Ejectment Answer

Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

7th Judicial Region
Branch 2
City of Tagbilaran
EVELINA ORA,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 1234
- versus - For:
UNLAWFUL DETAINER with
SPOUSES RIZAL DAMI and JANE DAMAGES
DAMI,
Defendants,
x-------------------------/
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
DEFENDANTS, through the undersigned counsel unto this honorable

Court, most respectfully alleges that:
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is denied; a. Denial is improper

b. Denial is proper
2. Paragraph 2 is admitted; c. Denial is immaterial
3. Paragraphs 3 to 4 of the Complaint are specifically denied for lack of

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
thereof;
a. Denial should be on each and every paragraph;
b. Denial must be substantiated
c. Immaterial averment
4. Paragraph 5 is partially admitted.
5. Paragraph 6 is admitted.
6. Paragraph 7 is specifically denied for being incomplete. The whole truth

being that the sister of Defendant-husband, Sylvia Dami, used to be the
owner of the said property financed through PAG-IBIG which she defaulted
in payment. Upon learning of such default or inability to pay, Defendant-wife
informed the PAG-IBIG on October 25, 2004 of her intent to assume the
property as she and her family also live on the subject property. They have
been living on the said property since year 1986. They were only shocked
that on September 2022, the plaintiff informed them of the sale the property
to her. However, after plaintiff personally demanded the defendants to
vacate the property, they asked to stay until their child finish high school,
which is in eight (8) months time;
7. Paragraphs 8 to 10 are denied; a. Materials averments must be specifically

denied.
b. Immaterial averments need not be
specifically denied
c. Denial must be substantiated.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
a. Defenses not pleaded are deemed barred.
b. Defenses not pleaded are deemed waived.
c. Defenses not pleaded are deemed admitted.
8. While the Defendants admit those not specifically denied in the Complaint,
the Defendants cannot be held liable for unlawful detainer on the following
grounds and the governing or applicable laws, to wit:
a. The Defendants’ occupation is by virtue of an existing and valid

contract;
As stated in paragraph 4 hereof, the Plaintiff and the Defendant-wife had an

agreement that the latter and her children will be allowed to stay on the
property until the latter’s child finishes high school. With this oral agreement
between the parties, it cannot be gainsaid, that defendants’ occupation of
the property is by virtue of a valid and existing oral contract, not prohibited
by law nor contrary to morals or good customs, thus, binding between the
parties.
Article 1305 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “A contract is
a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with
respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.” Further,
Article 1356 thereof provides that “Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever
form they may have been entered into, xxx .
b. The Complaint failed to allege jurisdictional facts for unlawful

detainer
To note, defendants may not be held liable for unlawful detainer as the
complaint failed to allege jurisdictional facts for unlawful detainer as it does
not describe possession by the defendants being initially legal or tolerated
by the petitioner. In heirs of Demetrio v. Demetrio1, the court ruled:
Neither was unlawful detainer satisfactorily alleged. In determining

the sufficiency of a complaint therefor, it is not necessary to employ
the terminology of the law. Not averred in this case, however, were
certain essential facts such as how entry was effected, or how and
when dispossession started. Petitioners merely alleged their
ownership of the land, which had supposedly been possessed by
respondent since 1947. There was no allegation showing that his
possession of it was initially legal -- by virtue of a contract, express
or implied -- and that it became illegal after the expiration of his right
to possess.
Neither did the Complaint claim as a fact any overt act on the part of
petitioners showing that they had permitted or tolerated respondent’s
occupancy of the subject property. It is a settled rule that in order to
justify an action for unlawful detainer, the owner’s permission or
tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession.
Furthermore, the complaint must aver the facts showing that the
inferior court has jurisdiction to try the case; for example, by
describing how defendant’s possession started or continued.
1
Heirs of Demetrio Melchor vs. Julio Melchor, G.R. No. 150633, November 12, 2003.
2
Since the Complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of
a valid cause for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the appellate
court was correct in holding that the MTC had no jurisdiction to hear
the case.
Verily, the failure of petitioners to properly allege a case for ejectment

does not leave them without any other remedy. Under the proper
circumstances, what may be filed is a case either for accion
publiciana, which is a plenary action intended to recover the better
right to possess; or an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover
ownership of real property. This principle was laid down in Ong v.
Parel as follows:
"The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the

complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive
of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state
how entry was effected or how and when dispossession
started, as in the case at bar, the remedy should either be
an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper
regional trial court. (all underscoring ours)
Here, categorically speaking, the Complaint failed to allege elements

essential for the court acquire jurisdiction over the case. Failure to allege
jurisdictional facts on prior possession is fatal to the plaintiff’s cause of action.
9. That the plaintiff shall present the following witnesses:

a. RIZAL DAMI, one of the defendants, to prove and substantiate the
allegations in this complaint;
b. JANE DAMI, one of the defendants, to prove and substantiate the
allegations in this complaint;
c. (omitted)
10. That the witnesses’ open court testimony shall be supported by the following
documentary evidence:
a. Judicial affidavit of Jane Dami – to substantiate the allegations of the
complaint; and
b. (omitted)
PRAYER a. Motion, b. Request, c. Relief
Wherefore, Premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this

Honorable Court that the Complaint be DISMISSED for being patently without
merit and of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstance also prayed for.
Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines. January 10, 2023.
Atty. BOBBY AMMAH

NCS No. 2022-60, Until December 2023
ROLL No. 54321; TIN 987-654-321
PTR No. A987654, 12/29/2022, Tagb. City
IBP No. 9123456 Bohol
MCLE Compliance No. VII -0900001
3
REQUEST
The Honorable Clerk of Court

Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities
Hall of Justice, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
Sir/Madam:
Greetings!
Kindly submit the foregoing Answer to the Honorable Court immediately

upon receipt hereof for its kind consideration.
Thank you.
Atty. BOBBY AMMAH
Copy Furnished: (by personal service)
Atty. Ricardo Dalisay

Tanggol and Dalisay Law Office Received by: __________________
Date: _________________________
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION
We, SPS. RIZAL DAMI and JANE DAMI, of legal ages, Filipino, married to
each other, and residents of Lot 1 Block 4 Sampaguita st. Lindaville Subdivision,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, do hereby declare and state:
1. That we are the Defendants in the above-captioned case;

2. That we have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Answer;
3. (others omitted)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this

February 27, 2017 at Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, Philippines.
RIZAL DAMI JANE DAMI

Affiant Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of January, 2023

at Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines.
Atty. BOBBY AMMAH

NCS No. 2022-60, Until December 2023
ROLL No. 54321; TIN 987-654-321
PTR No. A987654, 12/29/2022, Tagb. City
IBP No. 9123456 Bohol

Ejectment Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ejectment Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ejectment Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DEFENDANTS, through the undersigned counsel unto this honorable

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is denied; a. Denial is improper

3. Paragraphs 3 to 4 of the Complaint are specifically denied for lack of

6. Paragraph 7 is specifically denied for being incomplete. The whole truth

7. Paragraphs 8 to 10 are denied; a. Materials averments must be specifically

a. The Defendants’ occupation is by virtue of an existing and valid

As stated in paragraph 4 hereof, the Plaintiff and the Defendant-wife had an

b. The Complaint failed to allege jurisdictional facts for unlawful

Neither was unlawful detainer satisfactorily alleged. In determining

Verily, the failure of petitioners to properly allege a case for ejectment

"The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the

Here, categorically speaking, the Complaint failed to allege elements

9. That the plaintiff shall present the following witnesses:

PRAYER a. Motion, b. Request, c. Relief

Wherefore, Premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this

Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines. January 10, 2023.

Atty. BOBBY AMMAH

The Honorable Clerk of Court

Kindly submit the foregoing Answer to the Honorable Court immediately

Atty. BOBBY AMMAH

Copy Furnished: (by personal service)

Atty. Ricardo Dalisay

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

1. That we are the Defendants in the above-captioned case;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this

RIZAL DAMI JANE DAMI

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of January, 2023

Atty. BOBBY AMMAH

You might also like