Republic of the Philippines

MUNICI PALTRI AL COURT

BRANCH 7
ILOILO CITY

Ms Catr iona Br own,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 2
Unlawful Detainer
-versus-

Ms Shamcey Sipsip
Defendant,
/

ANSWER

DEFENDANT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers:

I
Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted;

II
Paragraphs3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form
a belief thereof. The allegations are purely baseless. Defendant is made to vacate a property
transferred through an absolute deed of sale, therefore she is denying liability based on the
complaint, the truth being as stated in the Affirmative defenses.

III
AS AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, DEFENDANTS REPLEAD AND INCORPORATE THE
FOREGOING AVERMENTS AND FURTHER ALLEGE:

THE CONDITION PRECEDENT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH;

All disputes are subject to barangay conciliation pursuant to Revised Katarungang

Pambaranggay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Sections 399-422,
Chapter VII, Title 1, Book III, and Section 515, Title 1, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991) and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition
before filing a complaint in court or any government agency (Par. 1, Supreme Court
AdministrativeCircular 14-93).

A careful perusal of the complaint and its evidence would show that Plaintiffs failed to
comply with the conciliation proceedings. There is no allegation in the complaint that referral
was made to the
Katarungang Pambaranggay, or an explanation that referral thereto is excepted under the given
circumstance.

In the words of the Supreme Court:

“The precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement of P.D.
1508(nowLocalGovernmentCodeof1991,Sec.412)where applicable is much thesame effect
produced by non-exhaustion of administrative remedies; the complaint becomesafflicted
withtheviceofpre-maturity,thecontroversythere alleged is not ripe for judicialdetermination.”
(Garces v. CourtofAppeal, 162SCRA504).

In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals in dismissing an ejectment case for
failure to comply with the conciliation proceedings, the Supreme Court said:

“Referral to the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat should be made prior to the filing of
the ejectment case under PD 1508. Legal action for ejectment is barred when there is non-
recourse to barangaycourt. The Complaint for unlawful detainer, docketed a Civil Case No. 2137,
should have been coursed first to the barangay court.” (Heirs of Fernando Vinzons v. Court of
Appeals,G.R.No.111915. September 30,1999).

By reason thereof, the case should be dismissed for pre-maturity.

COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION;

As alleged in the complaint, petitioner has the right to possess the property in question
because of the terms of the lease agreement signed by both parties.

It will be so until the plaintiff signed a deed of absolute sale as the seller and the
defendant as a buyer before the former went to Japan on December 19, 2019, making the
latter the new owner of the property.(Exhibit “A”)

Under the Civil Code, the ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the buyer from
the moment it is delivered to him when it is placed in the control and possession of the
buyer.

Unless it is proven that the defendant has no right and is not entitled to possess the
questioned property, there would be no cause of action to be considered.

Defendant’s Counterclaim:

By reason of Plaintiff’s unfounded and malicious suit against the Defendant, the latter
suffered serious anxiety, mental anguish, social humiliation, and sleepless nights for which they
ought to be compensated in an amount of no less than Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00).

As an example for public good, Plaintiff is ought to be penalized by way of

Exemplary Damages in an amount of no less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to deter
those who similarly inclined to wantonly disrespect the rights of others and maliciously drag
them to litigation.
 Defendant was constrained to engage the services of a counsel, for which she paid
Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as acceptance fee and is bound to pay Three Thousand
Pesos (P3,000.00) per counsel’s appearance.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that judgment be rendered, dismissing the complaint, and ordering the Plaintiff to pay to
the Defendant Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral
Damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as and by way of Exemplary Damages,
and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25 000.00) or more, as and by way of attorney’s fees.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Iloilo City, Iloilo, October 3, 2020

KEENA D. CAIMOL
CounselfortheDefendant Roll. No. 12345
IBP No. 6789
PTR No. 0123
Laoang, Northern Samar MCLEComplianceNo.
I-4567 MCLE Compliance No. II-890
 PROOF OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing MOTION has been served on Atty. Rossa Marie R.
Rivera-Sortigosa, counsel for the Plaintiff, at his address in Rm.42/FIloiloCityCenter180Mandurriao,
IloiloCity, by registered mail for lack of office personnel to effect personalservice.

KEENA D. CAIMOL

Copy furnished:

Atty. Rossa Marie R. Rivera-Sortigosa

Mandurriao,IloiloCity

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I,MS.SHAMCEY SIPSIP,oflegalage,Filipino,andresidentofJaro, Iloilo City, after

having been duly sworn in accordance to law, depose and say:

1. I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation and the filing of this verified Answer, and I have
read and understood the allegations contained therein, and that the same are true and correct
based on my personal knowledge and authentic records;

3. I further certify that I have not commenced any other action involving the same
issues before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or in any other Tribunal or Quasi-
judicial bodies, and should there be any other action or proceeding involving the same issues, I
shall undertake to inform the Honorable Court within five (5) days from notice thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this 3rd day of October 2020, at Iloilo
City, Iloilo.

MS. SHAMCEY SIPSIP

Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of October 2020, at Iloilo City, Iloilo,
affiant showing to me her Passport No. 123456 and known to me to be the same persons who
executed the foregoingVerification/Certification.

ATTY. ROBERT C. CURATA

Notary Public

Doc. No. ____10______

Page No. ____6______
Book No. ___ 2______
Series of 2020