Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Answer Ronal Manuel (Lease Contract)

    Uploaded by

    Patrio Jr Señeres
    1. The defendant files this answer and motion to dismiss the unlawful detainer case filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The defendant denies most of the plaintiffs' claims and asserts affirmative defenses including that the defendant has lived in the premises for over 43 years and has no outstanding rental payments. 3. The defendant claims the real reason for the case is that the plaintiffs want to sell the property and are forcing the tenants to leave, including offering the defendant money to vacate, which was refused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Answer Ronal Manuel (Lease Contract)

    Uploaded by

    Patrio Jr Señeres
    95 views7 pages
    1. The defendant files this answer and motion to dismiss the unlawful detainer case filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The defendant denies most of the plaintiffs' claims and asserts affirmative defenses including that the defendant has lived in the premises for over 43 years and has no outstanding rental payments. 3. The defendant claims the real reason for the case is that the plaintiffs want to sell the property and are forcing the tenants to leave, including offering the defendant money to vacate, which was refused.

    Original Description:

    asdasdas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The defendant files this answer and motion to dismiss the unlawful detainer case filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The defendant denies most of the plaintiffs' claims and asserts affirmative defenses including that the defendant has lived in the premises for over 43 years and has no outstanding rental payments. 3. The defendant claims the real reason for the case is that the plaintiffs want to sell the property and are forcing the tenants to leave, including offering the defendant money to vacate, which was refused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    95 views7 pages

    Answer Ronal Manuel (Lease Contract)

    Uploaded by

    Patrio Jr Señeres
    1. The defendant files this answer and motion to dismiss the unlawful detainer case filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The defendant denies most of the plaintiffs' claims and asserts affirmative defenses including that the defendant has lived in the premises for over 43 years and has no outstanding rental payments. 3. The defendant claims the real reason for the case is that the plaintiffs want to sell the property and are forcing the tenants to leave, including offering the defendant money to vacate, which was refused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


    METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
    BRANCH 52, CALOOCAN CITY

    LIGAYA BARCARSE-
    MANGALINDAN, MYRNA
    BARCARSE-BARTOLOME and
    EDNA BARCARSE-QUICHO,
    Plaintiffs,

    -versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 12-30385


    For: Unlawful Detainer
    EVELYN CAHINHINAN and/or all
    persons claiming rights under
    him,
    Defendant(s).
    x--------------------------------------------------------x

    ANSWER
    (With Motion to Dismiss)

    DEFENDANT, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office, through the


    undersigned Public Attorneys, unto this Honorable Court, most
    respectfully states THAT:

    1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint is denied for lack of knowledge


    or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

    2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint is admitted;

    3. Paragraph 3 of the complaint is denied for lack of knowledge


    or information sufficient to form a belief (as to the truth thereof);

    4. Paragraph 4 of the complaint is admitted subject to the


    qualification that the defendant had been residing in the subject premises
    for more than forty-three (43) years;

    5. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint are specifically


    denied as discussed in our affirmative and special defenses;

    6. Paragraph of the complaint is specifically denied as there


    was no complaint filed by the plaintiffs in the barnagay for collecting
    unpaid rentals and/or unlawful detainer case but solely for the purpose of
    offering to the defendant the amount of P10, 000.00 in order for him to
    leave the premises as the plaintiffs intend to sell the property. Taking into
    consideration the fact that there was no prior referral to the barangay, the
    case is deemed prematurely filed. Copy of a Certification dated April 26,
    2012 of the Punong Barangay is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX
    “A” ;

    7. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the complaint are specifically


    denied as discussed in our affirmative and special defenses;

    8. Paragraph 11 of the complaint is denied for lack of


    knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
    thereof; and by way of—

    AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

    9. The defendant hereby adopts and incorporates by reference


    all the foregoing allegations and further avers that –

    10. Firstly, there is no showing whatsoever that the plaintiffs


    herein are the children of the owners of the seven door apartments, one
    of which was occupied by the defendant;

    11. Secondly, no relocation survey was presented by the plaintiffs


    to show the lot subject of this case is the same lot covered by the Transfer
    Certificate of Title attached to their Complaint;

    12. Furthermore, there is no truth to the allegation of the plaintiffs


    that the defendant herein has not paid her rentals since November 2011
    up to the present;

    13. The truth of the matter is that, the defendant has no


    outstanding arrears or unpaid rentals with the plaintiffs. As a matter of
    fact, she had paid her rentals for the months of January to March 2012 as
    evidenced by the deposit slips hereto attached as ANNEX “B”;

    14. Defendant never defaulted in the payment of her rentals and


    had in fact tendered payment to the plaintiffs for the month of April 2012
    but the plaintiffs refused to accept the same and even told all their
    lessees to no longer deposit the payment of rentals in their bank account
    for the said month. Considering the refusal of the plaintiffs to accept the
    payment made by the defendant, she caused the blotter of the same
    together with Mr. Jaime Custodio before the barangay as evidenced by the
    Blotter hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “C”;
    15. The person authorized by the plaintiffs to administer the
    payment of rents of the seven door apartments of the plaintiffs is Mr.
    Alfredo Anot, who is also occupying one of the seven door apartments;

    16. Being the administrator of the seven door apartments of the


    plaintiffs, Mr. Anot causes the deposit of the payments made by the
    defendant and the lessees through her daughter, Agnes Anot, in the
    account of plaintiff Ligaya Barcarse-Mangalindan. Attached hereto are
    copies of the deposits slips representing previous payments made by the
    lessees, defendant included, to the bank account of plaintiff Ligaya
    Barcarse-Mangalindan marked as ANEXES “D” to “D-14”;

    17. In the years of being a lessee to the plaintiffs, defendant was


    never issued any receipt for the payment of rentals she has made despite
    repeated demands by the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiffs has ordered
    Mr. Anot to deposit the payments made by the defendant and the other
    lessees under a single deposit slip such that there is no showing in the
    deposit slip as to who among the lessees had actually paid their rents.
    The defendant, together with the other lessees, had in fact been
    requesting the plaintiffs to allow them to pay individually their rents to the
    account of plaintiff Ligaya for their own protection but said request fell on
    deaf ears. Taking into account the refusal of the plaintiffs to issue receipts
    and the depositing of the rentals under a single deposit slip, it becomes
    incumbent upon the plaintiffs to render an accounting as to the payments
    made by the defendant and the other lessees;

    18. The main reason of the filing of this case against the
    defendant and the other lessees was the intention of the plaintiffs to sell
    their apartments to another person. It is not because the defendant or the
    other lessees have defaulted on their rental payments;

    19. The conciliation held in the barangay was not all about
    defendant’s purported ejectment for failure to pay rentals and vacate the
    property . The plaintiff’s wanted the defendant and the other lessees to
    leave the property subject of this case as the former intended to sell the
    same, and in so doing, the plaintiffs even tried to convince the defendant
    to leave the premises by offering them the amount of P10, 000.00 to
    which the defendant, together with the other lessees, refused to accept as
    evidenced by the documents denominated as Kasunduan and Katunayan
    issued by the barangay hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “E” and
    “F”;

    20. In fact, the defendant and the plaintiffs met only once at the
    baranagay and the matter was not even referred to the Lupon such that
    the defendant was shocked when she received the Summons from the
    Honorable Court. By the acts of the plaintiffs, they are circumventing the
    Law on Katarungang Pambarangay;

    21. Considering that the plaintiffs are intending to sell the


    property, defendant have the right of first refusal to purchase the
    property, such that the plaintiff should have offered the sale first to the
    defendant before other outsider buyer;

    22. It is also worth emphasizing that, granting for the sake of


    argument but without necessarily admitting that defendant has failed to
    pay rents, the defendant did not received any demand letter from the
    plaintiffs;

    23. Absent any proof that the demand letter was received by the
    defendant, the instant case is considered to be prematurely filed. Hence,
    there being no cause of action on the part of the plaintiffs against the
    defendant, the instant case therefore is dismissible; and by way of –

    COUNTERCLAIM

    24. By reason of the unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations


    of the plaintiffs and the malicious filing of this case to the prejudiced of
    the defendant, the latter suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish,
    serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock
    and social humiliation. Consequently, the plaintiffs should therefore be
    held liable for moral damages in the amount of P50, 000.00;

    25. For their necessary correction of public good, plaintiffs should


    also be held liable to pay P50, 000.00 as exemplary damages;

    26. Despite being represented by the Public Attorney’s Office for


    free, the plaintiffs should also be held liable to pay Attorney’s Fees as the
    defendant was constrained to litigate to protect her rights which may be
    awarded pursuant to R.A. 9406 (PAO Law) which provide:
    “The cost of the suit, attorney’s office and contingent
    fees imposed upon the adversary of PAO clients after
    a successful litigation shall be deposited in the
    National Treasury as trust fund and shall be
    disbursed for special allowances of authorized
    officials and lawyers of the PAO.” (Sec. 16-D)
    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant most respectfully


    prays that after due notice and hearing, Judgment be rendered
    dismissing the instant case for utter lack of merit and order the plaintiffs
    to pay to the defendants the following:

    a. Moral damages in the amount of P50, 000.00;


    b. Exemplary damages in the amount of P50, 000.00;
    c. Attorney’s Fees and cost of suit.

    Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.


    Caloocan City, May 2, 2012.
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
    Caloocan City District Office
    4th Flr. Aurelio Bldg. II
    11th Ave., Caloocan City

    By:

    DAVIDSON T. SARMIENTO
    District Public Attorney
    Roll No. 39124
    IBP Life Time Member No. 08146
    MCLE Compliance No. IV - 0005393

    MARYLOIS C. LUGO
    Public Attorney II
    Roll No. 58747
    IBP No. 780108
    MCLE Compliance No. IV – 0005404
    VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

    The undersigned, after having been duly sworn to in accordance


    with law, depose and say:

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

    2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing


    Answer (With Motion to Dismiss) ;

    3. That the contents thereof were explained in the language known


    to me; and

    4. That the allegations therein are true of my own personal


    knowledge;

    5. That I did not commence any other action or proceeding involving


    the same issue pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
    Tribunal or Agency;

    6. That to the best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding


    is pending before any Court, Tribunal, or Agency; and

    7. That if I should learn of a similar action or proceeding before any


    Court, Tribunal, or Agency, I will personally inform the Court of the same
    within five (5) days from such notice.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2 nd day


    of May 2012, at Caloocan City.
    EVELYN CAHINHINAN
    Affiant

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of May 2012


    here at Caloocan City, affiant exhibiting to me her only available valid
    Identification Card consisting of her Passport ID with No. H884729 issued
    in August 21, 1990 at Manila.

    LOLY AQUINO-MADDUMA
    Public Attorney II
    Pursuant to R.A. 9406 (PAO Law)

    Copy Furnished:
    ATTY. MARISSA V. MANALO
    MANALO-ANG &ASSOCIATES
    3rd Floor Victory Central Mall (Admin Dept.)
    No. 717 Old Victory Compound
    Rizal Avenue, Monumento
    Caloocan City
    EXPLANATION

    The foregoing Answer(With Motion to Dismiss) is served through


    registered mail to the other party, personal service not being practicable
    due to lack of personnel.

    MARYLOIS C.
    LUGO

    You might also like