REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

X x x CITY
BRANCH x x x

X x x,
Plaintiff
Civil Case No. xxx
- Versus –
Unlawful Detainer
Xx x, etc.,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------x

ANSW ER
(In re: Summons, Received on
xxx 2011)

The DEFENDANT xxx, by counsel, respectfully states:

I. ANSWER

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint are admitted.

2. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the Complaint are denied for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being
matters known only to, and are within the control only, of the plaintiff.

3. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the Complaint are admitted.

4. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to
form a belief as to the veracity or falsity of the alleged amounts of attorney’s fees agreed upon
between the plaintiff and her lawyer. The said paragraph is likewise denied insofar as it alleges
that the defendant has no basis or justification to occupy the subject property, the truth being
those alleged in the special and affirmative defenses part hereinbelow.

II. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. The title to and ownership in fee simple over the subject property is in the name of the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), its registered owner, and not the plaintiff. (See
Annex “A”, Par. 3, Complaint).

6. The plaintiff is not “the owner” in fee simple of the subject property, contrary to her
allegation in Par. 3 of the Complaint.

7. The alleged Deed of Conditional Sale between the GSIS and the plaintiff is not annotated
on the title on the property. (See dorsal side of the title of the property, marked as Annex “A”,
Par. 3, Complaint).

8. Although the GSIS has given the plaintiff the right of possession of the property under Par.
4 © of the Deed of Conditional Sale (Annex “B”, Par. 4, Complaint), the plaintiff knew or was
supposed to know or was deemed by law to be obligated to know and to investigate the fact
that at the time of her purchase of the property, the xxx Family were in possession of the
property and that it had a vested, beneficial and equitable right thereto by reason of
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed in 1975 between its original purchaser xxx,
represented by xxx, on the one hand, and the matriarch of the xxx Family, i.e., xxx, on the
other.
A copy of the said MOA is attached as Annex “1”.
A copy of the Special Power of Attorney of xxx (1974) is attached as Annex “2” hereof.

9. Since 1975 up to the present time, the xxx Family has been in possession of the subject
property by reason of the said MOA. This fact was known to plaintiff when she investigated the
background property until the time she closed her purchase thereof with the GSIS. There is no
proof that plaintiff had reported the real situation of the property to the GSIS for a solution or
amicable settlement between the parties prior to her purchase thereof. Likewise, the GSIS did
not send any investigator to investigate the situation of the property prior to and at the time of
its sale to the plaintiff. It did not issue any formal notice to the defendant or the xxx Family
about the impending attempt of the plaintiff to purchase the property. Had the xxx Family been
notified thereon, they would have taken urgent steps to acquire the same instead of the
plaintiff.

10. In 2002, Sps. xxx, the parents of the herein defendant xxx, executed a Special Power
of Attorney in favor of the herein defendant, a copy of which is marked as Annex “3” hereof.
11. The defendant had answered the demanded letter, dated xxx 2011, of the plaintiff through
a letter, dated xxx 2011, of defendant’s counsel, a copy of which is attached as Annex “4”
hereof. It requested plaintiff’s lawyer for a special conference to discuss a serious extrajudicial
compromise, without admission of guilt on the part of the defendant. It was not formally
answered by the plaintiff.

12.GSIS is an (if not “the”) indispensable party in the suit being the registered owner in fee
simple of the subject property. The ownership rights of plaintiff under her unannotated Deed of
Conditional Sale with the GSIS are merely inchoate and contingent. The Complaint shows no
Board Resolution from the Board of Trustees of the GSIS empowering the plaintiff to sue the
defendant in behalf of the GSIS in the instant case.

III. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

13.By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by reason of the instant
precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer
to defend his rights and interests for a professional fee of P20,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per court
appearance;
14.Similarly, the plaintiff’s unfounded suit has caused the defendant mental anguish and
suffering and public humiliation and embarrassment, for which the defendant claims moral
damages of P100,000.00.

IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the parties be given ample time
to reach an amicable settlement before the xxx City Mediation Center; and that in case of a
failure thereof, and after trial, the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the defendant’s
compulsory counterclaim be granted, i.e.. attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 plus moral damages of
P100,000.00, plus costs of suit.
The defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable in the premises.
xxx City, xxx 2011.