Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Versus
Unlawful Detainer
Xx x, etc.,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------x
ANSW ER
(In re: Summons, Received on
xxx 2011)
The DEFENDANT xxx, by counsel, respectfully states:
I.
ANSWER
1.
2. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the Complaint are denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to, and are
within the control only, of the plaintiff.
3. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Complaint are admitted.
4. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief
as to the veracity or falsity of the alleged amounts of attorneys fees agreed upon between the plaintiff
and her lawyer. The said paragraph is likewise denied insofar as it alleges that the defendant has no
basis or justification to occupy the subject property, the truth being those alleged in the special and
affirmative defenses part hereinbelow.
II.
7. The alleged Deed of Conditional Sale between the GSIS and the plaintiff is not annotated on the title on
the property. (See dorsal side of the title of the property, marked as Annex A, Par. 3, Complaint).
8. Although the GSIS has given the plaintiff the right of possession of the property under Par. 4 of the
Deed of Conditional Sale (Annex B, Par. 4, Complaint), the plaintiff knew or was supposed to know or
was deemed by law to be obligated to know and to investigate the fact that at the time of her purchase of
the property, the xxx Family were in possession of the property and that it had a vested, beneficial and
equitable right thereto by reason of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed in 1975 between its
original purchaser xxx, represented by xxx, on the one hand, and the matriarch of the xxx Family, i.e., xxx,
on the other.
A copy of the said MOA is attached as Annex 1.
A copy of the Special Power of Attorney of xxx (1974) is attached as Annex 2 hereof.
9. Since 1975 up to the present time, the xxx Family has been in possession of the subject property by
reason of the said MOA. This fact was known to plaintiff when she investigated the background property
until the time she closed her purchase thereof with the GSIS. There is no proof that plaintiff had reported
the real situation of the property to the GSIS for a solution or amicable settlement between the parties
prior to her purchase thereof. Likewise, the GSIS did not send any investigator to investigate the situation
of the property prior to and at the time of its sale to the plaintiff. It did not issue any formal notice to the
defendant or the xxx Family about the impending attempt of the plaintiff to purchase the property. Had the
xxx Family been notified thereon, they would have taken urgent steps to acquire the same instead of the
plaintiff.
10.
In 2002, Sps. xxx, the parents of the herein defendant xxx, executed a Special Power of Attorney in
favor of the herein defendant, a copy of which is marked as Annex 3 hereof.
11. The defendant had answered the demanded letter, dated xxx 2011, of the plaintiff through a letter, dated
xxx 2011, of defendants counsel, a copy of which is attached as Annex 4hereof. It requested plaintiffs
lawyer for a special conference to discuss a serious extrajudicial compromise, without admission of guilt
on the part of the defendant. It was not formally answered by the plaintiff.
12.GSIS is an (if not the) indispensable party in the suit being theregistered owner in fee simple of the
subject property. The ownership rights of plaintiff under her unannotated Deed of Conditional Sale with
the GSIS are merely inchoate and contingent. The Complaint shows no Board Resolution from the Board
of Trustees of the GSIS empowering the plaintiff to sue the defendant in behalf of the GSIS in the instant
case.
III.
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
13.By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by reason of the instant precipitate and
unfounded suit, the defendant was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to defend his rights and
interests for a professional fee of P20,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per court appearance;
14.Similarly, the plaintiffs unfounded suit has caused the defendant mental anguish and suffering and public
humiliation and embarrassment, for which the defendant claims moral damages of P100,000.00.
IV.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the parties be given ample time
to reach an amicable settlement before the xxxCity Mediation Center; and that in case of a failure thereof,
and after trial, the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the defendants compulsory
counterclaim be granted, i.e.. attorneys fees of P20,000.00 plus moral damages of P100,000.00, plus
costs of suit.
The defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable
in the premises.
xxx City, xxx 2011.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ____
Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2011
Cc
Atty. Xxx
Counsel for Plaintiff
xxx Rm. xxx
xxx Bldg.
Brgy. xxx, xxx City
Metro Manila
Reg. Rec. No.
Date
PO
EXPLANATION
A copy of this pleading is served via registered mail, instead of via personal service, on the adverse
counsel due to the distance of his law office address and the lack of field staff of undersigned counsel at
this time.
MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.