Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT QUEZON CITY Branch 33 SPOUSES PAPA

BEAR AND MAMA BEAR Plaintiff, -versusCIVIL CASE No. 5678 For: EJECTMENT (FORCIBLE ENTRY) GOLDILOCKS SMITH Defendant. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x ANSWER DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits this Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint dated 14 December 2013 but was only received by this representation on 28 December 2013, and is therefore within the reglementary period to answer as provided for by the Revised Summary Procedures, for the alleged Forcible Entry: 1. 2. 3. Defendant admits paragraph 1 of the complaint; Defendant admits paragraph 2 of the complaint; Defendant admits the earlier existence of the predecessors in interest of the Plaintiff who are Spouses Lolo and Lola Bear, the Godparents of the Defendants parents, namely, Spouses Mcdonald and Red Smith but specifically denies for lack of knowledge as to the alleged acquisition of land through a Free Patent. The truth of the matter being the transfer of ownership of the subject Property via a Deed of Donation Propter Nuptias in favor of the Defendants parents given by their abovementioned Godparents in consideration of their marriage in 30 March 1986 herein evidenced and attached as Annex 1 dated 15 March 1986. The Defendants Father Mr. Mcdonald Smith was treated like a good son by the
Page 1 of 6

Plaintiffs parents for having taken care of them in their older days in the absence of their real children who were all based and migrants in Europe. In this regard, the Plaintiffs parents donated to Defendants father the subject land absent the expressed intention of their children to return to the Philippines since they were all permanently settled in Europe. Since then, the Defendant's parents had been in possession of the said parcel of land, where they later on built their family home and where herein Defendant was born on 15 March 1987 and lived since birth; 4. The Defendant had been living peacefully and uninterruptedly and in possession of the Property until the time he was able to acquire his own property in 2011 where he is currently residing at and has then frequented his visit to their original family home; Defendant admits paragraph 4 of the Complaint but only as to the existence of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 12345, covering the subject Property registered under the name of Spouses Lolo and Lola Bear but with annotation at the second page of the said OCT reflecting the registered Deed of Donation at the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City dated 8 April 1986 attached herewith as Annex 2 , which was executed between the Spouses Lolo and Lola Bear and Spouses Mcdonald and Red Smith, proof of which is recorded and certified by the said government agency, evidenced and herein attached as Annex 3 dated 2 January 2014 Defendant specifically denies paragraph 5 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being the Defendant and her parents uninterrupted and peaceful possession and occupation of the subject Property from the time her parents married way back in 1986 up to the present. Defendant is in continuous possession as proven and evidenced by the monthly payment of utility bills from years 2009 up to present registered under his name such as Meralco, herein attached as Annex 3; Defendant specifically denies paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter being the Plaintiffs strong opposition to acknowledge the genuineness and truthfulness of the Deed of Donation executed by their predecessors and when they learned about the Defendants acquisition of another property, they forcefully insisted on claiming back its ownership arguing that Defendant has now found a new home;
Page 2 of 6

5.

6.

7.

8.

Further, the alleged repeated demands made by the Plaintiff to vacate the premises were in truth a futile exercise considering their knowledge of the said donation but unfortunately in strong objection thereto and is therefore disregarded by the Defendant with a strong belief and proof that she has a better title thereto. The formal written demand was only received by the Defendant on 28 December 2013. The Defendant, on the other hand, had tried to repeatedly explain and show proof of its ownership but still strongly negated and set aside by the Plaintiff; It is also worthy to note that Plaintiffs demands arose only in 2013 as they were most of the time in Italy together with their relatives. The triggering factor that provoked them to claim ownership is when the Defendant demanded that the OCT be given to him for proper registration of the Deed of Donation which his parents failed to do in respect to the Plaintiffs parents while they were still alive. They intended to transfer it but due to a car accident which led to their sudden death, they failed to do so.

9.

10. Defendant admits Paragraph 7 with regard to the confrontation that happened in the Katarungang Pambarangay but the Defendant cannot submit to the propositions of the Plaintiffs which is bereft of merit, speculative of any fact and unsupported by any legal evidence, such was the reason why the Chair of the Katarungang Pambarangay issued the certification for the court to settle the unfounded and uncorroborated issues made by the Plaintiffs; 11. Defendant specifically denies paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the truth is that it is through the acts of the Plaintiffs that compelled the Defendant to incur damages consisting of attorney's fees in the amount of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) pesos and filing fee, cost of transportation and other miscellaneous accommodation of its lawyers and other personal expenses to be incurred in attending the hearings of this case in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00); 12. This action is governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure 1;

15 November 1991. Page 3 of 6

13. Defendant also received the complaint of the plaintiff on 28 December 2013 without Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for this Honorable Court that, after the hearings, judgment be rendered in favor of the Defendant and order that this case be dismissed based on failure to comply with the requirement of Verification and Certification Against NonForum Shopping as provided for in Section 3 (B) of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure: It is also prayed for by the Defendant that to settle once and for all the present controversy, this Honorable Court order with finality that: A. Defendant's parents lawfully owned the disputed land through the valid Deed of Donation Propter Nuptias made on 15 March 1986 and that the Defendant lawfully acquired the property through an intestate succession after the death of her parents; B. Plaintiffs pay defendant the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) by way of attorneys fees and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), by way of other litigation expenses and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) by way of moral damages due to the embarrassment and shame suffered by the defendant and sleepless nights due to the trauma of losing the land lawfully acquired by her parents and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) by way of exemplary damages due to the Plaintiffs unreasonable and unlawful acts and to serve this as an example to other persons who will unlawfully cause damage to another by way of unfounded suits just to vex others; and, C. Pay the cost of this suit. Defendant prays for such other remedies and reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises. 3 January 2014, Makati City for Quezon.

Page 4 of 6

ATTY. ALDRIN MARK M. QUINTANA Counsel for Plaintiff Makati City Roll of Attorneys No. 7654321 IBP No. B-7654321 PTR No. B-7654321 MCLE No. B-7654321

Copy Furnished: ATTY. ALEANDER FUECONCILLO-EVANGELISTA Counsel for the Plaintiff

Page 5 of 6

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON FORUM SHOPPING I, GOLDILOCK SMITH, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes and states that: 1. I am the Defendant in the above-stated case; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession; 4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

GOLDILOCK SMITH Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd of January 2014 at Quezon City, Philippines, affiant is exhibiting to me his Passport with No. EB12345 issued on 31st March 2011 at DFA - Pasay City.

ATTY. CHARMAINE IBANEZ Notary Public Doc. No. 8 Page No. 9 Book No. 10 Series of 2014
Page 6 of 6