REPLY PLAINTIFF, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers:
1. That the plaintiff is the lawful possessor of the subject
real properties since 2007. As a possessor thereof, he is entitled to take necessary legal actions to protect his right. Hence, the allegation of the defendant that the instant case should be dismissed for absence of legal personality to file the complaint is without merit;
2. The plaintiff is a real party-in-interest. A party-in-
interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Clearly, the plaintiff will be benefited or injured in the resolution of the instant action as he is the possessor of the subject real properties. He has been cultivating the land and planting root crops such as cassava and corn. Moreover, he introduced improvements thereof by erecting perimeter fences to protect the properties from intruders. Again, the plaintiff is a party-in-interest; 3. Any person-in- interest is allowed to take legal remedies when his right or interest is prejudiced or endangered. Correspondingly, not only the owner of the real property but also any person having interest over the real property may seek relief before the court of justice to protect his right or his interest therein;
4. That the subject properties were subjected to real estate
mortgage within the prohibitory period provided under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act 141. Therefore, the encumbrance in favor with the herein defendant is unlawful. In effect, the approval of the DENR, as appearing in the title under the memorandum of encumbrance, is void for being contrary to law.
5. That it is notable that the plaintiff has paid the necessary
filing and docket fees, therefore, the Honorable Court did not err in acquiring jurisdiction over the subject matter. Dismissal warrants only when there is non-payment of docket fees and not when the complainant pays or has paid the docket fees. It is absurd to dismiss the case for failure to pay the docket fees when it is apparent that payment has been made;
6. That the rule on payment of docket fees has, in some
instances, been made subject to the rule on liberal interpretation. Thus, in a case, it was held that while the payment of the required docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. (PAGCOR v. Lopez, 474 SCRA 76). Also if the amount of docket fees is insufficient considering the amount of the claim, the party filing the case will be required to pay the deficiency, but jurisdiction is not automatically lost (Rivera v. Del Rosario, 419 SCRA 626).
Wherefore, premises considered, it is prayed for this
Honorable Court to DENY the prayer of defendant to dismiss the instant case for lack of merit. Further, it is also prayed for that after due notice and hearing, an order be issued declaring the real estate mortgage contract executed by the grantee/holder of patents in favor to defendant be quiet for it created and will create cloud or doubt to the possession of plaintiff over the real properties.
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Cagayan de Oro City for Malaybalay City, Philippines.
August 22, 2017.
MERLIN P. CAIŇA & ASSOCIATES
Counsel for the Complainant 2/F Consortium Building Corrales Extension, Cagayan de Oro City Mobile No. 09268261008 Landline Phone No. (088) 880-2822 E-mail Address: mpc_lawoffice@yahoo.com