1

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
7th Judicial Region
Branch 1
Talisay City, Cebu

THELMA DEL ROSARIO VITERBO,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 1791
- versus -
FOR: Unlawful Detainer,
Attorney’s Fees, Damages
________________________________,
Defendant.
x-----------------------/

ANSWER

Comes Now, defendants Fortunato Alfeche, Jr. and Sps. Gregorio and Jovita
Alfeche unto this Honorable Court most respectfully state:

1. That the allegations made under par. 1 of the complaint are not admitted for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to its truthfulness;

2. That the allegations made under par. 2 of the complaint are admitted since it
refers to the personal circumstances of the defendants;

3. That the allegations made under par. 3 is not admitted as the Complaint did
not provide a copy of the said Agreement executed before the Agrarian office.
Moreover, with respect to annual payment of P5,000.00 defendants had been
complying the same (attached herewith is the receipts for the payment);

4. That the allegation made under par. 4 is not admitted. Defendants religiously
paid their rents. Furthermore, We reiterate, that there was no copy of the said
agreement in the Agrarian office that defendants supposedly failed to comply.
How then would we determine what stipulations on the said agreement was
supposedly breached.

5. Allegations in paragraphs 5,6,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17 and 18 are
also denied. While it is true that a document titled as Amicable Settlement was
attached as an annex to the Complaint, the said agreement only talked about
two (2) things, namely:
 2

1) Fortunato Alfeche, Jr., andam modawat sa area nga 100

sq meters basi sa natudlo ni Margie Dacalos. (That Fortunato
Alfeche Jr is ready and willing to accept the 100 sq meters lot
that was pointed/determined by Margie Dacalos)
2) Gregorio and Jovita Alfeche - modawat sa kantidad as
pahinungod nga posible mahatag karong September 2022
(Spouses Gregorio and Jovita are willing to receive an
(undetermined) amount as consideration…)

Gleaned from the foregoing stipulations, the said agreement before the
barangay was ambiguous and incomplete. Nevertheless, what is clear is that
100 sq. meters lot was promised to Fortunato and an undetermined amount of
money was also promised to spouses Gregorio and Jovita. Nowhere, from th
attached Agreement that provides for the defendants’ obligations. Apparently,
it was the complainants who reneged on their obligation.

While all the legal precepts mentioned in the Complaint may be true, they
have no legal bearings on this case since there was no breached committed by
the defendants. Again, we reiterate, it is the complainants who did not abide
by what was agreed in the barangay. The complainants then have no cause of
action against herein defendants.

AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE DEFENSES

Herein Answering defendant is re-pleading and reiterating the foregoing averments

and as affirmative and negative defenses states:

1. That plaintiff’s allegations were unsupported by proof;

2. That the case was filed to harass defendants to force them out of their legally
held property since they were lawful possessors as tenants of the land they are
possessing. This fact is admitted by complainants in the Complaint in
paragraph 5 where they mentioned that they went to the barangay to settle the
tenancy issue;

3. That complainants did not provide proof that they are the legal heirs of the
registered owners of the subject property
 3

4. Because of this malicious filing of case, defendant incurred expenses to

defend her rights;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that

judgment be rendered: (a) Dismissing the above-captioned case with costs against the
plaintiffs; and (b) Granting such other relief and remedies that are just and equitable
under the case.
Respectfully submitted. June 29, 2023, Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
Talisay City District Office
Talisay City New City Hall
Talisay City, Cebu

By:

MARIA EDBIESA B. SALVE

Public Attorney II
Roll of Attorney’s No. 51722
MCLE IV 0007749

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-

FORUM SHOPPING

We defendants of the above case, of legal age, Filipino and residing at, Cebu,
Philippines, after having been duly shown to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and say that we are the defendants in the above-docketed case; that we caused the
preparation of the foregoing answer; that we read the contents thereof and are understood
by us after also translated in the dialect we fully understand and that the same are true to
my own knowledge and based on authentic records.

We, further certify, that we have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of our
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; that if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and that we
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, we shall report that fact within five (5) days there from to the court where this
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
 4

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed our signatures this June 29,
2023 Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines.

FORTUNATO ALFECHE

GREGORIO ALFECHE

JOVITA ALFECHE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this June 29, 2023 at Talisay City,
Cebu, Philippines.

MARIA EDBIESA B. SALVE

Copy furnished to:

Atty. ROWELL JUBAN

Suite 6K Baseline Center HQ, Juana Osmena St Capitol Site, Cebu City

EXPLANATION: Copy furnished by registered mail due to distance, time constraint and lack of office personnel to
effect personal service.