You are on page 1of 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


12TH Judicial Region
Branch 40, Surigao City

CHIWAWA PLAZA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 12345
-versus-
For: Annulment of Deed of
Sale,
RIDEN BOY, Transfer Certificate of Title,
Defendant. ---- Reconveyance and
Damages x ----------------------------- x

ANSWER (With
COUNTERCLAIM)

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:

Admissions / Denials

1. The defendant admits the contents of paragraph 1 and 2


insofar as the plaintiff’s and defendant’s personal
circumstances is concerned.

2. The defendant admits conditionally the allegations in


paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint, the truth of the matter
is that the assessed value of the subject property is only One
Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) and that as the registered
owner of the subject property prior to the date of sale, it is
incumbent upon him to pay the real estate taxes thereof.

3. That defendant specifically denies the allegations of


paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 8. The truth of the matter is that
the plaintiff entered into a contract of sale with the
defendant covering the said real property with Original
Certificate of Tittle No. 332211 as the subject of such deed of
absolute sale executed on August 1, 2015, marked as ANNEX
1.

4. That there has been no agreement entered into by and


between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the
non-payment of loan for 5 years by reason that what has
been executed is a deed of absolute sale and such
contract shall govern the parties thereto including his heirs
and assigns.
5. Plaintiff, just to justify and boost his claim cannot hide under
the cloak of illiteracy to escape from any liability and
obligations arising out of the contract of sale in order to
defraud or work to the disadvantage of the other party
which in the case at bar is the defendant, because the
presumption of regularity in the execution of contract will
govern between the plaintiff and the defendant. Besides,
the documents executed by and between the defendant
and the plaintiff is a duly notarized document which
constitute a notice to the whole world and as such, it is
highly improbable for the plaintiff to claim illiteracy when
in truth and in fact he can avail of a services of a lawyer in
order to protect his interest.

6. The Plaintiff claims that he was made to believe by the


defendants to sign a document representing to be a
Contract of Real Estate Mortgage on the One Million Peso
(Php 1,000,000.00) Loan with 12% interest per annum, but in
reality it was a deed of sale has no leg to stand on in law. In
any civil or criminal action it is the duty of the plaintiff or the
complainant to prove what he alleged in his complaint and
he should not rely on the strength and weakness of the
evidence of the defense but he should present evidence to
prove what he allege. The plaintiff in the instant case did
not only rely on his pure allegation but failed to adduce
evidence in support of his allegations against the defendant
as contained in paragraph 7 and 8 of his complaint. It is
elementary in every court proceedings that a mere
allegation unsupported by a concrete object or
documentary evidence is fatal to the plaintiff’s cause.

Counterclaim

1. That the defendant suffered besmirch reputation, mental


anguish, sleepless nights due to the filling of the baseless
complaints by the plaintiff and claimed Fifty Thousand
Pesos (Php 50,000.00) by way of moral damages.

2. That he engages the services of an attorney at law to


protect his interest and incurred Thirty Thousand Pesos
(Php 30,000.00) as
attorney’s fees and Ten Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000.00) as
cost of litigation.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered defendant, most


respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgement be
rendered:

a) Dismissing the complaint for utter lack of merit and cause of


action.

b) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant moral damages,


attorney’s fees and cost of litigation as prayed for in the
preceding paragraph, and

c) And such other relief as may be deemed just and


equitable under the circumstance.

City of Surigao, August 9, 2016.

ATTY. DONJIE SAPPHIRE ZERDA


Counsel for the
Defendant Roll No.
98765
IBP No, 12345/1-3-2010/CdO
PTR No. 34567/1-3-
2010/CdO
MCLE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 556678
PEQUINA ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Suite 258, The Tower
Parola, Surigao City

Copy furnished:

ATTY. CHELLE URBIZTONDO


Counsel for the Plaintiff
c/o Sharks and Associates Law
Firm Kodys Building,
Boulevard, Surigao City
IBP No. 1234567/1-02-15
PTR No. 23456/ 1-02-15
Roll No.666
MCLE Compliance No. IV-7654/03-21-
2015 Telephone No. (086) 826-8260