You are on page 1of 6

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION


MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH __

SAM MILBY, PIOLO PASCUAL, and


JERICHO ROSALES,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. ________
-versusFor: Ejectment (Unlawful
Detainer) with damages.
ANNE CURTIS,
Defendant,
x-------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Defendant, by counsel, respectfully alleges, that:
1. Defendant denies the allegations of the Plaintiffs;
2. Paragraphs

1,

2,3,4,5,6,

and

of

the

complaint

are

ADMITTED;
3. Paragraph 8 of the complaint is denied for the following
reasons:
a. Indeed there is a notice that the lease contract was
about to expire, but the plaintiffs did not take into
account that in the lease contract between defendant
and the city of Baguio, the contract between the
parties shall only commence after the proposed
gasoline station starts its business operation which is 5
years after the lease contract was executed, a copy of
such lease contract is hereunto attached as ANNEX
A;

b. Furthermore the contract is between the defendant


and the city of Baguio therefore the plaintiffs are not
the proper party to initiate the action.
Rule 3 Sec. 2. Parties in interest.
A real 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. Unless otherwise authorized
by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Since the action is stemmed at the lease contract, the plaintiffs are
not the proper party to initiate the action, it should be the City of
Baguio.
4. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 are admitted however there should
have been no conciliation since Defendant has the right to
stay and use the leased property 5 more years since the
business of plaintiff had only started its operation 5 years
after the lease contract was executed therefore the subject
lease contract had not yet expire;
5. Paragraph 12 is ADMITTED;
6. Paragraph 14 is likewise denied since the plaintiffs was never
deprived of the use of their respective property, defendant is
merely exercising her right over the subject property covered
by the lease agreement between her and the city of Baguio,
therefore there is no deprivation of the use of the property to
the plaintiffs.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant hereby incorporates all the foregoing allegations


and declarations in the preceding paragraphs in so as they
are material to its Affirmative Defenses, to wit:
7. The instant case should be dismissed because the Complaint
fails to state a valid cause of action, to wit:
7.1 There is no privity of contract between defendant and
Plaintiff, the lease contract being between defendant and the
city of Baguio;
7.2 The absence of privity of contract between Plaintiff and
defendant negates the existence of unlawful detainer.
7.3 Plaintiffs are not also the real party in interest. Since the
contract of lease is between the city of Baguio and defendant,
Plaintiffs are not the proper porty to initiate the action against
defendant since there is no privity among them and
defendant;
COUNTER-CLAIM
8. Based on the foregoing, it is so loud and clear that the instant
case has been filed without any legal and factual bases.
Necessarily, the Plaintiffs should be adjudged to pay damages
to the Defendant for having constrained to litigate and hire
lawyer to defend herself;
PRAYER
9. After due notice and hearing, this case be dismissed for lack
of merit and this Court has to order the Plaintiffs to pay the
Defendant Attorneys fee in the amount of PHP30,000.00 plus
PHP10,000.00 per court appearance fee and litigation cost.
Baguio City, March 5, 2016
ATTY. AMADO N. VALLEJO III
Counsel for the Defendant
Baguio City

PTR No. PGI 4650853/01-02-16/ Baguio city


IBP No. 82936500/01-02-16/ Baguio city chapter
MCLE Compliance No. IV-00210740/03-05-15
Roll No. 596837

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
Province of Benguet) S.S.
City of Baguio)
x-----------------------x
I, ANNE CURTIS, of legal age, Filipino, Single, and a resident
of No. 69, Ambisyosa Hotel, Baguio City, Philippines, after being
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
That I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case; That I
have caused the preparation of the above Answer and I have read
the same and knows the contents thereof; That the allegations
contained therein are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge.
That I further certify that: (a) I have not theretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding or filed any claim
involving the same issues or matter in any court, tribunal, or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending therein; (c) if I should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to report such
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein

the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein


have been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
5 day of March at Baguio City, Philippines.
th

ANNE CURTIS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 5th day of
March, by ANNE CURTIS, who exhibited to me her Community Tax
Certificate No. 4459686 issued at Baguio city, Philippines.
JOHN LLYOD CRUZ
Doc. No. 445;

COMMISSION

EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31, 2016

Page No. 123;

IBP NO.

243857, 1/2/16, BAGUIO CITY

Book No. 24;

PTR NO. 343533

2/3/16, BAGUIO CITY

Series of 2016;

COPY FURNISHED:
ATTY. MARIA LOURDES SERENA
Counsel for Plaintiff
EXPLANATION OF MODE OF SERVICE
In accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the New Rules on the
Civil Procedure, copy of this PLEADING is served by registered
mail for lack of available personnel to undertake personal service
upon the afore-named parties.

ATTY. AMADO N. VALLEJO III