Ejectment; unlawful detainer; sample

Answer.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
X x x CITY
BRANCH x x x

X x x,
Plaintiff
Civil Case No. xxx
- 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. 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 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.

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 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

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.

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

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.

Answer to the Complaint Sample

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1
MICHAEL BADIRRI,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 12345

EDIL FRANCISCO,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully avers:
1. That he ADMITS the contents of paragraph 2 only insofar as his personal circumstances are
concerned;
2. That he ADMITS his obligation of paying the monthly installments cited in paragraph 3 of the complaint,
but DENY the rest of the allegations therein as said defendant’s obligation to plaintiff is not for the
exercise of a right to repurchase but for the amortization of a loan that he acquired from the plaintiff at
an interest of 12% per annum;
3. That defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity of the
averments in paragraph 4 of the complaint;
4. That defendant does not, at the moment, have all the records of payments he made to plaintiff, so that
he also does not have information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of the allegations in paragraph
5 of the complaint and, therefore, DENY them.
WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs
against the plaintiff.
 Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

City of Manila, September 27, 2012.

GACUTAN AND SALAZAR LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower

Malate, Manila

By:
ARVIN GACUTAN

Roll No. 98765

IBP No, 12345/1-3-2012/Manila
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2012/Manila

Copy furnished:
ATTY. FRETTI LAUREL
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 1234 Laurel Building
Sampaloc, Manila

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing ANSWER was served to plaintiff’s counsel by registered mail due to time
and distance constraints and for lack of the undersigned’s staff who can serve the same in person.

ARVIN GACUTAN