You are on page 1of 6

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT


Branch 02
General Santos City
-ooOoo-

LOVELITO S. LUMOGDA,
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 6669-2

-versus- - for -

ILUMINADA GUSTILO & all other RECOVERY OF POSSESSION


persons in the area claiming DAMAGES AND ATTY’S FEES
rights under or through her,
Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANSWER

DEFENDANT, through the undersigned Counsel, and unto


this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS


1. Paragraph 1 is admitted as to the allegations of personal
circumstances of the plaintiff;

2. The allegation in paragraph 2 with respect to the


personal circumstances of the defendant is admitted but denies
specifically the allegation that she is a residence of Block 5, Lot
28, Prk. 14, Barangay Fatima, General Santos City the truth being
stated in in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

3. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, of the complaint are denied for want


of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness
thereof;

4. The allegations in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 are denied as


the same are erroneous conclusions of the plaintiff the truth
being stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

5. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are specifically denied the truth


being stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder;

Page 1 of 6
6. Paragraph 10 of the complaint is specifically denied the
truth being stated in the affirmative and special defenses
hereunder;

7. Paragraph 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the complaint are


specifically denied for being conclusions of fact and law the
truth being stated in the affirmative and special defenses
hereunder.

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

DEFENDANT adopts, incorporates and repleads the


foregoing averments by way of reference and further states that:

8. The complaint states no cause of action against herein


defendant;

9. While the plaintiff alleges that he has Certificate of Final


Award (Annex “C”, Complaint) pertaining to Lot No.4, Block No.
16-C, Barangay Fatima, General Santos City and a Certification
(Annex”D”, Complaint) stating among others that Lot No. 28,
Block 5, PSD-12-039341at Prk. 14 at Barangay Farima, General
Santos City, containing an area of (180) square meters was
allocated/awarded to him and his spouse by the city
government but it does not appear in the complaint of an
allegation or any proof to the effect that the Certificate of
Award (Annex ”C”, Complaint) and Certification (Annex “D”,
Complaint) pertain to one and the same lot;

10. Defendant is the actual possessor and resident of Lot


No. 27 Block 5, Prk. 14, General Santos City which she acquired
from Vivien B. Jumapao (and where she has built concrete
residential structure and introduced permanent improvements
thereon) different and distinct from the lot claimed by the
plaintiff; a copy of the receipt is hereto attached as Annex “1”
to form part hereof;

11. Granting without admitting that the lot claimed by


the plaintiff and the lot of herein defendant pertains to one and
the same lot, it bears stressing however that defendant has
acquired and in actual possession of the lot since April 11, 2012
as evidenced by a receipt (Annex “1” hereof) and plaintiff has
the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 147-2014004886 which may
cover the subject lot in his name only on February 21, 2014;

Page 2 of 6
12. In relation to the above-mentioned statements, it is to
be noted also that defendant has in possession of the property
for such number of years (5 years to be exact) and has built
permanent residential structure and even introduced
improvements thereon before the plaintiff made demand letters
to the defendant which was only on March 22, 2017 and July 24,
2017, respectively;

13. As such, defendant does not have any knowledge of


any fact with respect to the claim of the plaintiff to the subject
lot before March 22, 2017 due to the demand letter he sent;

14. In view of the foregoing, clearly, defendant is


considered as builder in good faith and is entitled to his rights as
provided for by law;

15. Moreover, plaintiff endorsed this matter to the Office


of the Lupon Tagapamayapa for confrontation/dialogue but
the same failed as the subject lot which the plaintiff claims is
different and distinct from the lot of herein defendant in
reference to the previous discussion.

COUNTERCLAIM
16. As averred above, plaintiff is in total bad faith in filing
this baseless suit. To set to the public as an example, the plaintiff
should pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) as exemplary damages;

17. Due to this malicious suit, the spiteful and unfounded


suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant make out a case for
recovery of attorney's fees of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) plus P1,500.00 per court appearance of counsel
and for moral damages occasioned by the malicious and willful
acts of plaintiff that have caused ridicule, embarrassment,
besmirched reputation of defendant, all of which defendant is
entitled to the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS,
(P100,000.00).

WHEREFORE, defendant prays for judgment:

1. Dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff against herein


defendant with costs against plaintiff; and

Page 3 of 6
2. On the COUNTERCLAIM, ordering plaintiff to pay to
defendant the following:
a) The sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) as exemplary damages;

b) The sum of P50,000.00 for attorney’s fee plus P1,500.00


per court appearance of counsel and for moral
damages in the amount of P100,000.00, with interest
thereon from judgment until the amount is fully paid.

Defendants pray for such other relief consistent with law


and equity.

General Santos City, Philippines, March 19, 2018.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

PETER ARMAND L. HENARES


City Legal Officer
MCLE Compliance No. 111-000; 09/27/10
Roll No. 46643
IBP No. 870333; 1/12/2012
General Santos City
PTR No. 4343724; 1/2/2012
General Santos City
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. III-000-9127
March 3, 2010

EXPLANATION
Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel
through registered mail as personal service is impracticable.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. LORETO B. ACHARON


Counsel for the Plaintiff
Acharon Mann & Associates
Rm. 206, 3/F, Arenas Bldg., Pioneer Avenue
9500 General Santos City

Page 4 of 6
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS ) S.S.
x---------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION


OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, ILUMINADA GUSTILO, of legal age, married, Filipino and a


resident of General Santos City, after having duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say;

1. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;


that I have caused the preparation the foregoing Answer;

2. That I have read and understood the contents thereof


and the allegations contained therein are true of my own
personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records;

3. That I have not commenced any action or filed any


claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein and that if I should thereafter
learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
the court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature


this ______ day of March 2018 in the City of General Santos
Philippines.

ILUMINADA GUSTILO
Page 5 of 6
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ of


October 2012 in the City of General Santos by the aforenamed
defendant who is known to be on the basis of her
___________________bearing her photograph and signature.

Doc. No _____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2018.

Page 6 of 6