Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Quezon City Branch XXXVI MR. X Plaintiff, — versus — CIVIL CASE NO. 40865 For: Unlawful Detainer MR. Y. Defendant. x ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM COMES NOW, defendant, through the undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers: 1. Defendant denies any knowledge as regards the personal circumstances of the plaintiff for lack of knowledge of his identity for the reason that the one with whom he entered a Contract is a certain Mr. X, neither he personally met the said plaintiff;656 CIVIL PROCEDURE: A GUIDE FOR THE BENCH AND THE BAR — 2. Answering defendant admits the averments in paragraph 2 of the complaint as regards the personal circumstance of the defendant; 3. Defendant denies any personal knowledge as regards the ownership of the plaintiff over the subject premises, again for lack of knowledge since the one with whom he entered with a Contract of Lease is a certain Mr. X; 4. That defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint as regards the existence of Contract of Lease; 5. That defendant specifically deny the allegations of the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of his Complaint as regards the alleged increase of rentals to P18,500.00 for being a brazen lie, as the truth of the matter is that the agreed rental increase is only P16,500.00 and not P18,500.00 as claimed by the plaintiff through his attorney-in-fact as evidenced by the BPI Deposit Slips dated 2005 to 2006 evidencing payment of the rentals by the defendant in the amount of P16,500.00 under the account of Corazon De Jesus (plaintiff's daughter as per advise of their attorney-in-fact which are hereto attached as Annexes “1” — “1-__” hereof; 6. That defendant specifically deny the allegations of the plaintiff in his complaint more particularly paragraph 6 as regards the alleged eight (8) months unpaid rentals again for being a deviation from truth, as the truth of the matter is that defendant has no back rentals to the plaintiff as a matter of fact he is fully paid until August 15, 2011 as evidenced by the BPI Deposit Slips dated March 28, 2011 and July 13, 2011 which are hereto attached as Annexes “2” & “3” hereof; Further, the undersigned counsel even sent aletter Reply to the plaintiff's Attorney-in-fact Atty. Z informing him that all the rentals by the defendant have been fully paid until August 15, 2011, and deposited under the account of Ms. U as agreed upon (who is the daughter of the plaintiff). Copy of the Letter Reply is hereto attached as Annex “4” hereof; 7. That defendant specifically denies the averments of the plaintiff in paragraphs 7, 8 & 9 of his Complaint for being a concoction of truth, as the truth of the matter is that again defendant paid his rental up to August 15, 2011 which were deposited by him under the account of Ms. U asCHAPTER VIL 657 RULE 11: WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS. evidenced by the BPI Deposit Slips (Annexes “2” & “3” of the Answer). SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant herein hereby adopts, incorporates and re- pleads the foregoing allegations, and made the same as integral parts hereof. 8. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the herein answering defendant; 9. That defendant entered into a Contract of Lease with a certain; 10. Also, the Honorable Court should take judicial notice that one of the incorporators of the plaintiff corporation is already dead, and the three other members of the Board of Directors are still abroad, hence, it would be quite impossible for them to execute the said Secretary’s Certificate/Board of Resolution if there is any, not to mention that the same should be authenticated by the Philippine Embassy abroad which is a requirement under the law and the rules on evidence; 11. Defendant had been occupying the said lot for so many years now in the concept of an owner which she derived from the original owner (Mr. Francis Domingo) and which is included in the sale between them. Moreover, the lot defendant have been occupying are Lot 99 and 100, while the lot mentioned in the instant Complaint is Block 3, Lot 62 which is a totally different lots. Therefore, plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant and the case should be dismissed; 12, Defendant did not receive any demand letter from the plaintiff, neither she personally know the person who signed the alleged registry return card appended to the complaint. Even the contents of the said demand letter is defective since it failed to comply with Sec. 2 of Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure since it merely gives the defendant an alternative remedy to vacate or pay reasonable fee for the use of premises; 13. Due to the institution of the present unfounded and unwarranted complaint, defendant suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety in which she should be awarded the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages;658 CIVIL PROCEDURE: A GUIDE FOR THE BENCH AND THE BAR 14. Defendant was forced to litigate and engage, and did engage, the services of the undersigned counsel for which she committed to pay the sum of P25,000.00, as and by way of attorney’s fees, and P3,500.00 for every hearing of the case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered: a) Dismissing the instant Complaint; b) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the herein defendant the following sums: 1. P100,000.00 as moral damages; 2. The sum of P25,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees, and P2,000.00 as appearance fee for every hearing of the case; 3. Costs of suit. Such other relief and remedies which may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Manila, Metro Manila for Quezon City, January 18, 2020. TLLM LAW & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Defendant Room 1408 Ermita center Bldg,, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila By: FERDINAND A. TAN IBP Lifetime No. 014510/2-24-16 PTR NO. 89329816/3-26-20/Mla. Roll No. 38488 MCLE Exemption No. VI 002142/4-8-19 Tel. No. 247-17-57CHAPTER VII 659 RULE 11: WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS VERIFICATION REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) IN THE CITY OF MANILA )s.s. I, EMMAN IGWEBUKE OBIEGBU, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn, depose and say, that: 1. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case; 2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with Counterclaim; 3. That I have read and understood the allegations therein, and they are true and correct according to our knowledge and belief and authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto affixed my signature this __ day of January 2020, in the City of Manila. MR. Y Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of January 2020, at , Philippines, affiant exhibited his Passport/Driver’s License No. ‘ issued at on NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No.__; Page No. ; Book No. ___; Series of 2020. Copy furnished: 1) ATTY. RICO J. SAN JUAN Counsel for Plaintiff Suite 129, Pacific Irvine Bldg., 2746 Zenaida St., Brgy. Poblacion Makati City, Metro Manila EXPLANATION OF SERVICE The above Answer was not served personally to the plaintiff's counsel, and service by registered mail was resorted to due to distance and time constraints, and for lack of the undersigned’s office personnel thereby rendering personal service thereof inconvenient and impracticable. FERDINAND A. TAN