Ricardo dalisay, Civil case no.

:
Plaintiff, XI-721 (25) MCTC CIVIL
CASE NO. 1 (16) - M

-versus- For:
Unlawful detainer
Don Emilio quijote
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Defendant, through undersigned counsel unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully submits this Answer in the above- titled case
and aver that:

1. Defendant Don Emilio admits the contents of paragraph 2

only insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned.

2. Defendant Don Emilio further admits that Plaintiff Ricardo

Dalisay is the registered owner of a 10- hectare property
which is the subject of this case pursuant to an Original
Certificate of Title No. P-9996 issued on October 11, 1977.

3. However, Plaintiff Ricardo Dalisay did not exercise prior

physical possession of the property before he filed this
Unlawful Detainer Case.

4. Plaintiff Ricardo Dalisay, even if he is the registered owner,

did not actually possess and cultivate the land. He did not
even visit nor inspect the land. In the case of Larano vs
Calendacion (525 SCRA 57), the Supreme Court held that:

5. Defendant Don Emilio and Plaintiff Ricardo Dalisay has no

agreement ow whatsoever regarding the former’s possession
of the subject lot. Possession thereof by the Defendant Don
Emilio cannot be considered as mere tolerance because the
Plaintiff Ricardo Dalisay has no legal capacity to allow or
 tolerate the possession of the property since prior to the
commencement of the possession, Plaintiff Ricardo Dalisay
was not the registered owner thereof.

6. Filing of this case has already been barred by prescription. In

the case of Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes (G.R. No. 178096,
March 23, 2011), the Supreme Court held that:

“The action must be brought up within one year from the

date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the
right to physical possession.”

7. Defendant Don Emilio did not receive the purported

demand letter dated June 15, 2019 (attached as “Annex B” of
the Complaint). The latest demand letter that was received
by Defendant Don Emilio was on October 20, 2018, which is
already beyond the 1-year period provided under the law
(Demand letter to vacate dated October 20, 2018 is attached
herein as “Annex A”).

8. Defendant Don Emilio is the one who paid for the Real
Property taxes of the property (Receipt of RPT payment is
attached herein as “Annex B”).

9. As a result of Plaintiff Ricardo Dalisay’s act of filing this

case before this Honorable Court, Defendant Don Emilio
was compelled to file this Answer, and for this reason have
to engage the services of Counsel Atty. Teodoro Arevalo for
an agreed professional fee of Php 150,000.00.

10.Furthermore, Defendant Don Emilio suffered emotional

disturbance and embarrassment.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the Complaint filed by Plaintiff
Ricardo Dalisay be dismissed and thereby ordering the latter to:
 3. To reimburse the Defendant Don Emilio of his costs
incurred in order to protect his rights, in the form of One Hundred
Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 150,000.00) as Attorney’s Fees, and Five
Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) as appearance fees per hearing;

4. To compensate Defendant Don Emilio from moral

damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
300,000.00);

5. To pay the Defendant Don Emilio for exemplary damages

in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php
150,000.00) and;

6. To pay the costs of this suit.

Defendant Don Emilio further prays for such other reliefs that
this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the
premises.