You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philipines

National Capital Judicial Region


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 23, Manila

for

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


Branch 40, Quezon City

SUSANA B. DELA CRUZ,


Plaintiff,

- versus Civil Case No. 15-07485-CV


For: Unlawful Detainer (with
Application for the Issuance
of a TRO and/or Injunction)

SHEILA CABLAO, National Housing


Authority (as nominal party),
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Comes now defendant National Housing Authority (NHA), through


undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
avers that:

1. Defendant NHA admits par. 1 of the complaint;


2. Defendants NHA denies par. 2 of the complaint for want of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
3. Defendant NHA denies par. 3 of the complaint the truth
being that plaintiff has no cause of action as against
defendant NHA considering that the instant case involves
purely private interests. While plaintiffs purpose is to illicit
facts and other evidences from defendant NHA, however,
the same may be done through other means than
impleading the same as a necessary party. This is similar to
the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in a similar case
of Christine Chua vs. Jorge Torres et. al., (G.R. No. 151900,
August 30, 2005), with the following pertinent portion, to wit-
In contrast, Jonathan Chua does not stand to be affected
should the RTC rule either favorably or unfavorably of the
complaint. This is due to the nature of the cause of action
of the complaint, which alleges an injury personal to
petitioner, and the relief prayed for, which is to be
adjudicated solely to petitioner. There is no allegation in the
complaint alleging any violation or omission of any right of
Jonathan, either arising from contract or from law.

It may be so that Jonathan may be called to testify by his


sister, in order to prove the essential allegation that she did
not issue the check in question, and perhaps such
testimony would be vital to petitioners cause of action. But
this does not mean that Jonathan should be deemed a
necessary party, as such circumstance would merely place
him in the same class as those witnesses whose testimony
would be necessary to prove the allegations of the
complaint. But the fact remains that Jonathan would stand
unaffected by the final ruling on the complaint. The judicial
confirmation or rejection of the allegations therein, or grant
or denial of the reliefs prayed for will not infringe on or
augment any of his rights under the law.

4. Defendant likewise denies the rest of par. 3 the truth being


that defendant NHA is a government owned and controlled
corporation;
5. Defendant NHA denies par. 4 of the complaint for want of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
6. Defendants NHA denies par. 5 of the complaint for want of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
7. Defendant NHA admits par. 6 of the complaint and hereto
attach the letter it issued to Mr. Eutiquio J. Belita as Annex
A;
8. Defendant NHA denies pars. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 of the
complaint for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth thereof;
9. Defendant NHA
10. Defendant NHA
11. Defendant NHA
12. Defendant NHA denies par. 33 of the complaint on the
same ground as stated in par 3 hereof;
13. Defendant NHA partially admits par. 34 of the
complaint provided that the conveyance was made within
the restriction imposed by defendant NHA;
14. Defendant NHA partially admits par. 35 of the
complaint insofar as the Certification mentioned thereat, but
denies rest for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth thereof;
15. Defendant NHA partially admits par. 36 with regards to
its letter date July 22, 2015, but denies the rest for want of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
16. Defendant NHA denies par. 37 of the complaint for
want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof;
17. Defendant NHA denies par. 37 of the complaint for
want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth.
As regards to the tax declaration, defendant NHA denies its
authenticity and due execution on the ground of best
evidence rule;
18. Defendants NHA denies pars. 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 of the complaint for want of
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;
19. Defendants NHA denies par 51 of the complaint for
want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof;

SPECIAL/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully


prayed of this Honorable Court that the complaint against defendant NHA
be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Quezon City for Manila, February 22, 2016.