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;

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

1
 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

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