Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

JULIA ESTANISLAO AQUINO

Petitioner,
CA-G.R. SP No. 148635
-versus-

MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO

and JUDGE JIMMY HENRY F.
LUCZON, JR., OF RTC, BR.1,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan,
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS,
Tuguegarao Cagayan.
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH FORMAL ENTRY OF

APPEARANCE
Respondent MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO, through the undersigned
counsel, most respectfully files her Answer, in response of the Petition for
Annulment of Judgment, which states the following:

Undersigned counsel respectfully enters his appearance as counsel

for the Respondent Melinda Quilang Aquino and prays that notices and
resolutions be furnished at his Law Office located at 61, Annafunan West,
Tuguegarao Cty, Cagayan;

TIMELINESS OF FILING

Respondent MELINDA QUILANG AQUINO (Hereinafter referred to

as Respondent Aquino or “Respondent” for brevity) received the Resolution
dated January 16, 2017 on January 23, 2017 requiring her to file her
Answer to the Petition within fifteen (15) days from service of summons.
Respondent filed a Motion for Extension to file Answer on February 7,
2017. Hence, within the reglementary period provided for by law, the last
day falls on 22 February 2017, this Answer is filed on time.

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Respondent Aquino partially admits Paragraph 1.0 pertaining to

the nature of the petition, but she maintains that the said legal
remedy was already filed out of time and is already barred by
larches or estoppels;

1|Page
2. Paragraph 1.1a is partially admitted as to its due execution, but is
hereby denied for lack of knowledge as to the truth or veracity of
the allegations therein;

3. Paragraph 1.1b partially admit the existence of the law and the
jurisprudence, but she denies the rest for lack of sufficient
knowledge as to the truth or veracity of the allegations stated
therein;

4. Paragraph 1.1c is denied for the reason that the allegations

therein were self-serving and owing to the fact that the same
merely restated the wordings of rule 47;

5. Paragraph 1.1d is partially admitted, but only in so far as the same

was duly alleged in the petition;

6. Paragraph 1.1f is partially admitted in so far as the said documents

were attached to the petition, but it is specifically denied with
respect to the merit substance of its contents for lack of knowledge
as to the truth or veracity thereof;

7. Paragraph 2.0 is partially admitted as to the personal

circumstances of the petitioner, but it is specifically denied in so far
as to the allegation that Petitioner is the real owner of the subject
real estate property covered by TCT No T-38951, consisting of
527.20 square meters for the very reason that Respondent Aquino
is the Co-owner of the said lot with respect to a portion covering an
area of 69.25 square meters;

8. Paragraph 2.1 is admitted;

9. Paragraphs 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 are admitted;

10. Paragraph 3.0 is specifically denied, the Regional Trial Court has
exclusive jurisdiction over Petitions concerning the loss of title
particularly the owner’s duplicate copy and so the decision
rendered by Public Respondent Honorable Judge Jimmy Henry F.
Luczon, Jr in LRC Cadastral Record No. 440 is valid;

11. Paragaraph 3.1 is partially admitted in so far as the re-statement

of the wordings provided for under Section 3, Rule 47 of the
Revised Rules of Court, however it is denied not only because the
petition is already filed out of time but because of laches or
estoppel and also because it is made in violation of the rule on
non-forum shopping since the material issue on the execution of
the affidavit of lost has already been settled in the criminal case
instituted by the petitioner which Respondent Aquino was
eventually acquitted;

2|Page
12. The allegation contained in Paragraph 3.2 is admitted only to the
fact that the petitioner cited some jurisprudence, but the allegation
that Petitioner is not barred to seek the annulment of a null and
void judgment which does not prescribe is hereby denied since the
rule clearly states that the same could be barred by laches or
estoppels. The truth of the matter is that petitioner had knowledge
of the judgment subject of her petition way back in 2008, yet she
did not lift a finger to cause the annulment as early as possible.
The institution of this action, after losing in the criminal case, was
indicative of a malicious intent to harass the Respondent. To allow
her petition would be to reward her rather than punish her for the
abuse or mockery of the court’s processes;

13. The material allegations contained in Paragraph 3.3, are

admitted;

14. The material allegations in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 of the Petition
are specifically denied for lack of information sufficient to form a
reasonable belief as to the truth thereof, and for reason that the
execution of the said documents was done under highly
suspicious circumstances. In fact, the National Archives even
issued a certification that it has no copy on file about the alleged
Deed of Donation and the Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate;

Attached are the Certifications from the National Archives

respectively marked as Annex “1” and “2”

15. The allegations in Paragraph 3.5, 3.6, 3.6a, 3.6b, are only
admitted in so far as the fact of marriage of Respondent with
Pedro Aquino and the fact that she bought the 60 square meters
portion of the lot covered by TCT No. T-38952, but she specifically
denied the rest for the same contains distorted or self-serving
allegations and erroneous conclusions of the Petitioner. Had it
been true that there was a deed of donation giving to the petitioner
the lot covered by the subject title, then she could have caused the
annotation of the said instrument. Apparently, the LRA records
would prove that petitioner miserably failed to do so, thus making
her claim highly questionable;

Attached is the Certification issued by the Land Registrtion

Authority marked as Annex “3”

16. Paragraph 3.7 is partially admitted in so far as to due execution

and genuineness of the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a
Portion of a Registered Land but Respondent denies the allegation
that it was antedated and fraudulently obtained. Contrary to the
Petition, the deed was duly executed and voluntarily entered into
by the parties therein. Granting arguendo that the one who

3|Page
 notarized the instrument failed to submit the required notarial
report, the sale cannot be invalidated by a mere certification;

17. Paragraph 3.8 partially admitted with respect to that fact that
respondent indeed file a Petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate
copy of TCT No. T-38951 because she believed in good faith that
the owner’s copy of the same was lost in her possession and that
she obtained a favourable decision thereof. However she denies
the rest of the allegations since there was no proof that at the time
that the petition was filed petitioner was really in possession of the
subject lost title;

Attached is the Affidavit of Zenaida Aquino, wife of Quintin

Aquino, marked as Annex “4”

18. With respect to Paragraph 3.9 of the Petition, Respondent admits

the fact that she was acquitted in the perjury case filed by the
petitioner against her, but she specifically denies that she
committed multiple falsities and that she believes that this Petition
which was filed after more than 8 years was already barred by
laches and estoppel.

DISCUSSION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent Aquino maintains that the Regional Trial Court has

jurisdiction over actions concerning lost titles and that it has validly
rendered judgement therein. Likewise, she believed that the petition must
be denied for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of her own.
Ultimately, this instant Petition is already barred by laches or estoppel.

For purposes of narration, on 20 April 2005, Respondent acquired

a portion of Lot with No. 4035-B-6-E-4,Psd-2-01-001859, with an area of
sixty nine point twenty five (69.25) square meters, and still covered by TCT
No. T-38951 by virtue of an Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a Portion
of a Registered Land executed by Quintin Aquino, the only heir of Tecla
Aquino, in favor of the Respondent.

After the execution of the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of a

Portion of a Registered Land, the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-
38951 was entrusted to the Respondent for the purpose of transferring to
her name the title of the portion of land she bought. She kept the title inside
the cabinet in their house, however, when she and her husband had a
misunderstanding, she transferred all her personal belongings to the house
of her mother including the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38951.
When she and her husband came to terms and had to bring back her
personal belongings to their own house, Respondent discovered that the
title which he kept was missing. With a personal belief that the same could

4|Page
no longer be recover, she caused the filing of a Petition for reissuance of
Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No.T-38951 on 2008.

Attached as Annex “5” is the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale of A

Portion of a Registered Land.

The case was subsequently raffled before the sala of Public

Respondent Honorable Judge Jimmy Henry F. Luczon, Jr., where he
ordered the publication of the Petition together with his order in
conspicuous places and likewise directing all persons who have adverse
interest on the subject lot to file their opposition within 15 days from
knowledge of the Petition.

Despite knowledge by the Petitioner of the Petition for reissuance

of lost title, she filed no Opposition. In essence, after satisfying the
Jurisdictional Requirement of Posting and after due notice and hearing, the
RTC Branch 1 granted the Petition ordering the Register of Deeds to issue
another owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38951.

Upon knowledge of the questioned proceeding, Petitioner

instituted a criminal case impleading Respondent Melinda Aquino for the
crime of Perjury on 2008 asserting Respondent’s multiple falsities in her
Petition. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to know that Respondent was
acquitted on the ground that a false statement of belief is not Perjury; Bona
fide belief in the truth of a statement is an adequate defense.

Contrary to the claim of Petitioner, her testimony is quoted

hereunder to prove that she has a prior knowledge of the Petition for
Reconstitution of Title, to wit:

Q: When you ascertained the act of Melinda Q. Aquino in

filing this Petition and executing this notice of lost, what
did you do if there was any?
A: Because we are not in good terms, so I talked to my
sister-in-law Emy to withdraw that particular document
because I have the original but she refused to give it. I
made many talks with my sister-in-law but she doesn’t like
to give it so I filed a case against her.1

It was superficial in the testimony of Petitioner that she had

knowledge of the Petition filed by Respondent. Yet, instead of filing an
opposition, she filed a case for perjury.

Let it be noted that Petitioner availed of the remedy for Annulment

of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court stating therein that the
remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders/resolutions of a Regional
Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where the ordinary

1 T.S.N dated February 8, 2011 page 18 of 33

5|Page
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.2
(Emphasis supplied)

In this case, judgment of finality on the Petition for issuance was

entered on August 26, 2008 as evidenced by the Certificate of Finality.
Thus, Petitioner instituted a case for Perjury on December 3, 2008 which
rises to the presumption that they already have knowledge on the Petition
filed by Respondent Aquino.

Pursuant to such, Petitioner could have availed a Petition for relief

of judgment under Rule 38 of the 1987 Rules of Procedure which must be
filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment and within six (6)
months after the judgment or final order was entered3 granting that she
still have at least two (2) more months to assert her rights by availing the
ordinary remedy granted by law. Lamentably on her part, Petitioner chose
to sleep on her rights despite ample time and remedies to question it. In
this way, Petitioner having failed to avail of any of the aforesaid remedies
without any justification, she is barred from resorting to the action for
annulment of judgement under Rule 47.

Let it be stressed at the outset that before a party can avail of

the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final
orders and resolution. It is a condition sine qua non that one must have
failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for
relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies
thereon, through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of
those cited remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort
to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47, for otherwise he
would benefit from his own inaction or negligence.4

As shown from the foregoing, Petitioner did not just fail to avail
the ordinary and appropriate remedies in setting upon the assailed decision
of the Trial Court, but he also failed to the satisfaction of this Honorable
Court that she could not have availed of the ordinary and appropriate
remedies under the Rules.

Accordingly, after knowledge of the rendition of the trial court

judgment on the Petition for Issuance of lost title, Petitioner filed a Perjury
case against Respondent Aquino on December 3, 2008. At the very least,
she could have filed a Petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 since
the Judgment on the petition for reissuance latch its finality on August 26,
2008. Along this line is the fact that a criminal case is not one of the
ordinary and appropriate remedy contemplated by the Rules.

2 Rule 47 of the Rules of civil Procedure

3 Rule 38 of the Rules of civil procedure
4 (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140615, Feb. 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 235, 250

6|Page
 To such degree, a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule
47 is not a substitute for one’s own neglect in not availing of the ordinary
and appropriate remedies, but a peculiar remedy granted under certain
conditions to those who failed to avail of the ordinary remedies without their
fault.
In the case of Republic vs. “G” Holding Inc., the rationale was
stressed as to prevent the extraordinary action from being used by a losing
party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has
long become final and executory.5

Granting arguendo in the interest of sound justice that Petitioner

is entitled in asserting her rights by availing the extraordinary action of
Petition for Annulment of Judgment, why only now, after more than eight
(8) long years that she instituted a Petition for Annulment of Judgement
before the Court of Appeals? Clearly, the filing of this petition is just a mere
afterthought on the part of the Petitioner.

In a jurisprudential basis, the annulment of a final judgment on the

ground of extrinsic fraud prescribes within four years from the discovery of
the fraud. On the other hand, a petition for annulment based on lack of
jurisdiction may be barred by laches.6

Simply put, Petitioner in not instituting a case for annulment of

judgment for a period of 8 years automatically barred her for filing the
same. More so the argument concerning the lack of jurisdiction must also
fail.

The time honoured rule anchored in the case of Tijam vs.

Sibonghanoy7 sustains that laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect,
for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.

Moreover, the doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based

upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a
mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.8

Along this line is the principle that a party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of a court to sure affirmative relief against his opponent and,
after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction (Dean vs. Dean, 136 Or. 694, 86 A.L.R. 79). In the case

5 Republic vs. “G” Holding Inc., 457 SCRA 608

6Stilianopulusvs City of Legaspi. G.R No. 133913 October 12, 1999
7 G.R. No. L-21450 April 15, 1968
8G.R No. L-21450 April 15, 1968

7|Page
just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question
whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action
or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is
barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is
valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a
practice cannot be tolerated — obviously for reasons of public policy.9

Granting arguendo that the Respondent intentionally failed to give

notice of the reconstitution proceedings to herein Petitioner, still laches may
come to light.

For fraud to become a basis for annulment of judgment, it has to

be extrinsic or actual. It is intrinsic when the fraudulent acts pertain to an
issue involved in the original action or where the acts constituting the fraud
were or could have been litigated. It is extrinsic or collateral when a litigant
commit acts outside of the trial which prevents a party from having a real
contest, or from presenting all of his case, such that there is no fair
submission of the controversy. Hence, deliberate failure to notify a party
entitled to notice constitutes extrinsic fraud.10

It is of notable reiteration that annulment of a final judgment on

the ground of extrinsic fraud prescribes within four years from the discovery
of the fraud.11 Apparently, the prescriptive period for filing an action based
thereon had already run out on the petitioner.

Petitioner after knowledge of the extrinsic fraud on the

reconstitution of title on 2008, she opted to file a Perjury case against
Respondent. It is only on January 2017 when he filed this instant Petition
for Annulment of Judgment.

In the present case, the delay of more than 8 years since

Petitioner learned the re-issuance of the subject title was unreasonable,
giving rise to the presumption that he had abandoned the idea of seeking
annulment of the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and that
she had opted to take other actions instead. Clearly, the period for raising
this issue lapsed a long time ago.

Over and above, Respondent has a legitimate interest on the

portion of a parcel of land as evidenced by the Affidavit of Adjudication with
Sale of a Portion of a Registered Land. Relying on a belief that the owner’s
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-38951 was lost beyond recovery; she has all
the right to cause the filing of a Petition for issuance of lost title having a
lawful claim on the lot subject of the Sale.

9G.R No. L-21450 April 15, 1968

10
Stilianopulusvs City of Legaspi. G.R No. 133913 October 12, 1999
11 Article 1391 of the Civil Code

8|Page
 Further, Respondent filed her Answer to disclaim all the material
allegations hurled against her and to ask the Honorable Court to deny due
course this instant Petition.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in lieu of the foregoing consideration, Respondent

respectfully prays before this Honorable Court that:

1. The Petition for Annulment of Judgment be denied; and

2. The Petitioner be ordered to pay the Respondent for the

Attorneys Fee amounting to Php 25, 000.00 and other litigation
expenses.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

February 22, 2017. Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

Respectfully submitted.

ATTY. LOUIE A. SOCRATES

Roll No. 61912
61 Annafunan West, Tuguegarao City
IBP No. 947059/12-28-16/TUG. CITY,CAGAYAN
PTR No. 1990197/01-09-17/ TUG. CITY,CAGAYAN
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0012640
(DATE OF ADMISSION: 04-25-13)
Counsel for the Respondent

Copy furnished:

ATTY. RENATO T. PAGUIO

223 zircon St., Adelina 1-A Subd.
San Pedro, Laguna

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE

The above Answer was served by registered mail due to distance, lack of
material time and office personnel thereby rendering personal service inconvenient
and impracticable.

ATTY. LOUIE A. SOCRATES

9|Page