You are on page 1of 6

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 69
PASIG CITY

CHAN KIM CHUAN,


Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 20881


For: Ejectment/ Damages

AKIRA UEHERA
Defendant.

x-----------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
(with affirmative defenses)

COMES NOW DEFENDANT AKIRA UEHERA (hereinafter


referred to as “Defendant”), by himself, and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers that:

1. The defendant specifically denies the allegations in


paragraph 1 of the complaint for lack of personal knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

2. The defendant admits paragraph 2 of the complaint.

3. The defendant specifically denies paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,


7, 8, and 9 of the complaint for lack of knowledge sufficient to form
a belief thereof. The truth of the matter being in the affirmative
defenses.

4. The defendant admits paragraphs 10, 12, and 13 of the


complaint.

5. The defendant admits paragraph 11 of the complaint


but with the qualification that the signature in the registry return
receipt is not his signature.

6. The defendant admits paragraph 14 of the complaint


but with the qualifications that the possession of the defendant is
not unlawful and that the deprived rental of Ten Thousand Pesos
(Php 10,000.00) has no basis.

Page 1 of 6
Defendant repleads all the foregoing allegations by reference
and further state that:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. While TCT no. PT-127456 states the wife of the


defendant, Brenda Uehera (“Brenda”) as the registered owner, the
same is not entirely true. The truth of the matter is that the funds
used in the purchase of the subject parcel of land with
improvements were actually from the defendant himself.

8. The claim that Brenda is the sole owner of the subject


parcel of land is further doubtful considering the non-inclusion of
the document/s which would attest to the manner by which the
subject land was acquired by the former.

9. The two (2) mortgage transactions entered into by


Brenda with the plaintiff were entered into without the marital
consent of the defendant. In fact, the alleged signatures of the
defendant in both mortgage contracts were definitely forged. As a
result, the defendant sued the plaintiff and Brenda for falsification of
public document pending before Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 72
of Pasig City.

10. The subject parcel of land is a conjugal property for the


same was acquired presumably during the marriage of the
defendant with Brenda. Therefore, the marital consent of the
defendant is definitely indispensable if not absolutely required.
Hence, the mortgage and subsequent transfer of ownership should
be set aside.

11. The allegation in paragraph 9.5 of the complaint is


absolutely misleading. Defendant never stated in his affidavit
(attached as Annex “E” in the petition for cancellation of mortgage)
that Brenda is the sole owner of the subject parcel of land. What the
defendant clearly mentioned was that he had no property registered
under his name.

12. At the risk of losing the property which the defendant


had a hand in the purchase, the defendant caused the annotation of
a notice of lis pendens on TCT no. PT-127456. However, the plaintiff
did not attach the portion of the said TCT which bears the said
annotation;

13. In a decided case1, the Supreme Court had the occasion


to explain lis pendens;

1
Heirs of Eugenio V. Lopez, Sr. vs. Enriquez, 449 SCRA 173.

Page 2 of 6
“Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis
pendens is intended to keep the properties in
litigation within the power of the court until the
litigation is terminated, and to prevent the
defeat of the judgment or decree by
subsequent alienation.”

14. The plaintiff having failed to discharge the burden of


proof by preponderance of evidence, it is but proper not to grant the
reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully


prayed of this Honorable Court that after due proceedings,
judgment be rendered in favor of defendants ordering the dismissal
of the complaint for being unfounded and unmeritorious;

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are


likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Pasig City, 18 March 2014.

AKIRA
UEHERA

NOTICE

Ms. Karina V. Taburzo


Branch Clerk of Court
MeTC 69, Pasig City
G R E E T I N G S:

Kindly submit the foregoing Answer for the consideration


and approval of the Honorable Court immediately or as soon as the
court calendar may allow.

AKIRA UEHERA

Copy furnished:

Page 3 of 6
ATTY. FLORANTE C. ROXAS
ROXAS & ROXAS
Counsel for the plaintif
Unit 2009, Strata 100 Bldg.,
Emerald Ave., Ortigas Center,
1605 Pasig City

EXPLANATION

Counsel for the plaintiff was served a copy of the foregoing


Answer by registered mail due to time and messengerial
constraints.

ROSARIO FRANCO KATHRYN


ASONG

Page 4 of 6
Republic of the Philippines)
Pasig City )s.s.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING

We, ROSARIO FRANCO and KATHRYN ASONG, Filipinos, of


legal age, and residing at no. 92 M.H. Del Pilar St., Santo Tomas,
Pasig City after having been sworn to in accordance with law depose
and state:

1. That we are among the defendants in the above case;

2. That we have caused the preparation of this Answer;

3. That we have personally read the allegations in the


Complaint and the allegations in this Answer;

4. That we understand fully the contents of this Answer;

5. That we have not filed any case before any other court
or any quasi judicial bodies and if we have filed a case
of the same nature and allegations, we will immediately
inform the Court of such filing.

ROSARIO FRANCO KATHRYN


ASONG

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of


October 2013 at Pasig City, affiants exhibited to me

ATTY. CHRISTINE DIANNE


SONGCO
Public Attorney II
(pursuant to R.A.
9406)

Doc. No._____
Page No._____
Book No. _____
Series of 2013

Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6