.

10.Paragraph 7- Defendant specifically denies this paragraph of the

Complaint, that Aerin Grace Diamante executed a Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage in favor of BDO Unibank, Inc., for lack of sufficient
knowledge/information to form a belief as to the truthfulness thereof.
Defendant is estranged from his family members and is currently
residing at La Quinta, California, United States of America. Hence, he
was not in Zamboanga City, Philippines, during the execution of the
alleged document.

11.Paragraph 8- Defendant specifically denies this paragraph of the

Complaint insofar as the plaintiffs took peaceful, open, notorious, and
exclusive possession of the property immediately after the purported
sale, and that they made improvements thereon. Defendant wishes to
clarify that he had assigned ANGELA G. AMADEA’S nephew to
oversee and watch over the property intermittently, in his absence.

Page 2 of 13
12.Paragraph 9- Defendant specifically denies this paragraph of the
Complaint. Defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
the same. Defendant was never informed of any purported intent of
the plaintiffs to process a transfer of title, nor was the defendant made
aware of any reason for their alleged failure to do so.

13.Paragraph 10- Defendant specifically denies this paragraph of the

Complaint. Defendant asserts that he is the true and rightful owner of
the subject property, and the issuance of title in his name was the
result of a legitimate transaction, not of any unlawful maneuvering.
Furthermore, defendant has lawfully acquired the disputed property
way before it was sold to plaintiff spouses.

14.Paragraphs 11- Defendant specifically denies the allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint that he fraudulently initiated the
cancellation of the title registered in the name of Angela G. Amadea
and unlawfully caused the issuance of a new title in his name.
Defendant has never engaged in any fraudulent conduct, and any
claim to the contrary is unfounded and misleading.

15.Paragraph 12- Defendant denies the allegations made in this

paragraph of the Complaint. He did not submit any falsified
documents to the Register of Deeds for Zamboanga City. To reiterate,
defendant acquired the subject property well before any purported sale
to the plaintiff spouses was ever made. The registration of the title in
the defendant's name was done in good faith.

16.Paragraphs 13 to 14- Defendant categorically denies the allegations

in this paragraph of the Complaint, specifically the claim that he
caused the plaintiffs to unknowingly sign documents which were then
used to effect the transfer of ownership. In fact, defendant was not
aware that plaintiff spouses were claiming the property until much
later. Upon learning of their claim, and in order to protect his rights as
the earlier buyer, the defendant proceeded to effect the registration of
the title to his name. Defendant would respectfully want to clarify the
fact that he is estranged from his siblings here in the Philippines, and
has been residing in the United States of America for several years
already. He could not have possibly maneuvered any fraudulent
transfer due to physical absence in Zamboanga City.

17.Paragraph 15- Defendant specifically denies the allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint. Defendant did not commit any illegal or
fraudulent act, and plaintiff spouses claim that they were “shocked”
upon discovering that the title had been transferred is incredible and
self-serving. Defendant wishes to ceaselessly assert that the property
was validly sold to him by Angela G. Amadea well before any alleged
transaction with the plaintiffs took place.
Page 3 of 13
 18.Paragraph 16- Defendant specifically denies the allegations in this
paragraph of the Complaint. In fact, upon learning that the plaintiffs
were asserting ownership, defendant merely stood by his legal rights
as a buyer who had lawfully acquired the property much earlier.
Defendant has a Deed of Absolute Sale, and his refusal to reconvey
the property is not only reasonable but legally grounded.

19.Paragraphs 17 and 18- Defendant admits these paragraphs of the

Complaint.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

20. Sometime in 2010, Defendant Enrique R. Dela Cruz (“Defendant

Enrique” for brevity) was contacted directly over the phone by
Angela G. Amadea (Amadea for brevity) was selling her parcel of
land located at Don Alfaro Street, Tetuan, Zamboanga City,
Philippines;

21. At that time, Defendant Enrique was living at Block 2, Lot 10 Sto.
Niño Village, Putik, Zamboanga City, Philippines and he was
considering to buy the said residential property as future investment;

22. Hence, Defendant Enrique met Amadea and the latter presented to
him the original title of the subject parcel of land registered in her
name which she intends to sell to Defendant Enrique;

23. Finding the title clean on its face, Defendant Enrique asked Amadea
to set a date for them to conduct an ocular inspection of the place so
that he could see the condition of the property.

24. Thereafter, Defendant Enrique met with Amadea who led them the
way to the subject property;

25. Hence, having been satisfied with the condition of the land, Defendant
Enrique agreed to purchase the same, and Amadea executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale1 in favor of Defendant Enrique R. Dela Cruz on June
25, 2010;

26. Around that time, defendant Enrique learned that he passed the
National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) and intended to
practice as a registered nurse in the United States of America;

27. Thereafter, defendant Enrique became preoccupied with securing the

necessary requirements for his employment abroad, which caused

1
A copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 25, 2010 duly notarized by Atty. Keith Red Sedillo, with
Doc. No. 456, Page No. 100, Book No. VI, Series of 2010 is herein attached as Annex “1”

Page 4 of 13
 him to defer the transfer of the Certificate of Title of the newly
purchased property to his name;

28. Sometime in December 2010, defendant Enrique received a notice

from his employer that his application for employment has been
approved, and was granted a non-immigrant working American VISA 2
and that he needs to leave the country in a month’s time;

29. Defendant Enrique then asked Amadea to watch over the subject
property, to which Amadea introduced her nephew, Jayem
Mosqueda instead;

30. During the defendant’s physical absence from Zamboanga City, it was
primarily Jayem Mosqueda who intermittently watched over the
disputed property on his behalf. As a form of remuneration, the
defendant regularly sent him payments amounting to Twelve
Thousand Pesos (₱12,000.00). While Jayem kept a casual eye on the
property, he was completely unaware that the improvements made
thereon were undertaken by Spouses Dela Cruz. He operated under
the belief that any construction or enhancement being carried out was
done in accordance with the defendant’s instructions. Likewise, the
defendant had no knowledge whatsoever that third parties had
introduced improvements on the property during his absence. His
remuneration is evidenced by receipts3 from the GCash application.

31. Defendant Enrique left the country on January 11, 2011, this is
evidenced by a boarding pass4, issued by Pinas Airlines, which shows
the defendant’s flight details to the United States of America.
Furthermore, the defendant’s Philippine passport bears an
immigration stamp5 evidencing his arrival and entry at Palm Springs
International Airport in the United States of America;

32. From 2012 to 2019, defendant Enrique visited the Philippines only
once a year, staying for a maximum of fifteen (15) days in each visit;

33. From 2020 onwards, defendant Enrique was unable to visit the
Philippines due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and lockdown;

34. On September 25, 2021, the father of the parties, DR.

HERMENIHILDO DELA CRUZ passed away due to COVID-19,
consequently, defendant Enrique had to return to the Philippines to
attend to the settlement of their deceased father’s estate which
2
A copy of the Non-working American Visa of Enrique Dela Cruz is herein attached as Annex “2”
3
GCash Receipts of payment from Enrique Dela Cruz to Jayem Mosqueda is herein attached as Annexes
“3” to “3-J”
4
A copy of the Boarding Pass of Enrique Dela Cruz, with travel details to the United States of America is
herein attached as Annex “4”
5
A copy of Enrique Dela Cruz’s Philippine Passport bearing the Immigration Stamp of the United States
of America, dated January 11, 2011 is herein attached as Annex “5”

Page 5 of 13
 required him to remain in the country longer, and took the opportunity
to commence the processing of the transfer of ownership of the
subject property. Dr. Hermenihildo Dela Cruz’s death is evidenced by
a Certificate of Death6, duly issued by the Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA), bearing Registry No. 1999-76251;

35. During the execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of the

deceased father, the parties had a dispute over their share in the estate
which was left unresolved up to this date;

36. On December 7, 2021, defendant Enrique was finally issued a new

certificate of title bearing Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129-
20239912047, particularly described as follows:

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129-2023991204

"A parcel of land (Lot 2) of the subdivision plan, PCS-15317,

being a portion of Lot 219-A-1, PSD-55-4848 situated in the
Barangay of Tetuan, City of Zamboanga, Island of Mindanao,
containing an area of FIVE HUNDRED (500) SQUARE
METERS, the metes and bounds of which are more particularly
described under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129-
2017003211 of the Register of Deeds for Zamboanga City."

V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DEFENDANT ENRIQUE DELA CRUZ WAS THE FIRST

TO REGISTER THE SALE IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE

37. Defendant respectfully invokes Article 1544 of the Civil Code in his
defense, which reads:

“Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to

different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to
the person who may have first taken possession thereof
in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall

belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall

pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the
6
A copy of Hermenihildo Dela Cruz’s Certificate of Death duly issued by the Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA), bearing Registry No. 1999-76251 is herein attached as Annex “6”
7
A copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129-2023991204 issued by the Register of Deeds for
Zamboanga City is herein attached as Annex “7”

Page 6 of 13
 possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person
who presents the oldest title, provided there is good
faith.”

38. The subject property, being real or immovable property, had been
lawfully sold and transferred to the defendant through a Deed of
Absolute Sale executed on June 25, 2010 by Amadea, the then
registered owner. Although the registration of the title in the
defendant’s name occurred only in 2021 due to justified delays related
to his overseas employment and the COVID-19 pandemic, the sale
was perfected more than a decade earlier, and defendant has
maintained constructive possession of the property ever since, through
persons he entrusted with its care.

39. Under the clear terms of Article 1544, ownership shall belong to the
person who in good faith first records it in the Registry of Property.
Defendant is the first and only party who caused the recording and
registration of the sale, which resulted in the issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 129-2017003211 in his name. Plaintiffs, on the
other hand, failed to cause the registration of any alleged transaction
in their favor, if any such transaction even exists. Alternatively, even
if there had been no registration, ownership would still pertain to the
defendant as the party who first acquired the property through a valid
and notarized deed of sale and who first exercised possession through
his caretakers in good faith.

40. Therefore, under Article 1544, the defendant has the superior and
legally recognized right of ownership over the subject property.

DEFENDANT ENRIQUE R. DELA CRUZ IS A

PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE

41. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that a purchaser in
good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest in such property, and pays
a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before
he has notice of the claim of another person;8

42. In the instant case, Defendant Enrique bought the subject property
from Amadea, the registered owner himself, free from any
encumbrances. By conducting an ocular inspection prior to the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, defendant Enrique had
exercised due diligence expected of a reasonable person in a given
situation;

8
Heirs of Nicolas Cabrigas vs. Melba L. Limbaco, et.al, G.R. No. 175291; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 346
Phil. 506 (1997)

Page 7 of 13
 43. Lacking any objection or indication of fraud from Spouses Dela Cruz,
the plaintiffs cannot impute bad faith on the part of Defendant Enrique
as they showed no hint that could excite suspicion of fraud in the sale.
Their welcoming attitude towards Defendant Enrique and her family
would clearly show that they recognized Defendant Enrique’s
ownership of the property;

INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE AND

PROTECTION OF AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR
VALUE

44. It is settled that a Torrens Certificate of title is indefeasible and

binding upon the whole world unless and until it has been nullified by
a court of competent jurisdiction. Under existing statutory and
decisional law, the power to pass upon the validity of such certificate
of title at the first instance properly belongs to the Regional Trial
Courts in a direct proceeding for cancellation of title.

45. It was held in SPOUSES JOSE MANUEL AND MARIA

ESPERANZA RIDRUEJO STILIANOPOULOS, PETITIONERS,
V. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR LEGAZPI CITY AND THE
NATIONAL TREASURER:9

“As a corollary," every person dealing with registered land

may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go
behind the certificate to determine the condition of the
property. When a certificate of title is clean and free from any
encumbrance, potential purchasers have every right to rely on
such certificate. Individuals who rely on a clean certificate of
title in making the decision to purchase the real property are
often referred to as 'innocent purchasers for value' and 'in good
faith."' "Where innocent third persons, relying on the
correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights
over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and
order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such
an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence
in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property
registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in
every instance whether the title has been regularly or
irregularly issued.

The rationale for the rule on innocent purchasers for value "is
the public's interest in sustaining 'the indefeasibility of a
certificate of title, as evidence of the lawful ownership of the
land or of any encumbrance' on it." Notably, the term "innocent
9
G.R. No. 224678, July 03, 2018

Page 8 of 13
 purchaser for value" may also refer to an innocent mortgagee
who had no knowledge of any defects in the title of the
mortgagor of the property, such as in this case.”

46. Under Section 53 of the Land Registration Act, “in all cases of
registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal
and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without
prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of
a certificate of title.”

47. In Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals10, 316 SCRA 347, 373 (1999), the
Supreme Court declared:

“The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it

was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee
the integrity of land titles and to protect their
indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established
and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on
the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he
should not run the risk of being told later that his
acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be
unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were permitted,
public confidence in the system would be eroded and land
transactions would have to be attended by complicated and
not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of
ownership.”

48. Accordingly, a purchaser in good faith and for value is protected

under the Torrens system, which guarantees the indefeasibility of
registered titles. Hence, assuming arguendo that Spouses Dela Cruz
were deceived in selling the property, the right of defendant Enrique
as an innocent purchaser for value cannot be disregarded and his
certificate of title cannot be totally cancelled;

VI. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant Enrique R. Dela Cruz repleads, restates and incorporates

all the foregoing and further states that:

49.The baseless complaint against the defendant caused him mental

anguish, serious anxiety, sleepless nights, embarrassment, and similar
injury which, though not capable of pecuniary estimation, would not be
less than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱100,000.00) the
amount of which should be paid by plaintiff spouses;

50.As a result of the plaintiff spouses unfounded complaint for

reconveyance of property, herein defendant was compelled to engage
10
316 SCRA 347, 373 (1999)

Page 9 of 13
 with the services of a legal counsel to defend himself and his rights. In
doing so, he incurred Attorney’s Fees or litigation expenses in the
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (₱50,000.00) Pesos. Pursuant to
Article 2208 of the Civil Code, respondent respectfully claims
reimbursement for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

VII. WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED AND THE SUMMARY OF

THEIR TESTIMONIES

A. ENRIQUE R. DELA CRUZ shall be presented to prove, among

others, the following:

● That he is the defendant in this case.

● Establish that he is the lawful and rightful owner of the subject

property embraced and covered under Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 129-2023991204, located at Don Alfaro Street,
Tetuan, Zamboanga City, having validly acquired the same
through a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Angela G.
Amadea prior to the alleged sale to the plaintiff spouses.

● Prove that the transfer of title in his name under TCT No. 129-
2023991204 was done lawfully, regularly, and in good faith,
without any fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal acts on his part.

● Deny any fraudulent act or scheme in securing the cancellation

of the previous title, and to testify that he only caused the
registration of the property in his name after learning of the
plaintiffs’ attempt to assert ownership, in order to protect his
rights as a prior buyer.

● Demonstrate that plaintiffs were never rightful owners, and that

they failed to register their alleged sale or assert any right over
the property until years later, when they were already aware
that the title had been transferred to herein defendant.

● Other matters germane of which he is competent to testify to.

B. JAYEM MOSQUEDA, shall be presented to prove, among others,

the following:

● To establish that he was entrusted by Angela G. Amadea, upon

the instruction of defendant Enrique R. Dela Cruz, to watch
over the subject property located at Don Alfaro Street, Tetuan,
Zamboanga City beginning in January 2011.

● To prove that he has been receiving monthly remuneration for

watching over the property in the absence of herein defendant.
Page 10 of 13
 ● Other matters germane of which he is competent to testify to.

VIII. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary Evidence Annexes Purpose

Deed of Absolute Sale dated Annex “1” To prove the sale of the
June 25, 2010 duly notarized by subject property to the
Atty. Keith Red Sedillo, with defendant through a duly
Doc. No. 456, Page No. 100, notarized Deed of Absolute
Book No. VI, Series of 2010 Sale dated June 25, 2010.
Non-working American Visa of Annex “2” To establish that Enrique
Enrique Dela Cruz Dela Cruz held a non-
working visa during the
relevant period.
GCash Receipts of payment from Annex “3” To prove that Enrique Dela
Enrique Dela Cruz to Angela Cruz made financial
Amadea remittances to Angela
Amadesa for Jayem
Mosqueda via GCash,
indicating continued dealings
or obligations related to the
property.
Boarding Pass of Enrique Dela Annex “4” To support the claim that
Cruz, with travel details to the Enrique Dela Cruz traveled to
United States of America the United States, consistent
with the timeline of his
absence from the Philippines.
Enrique Dela Cruz’s Philippine Annex “5” To corroborate the
Passport bearing the Immigration defendant’s departure to the
Stamp of the United States of United States on January 11,
America, dated January 11, 2011 2011, as evidenced by the
immigration stamp on his
passport.
Hermenihildo Dela Cruz’s Annex “6” To prove the death of
Certificate of Death duly issued Hermenihildo Dela Cruz,
by the Philippine Statistics which is relevant to the
Authority (PSA), bearing extrajudicial settlement
Registry No. 1999-76251 proceedings involving the
parties.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. Annex “7” To show that Transfer

Page 11 of 13
129-2023991204 issued by the Certificate of Title No. 129-
Register of Deeds for 2023991204 was issued in
Zamboanga City the defendant’s name, and to
establish the current
titleholder of the property.
Official Receipt of Attorney’s Annex “8” To establish payment of
Fees issued by Delos Santos and attorney’s fees related to the
Partners case filed against the
defendant for reconveyance
of real property.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that:

1. The case be DISMISSED for lack of merit;

2. Plaintiff spouses be ordered to pay exemplary damages in the

amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱50,000.00)

3. Plaintiff spouses be ordered to pay Attorney’s Fees in the amount

of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱100,000.00)

4. Other relief which justice and equity may find appropriate under
the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of July 2025, in Zamboanga

City, Philippines.

For the law firm:

ATTY. MARK F. INFANTE, R.N.

Roll of Attoryneys No.: 50816

Page 12 of 13
 PTR No.:3615064, 02 January 2025, Zamboanga City
IBP OR No.:494853, 02 January 2025, ZAMBASULTA
MCLE Compliance No.: VIII-0001484, valid until 14 April 2028
Email: attymarkinfante@gmail.com

Copy furnished:

ATTY. SAMIR TIBLANI - _______________

Counsel for Plaintiff Spouses Dela Cruz
Zamboanga City, Philippines
attysamirtiblani@gmail.com

ATTY. ELJAY RYAN SINAHON- _______________

Collaborating Counsel for Plaintiff Spouses Dela Cruz
Zamboanga City, Philippines
eljaysinahon@gmail.com

Page 13 of 13