Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Lagao, General Santos City
Branch 2

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION NO.

6073-2
SYSTEM
Plaintiff,
- versus - -for–

DAISY D. DRILON, and all persons claiming

Rights under him/her EJECTMENT
Defendant,
X--------------------- - ------ X

ANSWER

COMES now, Defendant DAISY D. DRILON, by herself, to this

Honorable Court respectfully alleges THAT:

1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of the

complaint in so far as its source of creation but denies its
representative’s authority to sue for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief;

2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2;

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is qualifiedly admitted to the

effect that Plaintiff is the registered owner of the questioned
residential property as shown in its self-serving title, however,
the latter looks like spurious as the title’s name of the
registered owner appeared to be superimposed;

4. Paragraph 4 is admitted;

5. Paragraph 5 is vehemently denied as there was no proof

Defendant having conformed to said Deed of Absolute Sale with
Assignment, in truth and in fact, the signature appearing
therein was done in the form of blank documents,
further, the procedure in doing so was so anomalous
considering that the said unacknowledged and not
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment was
done and dated May 15, 1992, prior to the execution of
the Deed of Conditional Sale which was executed May
27, 2992;

6. Paragraph 6 of the complaint is admitted as far as the right to

cancel the contract in case in default of payment is concerned
for the law and the contract of mortgage governed the parties,
but denied having been in patent violation of the DCS, to the
contrary, the vendor was the one violating it because the
materials used in the housing unit were substandard that at
present , unit is now deteriorating;

1
7. Paragraph 7 is admitted in so far as sending notice of
cancellation under date MARCH 16, 2005 is concerned, but its
main purpose was only to cure the prescription that sets in as
thirteen (13) years have already passed from the execution of
the documents to date of said notice;

8. Paragraph 8 is admitted, but said notice to vacate was

anchored on the premise that there was a lease contract
between the vendor and the vendee, which is not in this case
as the same was governed under the law on real estate
mortgage. Plaintiff herein lacks valid possession as it is the
Defendant, being the mortgagor, lawfully possesses the same,
and for the latter to be dispossessed, the mortgage should be
foreclosed first before she can be ejected;

9. Paragraphs 9 & 10 are mere conclusions of the Plaintiff from its

self-serving facts, hence being denied for lack of basis sufficient
to form a belief;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

10. Defendant repleads and incorporate all the admissions,

denials and allegations in the preceding paragraphs and
hastens to add;

11. Plaintiff has no better right to have a physical possession over

the subject parcel of land and the residential unit for the
following reasons:

a. Plaintiff GSIS is not a party to the contract of mortgage,

it was only through the execution of DASA that Plaintiff
plays in, which requires consent and conformity from
the mortgagor, before the same can validly effect the
debtor;

b. The relationship of the parties is under a contract of

mortgage and not a contract of lease and for ejectment
to suffice, there should be a valid prior possession by
the Plaintiff on the property, hence the action taken by
the Plaintiff is not obtaining as it is not a proper remedy;

c. Granting that the action for ejectment is a proper

remedy, the same had already having been lapsed as
the action from 1992 to 2001 which requires that the
same be done within ten (10) years;

12. Plaintiff’s representative has no authority to file this case for

there is nothing mentioned his specific name in its Board
Resolution No. 64.

13. Having prescription sets in and the remedy being undertaken

is not a proper remedy, Plaintiff therefore has no cause of
action against Defendant, and hence, the instant case should
be outright dismissed.

PRAYER

2
 WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully
prayed of the Honorable Court that the instant case be summarily
DISMISSED.
Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Polomolok, South Cotabato, Philippines, January 15, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Copy furnished:
DAISY D. DRILON
Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo Registry Reciept #:______ Defendant
Conusel for the Plaintiff Date:__________
GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City