Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Lagao, General Santos City
Branch 3

GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION NO. 6113-3
Plaintiff,
- versus - -for–

CRESTITA M. AUJERO, 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, its genuineness is denied under oath for said title
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 under oath 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 and the procedure in doing so was so anomalous considering
that the said Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment was done and dated
May 28, 1992, same date appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale but no
date of its execution;

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

cancel the contract in case in default of payment is concerned for the law and
the contract of mortgage and or sale governed the parties, which action should
be in court proceedings, 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 notarized 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 and
or contract of sale. Plaintiff herein lacks valid possession as it is the Defendant,

1
 being the mortgagor or vendee, lawfully possesses the same, and for the latter to
be dispossessed, the mortgage should be judicially foreclosed or the contract of
sale shall be judicially cancelled 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 or vendee, before the
same can validly effect the debtor;
b. The relationship of the parties is under a contract of mortgage or
contract of sale 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 been lapsed as the action from 1992 to 2001 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, February 20, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Copy furnished:
CRESTITA M. AUJERO
Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo Registry Receipt #:______ Defendant
Conusel for the Plaintiff Date:__________
GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City