Ejectment; unlawful detainer; sample Answer.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH x x x
X x x CITY

X x x,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. xxx

- Versus - For: 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. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint are admitted.

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 attorney’s fees agreed upon between the plaintiff and her lawyer.
The said paragraph is likewise denied insofar as it alleges that the defendant has
 Page 2

no basis or justification to occupy the subject property, the truth being those
alleged in the special and affirmative defenses part hereinbelow.

II. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. The title to and ownership in fee simple over the subject property is in the
name of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), its registered owner,
and not the plaintiff. (See Annex “A”, Par. 3, Complaint).

6. The plaintiff is not “the owner” in fee simple of the subject property, contrary
to her allegation in Par. 3 of the Complaint.

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.
 Page 3

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 defendant’s counsel, a copy of which
is attached as Annex “4” hereof. It requested plaintiff’s 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 the registered
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 plaintiff’s 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 xxx City
Mediation Center; and that in case of a failure thereof, and after trial, the
complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the defendant’s compulsory
counterclaim be granted, i.e.. attorney’s 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
 Page 4

deemed just and equitable in the premises.

xxx City, xxx 2011.

LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Defendant xxx
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740

By:

MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.

Xxx

VERIFICATION
AND
ANTI-FORUM SHOPPINFG CERTIFICATION

I, xxx, of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address c/o xxx,
Barangay xxx, xxx Village, xxx, xxx City, under oath, depose:

I am the defendant in the foregoing case; that I caused the preparation of the
foregoing Answer; that I have read its contents; and that the same are true and
correct of my own direct, personal knowledge.

Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and existing
Supreme Court circulars, I hereby certify that I have not heretofore commenced
any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and that if I should hereafter
learn that other similar or related actions or proceedings has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court.

xxx City, xxx 2011.

 Page 5

Xxx
Affiant/Defendant
SSS Member ID No.
xxx
Issued on xxx 1975

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in xxx City on xxx 2011, the affiant
showing his SSS Member ID Card as stated above as competent proof of his
identity.

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.