Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1
th
7 Judicial Region
Quezon City

MR Kyle Centeno
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 123456
For: RECISSION OF
AGREEMENT AND
PAREDES REALTY ABSOLUTE DEED OF SALE ,
CORPORATION DAMAGES AND
Defendant. ATTORNEY’S FEES

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - – – - - - - - - - - - ----x

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND

COUNTERCLAIM

(In Re: SUMMONS received on March 13, 2021)

COMES NOW the Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, and in answer to

Plaintiff's complaint, respectfully alleges:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. That Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint;

2. That Defendant denies par. 5 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge

or information to form a belief on the veracity and accuracy thereof,
the plaintiff failed to adduce material terms of the contract1, to wit:

2.1 The fact that the 6,000,000 price is exclusive of VAT (Value
Added Tax of 12%).

2.2 Upon full payment of the total price, the SELLER shall sign and
execute a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE in favour of the BUYER. The
SELLER shall likewise execute and/or deliver any and all documents,
1
Annex 1: Contract to Sell dtd March 2, 2011
 including but not limited to the original copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title, Tax Declaration and all other documents necessary for the transfer
of ownership from SELLER to the BUYER.

2.3 All expenses if any, Real Estate Tax, after the sale, Capital Gains
Tax, Documentary Stamp Tax shall be for the account of the BUYER.

3. That Defendant admits par. 6 of the Complaint that plaintiff paid

P1,000,000 initial payment except the fact that payment is exclusive
of VAT (Value Added Tax of 12%).

4. That defendant denies paragraph 7 of the complaint as the total sales

price of lots amounting to 6,000,000 paid is VAT exclusive. Plaintiff
shall pay2 a total of 6,720,000 thru our authorized agent. Per
company’s record, Plaintiff had paid a total of 6,000,000 only with
unpaid balance of 720,000, representing the VAT of the sales.

5. That paragraph 8 is also being denied as the allegations are merely to

elude the lack of payment of VAT, real estate tax, and other expenses
owing to the 2 parcel of land on subject.

6. That paragraph 9 is denied, the truth being those alleged in the special
and affirmative defenses part herein below.

7. That Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 10, except denies

that no statement was released by the Corporation 3 to the Plaintiff for
an assurance that the problem will be taken care of.

8. That paragraph 11 is denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to

their truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate
them, the allegations therein being matters known only to, and are
within the control only, of the plaintiff.

9. That Defendant denies par. 12, 13, and 14 specifically the cited
unheeded letters. The fact being that plaintiff, through oral
communication, is initially demanded for the payment of costs
shouldered by the Corporation where no less than the plaintiff
disagreed to settle amount owed.

10. That Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 15, the fact being
that the Corporation required the plaintiff to give notice of any breach
to the defendant and allow opportunity to remedy the breach prior to
any initiation of any legal proceedings.

2
Ibid.
3
Paredes Realty Corporation (PRC) as defendant; Corporation for brevity.
11. That paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 are likewise denied for lack of basis to
form a belief as to its truth and veracity there being no proof shown to
substantiate it, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses.

DEFENSES
12. As AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the defendant alleges:

No breach by the Defendant; Breach

of contract is owing the plaintiff;

12.1 The defendant asserts that it performed all duties owed under the
contract other than the duties as a consequence of supervening
events brought about the non-fulfillment of obligation by the
plaintiff.

Annex “1” shows the document stating the Contract to Sell

with terms of agreement on the obligation of the BUYER is not
limited to the principal amount as claimed by the plaintiff.

12.2 The Plaintiff paid P6,000,000 to the Corporation for the payment
of the principal amount however failed to make payments of
VAT, real estate tax, and other expenses as agreed upon.

Annex “2” shows the accounting records of the corporation

showing that Plaintiff has unpaid balance representing the 12%
VAT on the sales price.

12.3. After the payment of P6,000,000 where executed the Deed of

Absolute Sale on April 1, 2013, the plaintiff is informed that the
Corporation is constrained to deliver transfer of ownership until and
after the plaintiff pay all expenses for VAT, Real Estate Property Tax
and all other costs necessary thereto.

12.4 A year after the sale to the plaintiff was on April 2013, the
government of Cavite levied the property due to non-payment of taxes
last December 2014 and subsequently sold to Ace Cadellino through
auction sale last November 2015. The non-payment of taxes is borne
the plaintiff as the non-payment of the tax was after the execution of
the Deed of Absolute Sale, violating the provisions of the Contract, to
wit:
 All expenses if any, Real Estate Tax, after the sale,
Capital Gains Tax, Documentary Stamp Tax shall
be for the account of the BUYER4.

12.5 The defendant asserts that the contract or agreement required the
plaintiff to provide notice of any alleged breach to the defendant and
allow him or her the opportunity to remedy the breach prior to the
initiation of any legal proceedings, and the plaintiff failed to provide
such notice. Where in fact, defendant served Breach of Contract
Notice to the plaintiff in lieu of particular sections in the
agreement subsequently breached by the latter.

Annex “3” shows the Breach of Contract Notice to the plaintiff

dated July 14, 2020 where the latter failed to settle.

Under Section 2 of Rule of the Rules of Court, a cause of

action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates
a right of another. From the foregoing, it was actually the
Plaintiff who violated the contract by not fulfilling his
obligations to the Corporation. It was he who violated the law
thereby causing damage to others. With all due respect, it is
he who must actually pay.

BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS

14.3 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are therefore

baseless:

Return of payment of the two lots (P 2,000,000): The

allegation is unsubstantiated by any evidence and is an act to
pre-empt the defendant’s exercise of his right to claim of
uncollected expenses paid by the Corporation.

Moral (P50,000): the actual damages being unsubstantiated,

claims moral damages are left without basis.

COUNTERCLAIMS

4
Contract to Sell, par. 14.
13. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff, the
Defendant alleges:

13.1 That the plaintiff should pay the unpaid reimbursement of the
Plaintiff for the advance payment of the capital gains tax,
documentary stamp tax of the property in question of the
amount of P345,231;

13.2 The plaintiff to pay the defendant the amount P720,000 for
unpaid VAT; and

13.3 To protect the Defendant’s right, PRC is forced to defend by

engaging the services of an attorney for P50,000 plus P4,000
fee per appearance.

TIMELINESS
14. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 30 days
from the date of receipt on March 13, 2021, today being March 20,
2021.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court render judgment as follows:
 1. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being baseless;

2. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant the payment for capital gains
tax and documentary stamp tax of P345,231, the unpaid VAT of
P720,000 and attorney’s fee of P50,000 and P4,000 fee per
appearance, plus damages of P300; and

3. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and for
costs.

Quezon City, March 20, 2021.

xx LAW FIRM
134 Amorsolo Street,
Legazpi Village, Makati,
Kalakhang Maynila
Office Tel. Nos. 987-6543

sgd. sgd.
xxx xxx
Counsel Counsel
Roll of Attorneys No. 1234567 Roll of Attorneys No. 67891001
PTR No. 1234567 - Manila PTR No. 3489922 - Manila
IBP Lifetime Membership No. 1234567 - Manila IBP Lifetime Membership No. 9876543 - Manila
MCLE Exemption No. V-1234567, issued on MCLE Exemption No. V-876543, issued on
12/3/2019 12/3/2019

Copy furnished:
ATTY. XYZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
XXXXX

BT
Zapote-Alabang Road, Talon Uno, Las Pinas City

EXPLANATION
A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and his Counsel
through registered mail as personal service is impracticable.