Republic of the Philippines

Third Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
City of San Jose Del Monte
Province of Bulacan
Branch 3
ASIA PRIME PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiff ,
Vs.

Civil Case No. 011-SJ-2016

For: Ejectment

ALLAN QUITE,
And all other persons claiming
rights under him,
Defendant.
x----------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
(With counterclaim)
COMES NOW Defendant in the above case, assisted by the
undersigned Counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
files this answer and avers:
1. That the Defendant denies the allegations in the first paragraph
of the Complaint for lack of knowledge to determine the veracity
thereof;
2. Defendant admits only the portion in paragraph two that the
undersigned is ALLAN QUIETA, Filipino, of legal age and with
postal address at block 11 lot 14 Primavera Heights, Tungkong
Mangga City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan;
3. That the Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the
Complaint for the reason that as per transfer certificate of title
and tax declaration attached as Annex A-1 and A-2 of the
Complaint, the subject property contains only 50 square meters
which is entirely different from the property we bought under the
contract to sell (Annex C of the complaint) which states 75
square meters and floor area of 54 square meters.
4. That the Defendant specifically and vehemently denies the
false allegations in paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16 of the complaint the truth of the matter is that it is the
complainant who is remiss in their obligations and failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of the contract.
5. That the Defendant specifically denies the veracity, existence
and truthfulness of the Complaint as well as its annexes B, C,
1

D, E, F, G, H, I, J for lack of factual and legal basis

conformable to what we allege below.
6. That the Defendant specifically denies the allegation that
undersigned defendant was fully notified of the demand letters
and the different notices that complainant allegedly sent.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Answering Defendant allege:
7.
In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is
entitled to the physical or material possession of the property
involved, independent of any claim of ownership set by any of
the party litigants. Even if one is the owner of the property, the
possession thereof cannot be wrested from another who had
been in the physical or material possession of the same for
more than (1) year by restoring to a summary action for
ejectment.
8. That in the instant case the undersigned initially moved in at B
11 Lot 14 on July 2013 hence he has been in the premises for
more than one (1) year.
9. The complainant failed to comply with their obligation to deliver
the thing in accordance with the contract to sell. Aggrieved, the
undersigned even sent several letters (Attached as Annex A
and B) to the Complainant for their failure to comply with the
terms of the contract such as benching for security, damaged
canopy and toilet sink/basin, and failure to provide for water
and electricity meter.
10.
Complainant, as developer, should have provided for
proper electric meter for meralco and water district but instead
connected the defendant to sub-metered electricity which is not
from meralco and is always fluctuating causing his equipment
to be damaged. Attached as Annex C and D are
photographs of the electric and water meter)
11.
It pains the Defendant to know that when he is in
Malaysia it is his wife, who is operated and at an advanced age
to, is obliged to fetch water and carry water from another place
towards our home.
12.
More importantly, it is the complainant and not the
undersigned who failed to comply with their obligation to the
defendant by delivering a different property which is less than
what was agreed upon in the contract to sell.

13.
As stated in the contract, the undersigned bought 75
square meteres of property however, the complainant only
delivered 50 square meters.
14.
The undersigned has been religiously paying the
complainant and is in almost seventy (70) percent paid
already.Attached herein is a copy of the computation of the
Defendant as Annex E.
15.
That as such, the herein civil complaint for ejectment has
no legal or factual basis.
Counterclaim
16.
Due to malicious filing of the instant suit and due to nonfulfillment of Complainants obligations under the contract, the
defendant suffered damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS P 100, 000.00., Actual damages in the
amount of at least SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED THIRTY THREE AND TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS
P64, 433.25 pesos as medical expenses, and Attorneys fees
in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS P 30, 000.00.
PRAYER
FOREGOING CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed from
the Honorable Court that this case be dismissed; and that the prayer
for monetary award be denied and that plaintiff be adjudged liable for
damages such as:
a. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS P 100, 000.00 Moral
Damages
b. Actual damages in the amount of at least SIXTY FOUR
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY THREE AND
TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS P64, 433.25 pesos as medical
expenses, and
c. Attorneys fees in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS P 30, 000.00.
For such other relief and remedies just and equitable under the
foregoing premises.
May 20, 2016, City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.

AGA LAW OFFICE

San Jose St. Brgy. Poblacion 1
City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan
0917-5414344

WARLITO GOGOLIN
ANTONIO D. ANDRES, JR.

Copy Furnished:
DE GUZMN GALIAS & RIVERA LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
8/f Cyer One Building, Eastwood Cyber Park
E.Rodriguez Jr. Avenue, Baumbayan, Quezon City