Ans Latumbo Ejectment (1) - Only.docx

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES CITY OF ILOILO Branch 2

FEDERICO SANSON, GEORGE SANSON, FRANCISCO SANSON, Plaintiffs, Civil Case No. CV - S No. 59 -18

-versus-

For:

Unlawful Detainer

PEREGRINO LATUMBO, JR. Defendants. X---------------------------------X ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM COMES NOW the defendant PEREGRINO LATUMBO, JR. through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that: 1. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a well-founded belief as to its veracity; 2. Defendant specifically denies that he is a resident of Old Lopez Jaena St., Brgy. Ungka, Jaro, Iloilo City, the truth of the matter is that he is a resident of Railway, Brgy. Ungka, Jaro, Iloilo City; 3. Defendant specifically denies the allegation found in paragraph 4 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a well-founded belief as to the veracity thereof; 4. Defendant specifically denies the allegation found in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter is that defendant was already a resident of Railway, Brgy. Ungka, Jaro, Iloilo City since _1976, and is not part of a “squatter colony”, as he is a tenant of the Philippine National Railways (PNR). A machine copy of the contract of lease with PNR is herein attached as Annex “1”, and to form an integral part hereof;

5. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter is that Matilde Montinola Sanson is not the owner of the land where the house of defendant is standing on; 6. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 7 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a well-founded belief as to the veracity thereof; 7. Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter is that the plaintiffs have no right over the parcel of land where the house of the defendant is standing on; 8. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter is that the defendant built his house on a parcel of land not owned by the plaintiffs and that the same was built by the defendant in good faith; 9. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a well - founded belief as to the truth thereof; 10. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter is that the defendant was surprised to receive a demand letter from the counsel of plaintiffs, and even sent a reply thereto, a machine copy of the reply to demand letter is herein attached as Annex “2”, and to form an integral part hereof; 11. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the truth of the matter is that defendant is entitled to the possession of the parcel of land where his house is standing; 12. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 14 of the Complaint for being mere conclusions of fact and law; 13. Defendant specifically denies the allegations found in paragraph 15 and 16 of the Complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a well -engendered belief as to the veracity thereof; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 14. Defendant repleads the foregoing and further alleges that:

15. The plaintiffs are not the owners of the parcel of land where the house of the defendant is standing. The parcel of land is owned by the Philippine National Railway to whom the defendant has executed a contract; 16. The plaintiffs have not shown any right to possess the parcel of land where the house of the defendant is standing on; 17. The defendant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, and notorious possession of the parcel of land they are leasing from the Philippine National Railways and where his house is currently standing; 18. The plaintiffs failed to serve demand to the spouse of the defendant, thus the Honorable Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant; Counterclaim(s) 19. By reason of the baseless and unfounded suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, he was forced to engage the services of counsel in order to protect his rights and agreeing to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000.00, plus appearance fees of P2,000.00 per court hearing and to incur litigation expenses of not less than P10,000.00; 20. By the same reason of the plaintiffs’ baseless and groundless suit, defendant suffered sleepless nights and mental anguish, for which he claims moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after trial and presentation of evidence, judgment be rendered DISMISSING the Complaint against the defendant for lack of merit, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant damages as follows: (a) Attorney’s Fees in the amount of P50,000.00; plus appearance fees of P2,000.00 per hearing; litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.00; and (b) moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00. The defendant further prays for other relief that are just and equitable under the premises. October 10, 2018, Iloilo City, Philippines.

ALOYSIUS PACELLI C. DELA CRUZ, II and RYAN J. ODIO Counsels for the Defendant Latumbo 2nd Flr. Golden Commercial Center Iznart Street, Iloilo City

ALOYSIUS PACELLI C. DELA CRUZ, II Roll of Attorney’s No. 42069 I.B.P. No. 018226, 12/28/17, Iloilo City P.T.R. No. 5802306, 01/04/18, Iloilo City MCLE Compliance No. V 0017637,4/11/16, Pasig Tel. Nos. (033) 337-9964, 335-1055 Fax No. (033) 335-1075 Email: [email protected] and RYAN J. ODIO Roll of Attorney’s No. 70847 I.B.P. No. 043200, 05/29/18, Iloilo City P.T.R. No. 6233572, 06/20/18, Iloilo City MCLE Compliance No. Exempt Admitted 6/5/18 Email: [email protected]

VERIFICATION I, PEREGRINO LATUMBO, JR., of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of Brgy. Ungka, Jaro, Iloilo City, Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that: 1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer; 3. I have read the allegations/defenses raised in the Answer and all are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on __________________ at Iloilo City, Philippines.

PEREGRINO LATUMBO, JR. Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on ___________ at Iloilo City, Philippines, the affiant having been identified by me through a competent proof of his/her identity which is his/her ______________, issued on ______________, issued at ____________, and he/she avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument.

Doc. No. ______; Page No. ______; Book No. ______; Series of 2018. Copy Furnished by Personal Delivery Jalbuna & Cataluna Law Offices Counsel for the Plaintiffs Atty. Eduardo L. Jalbuna and Atty. Julie Anne B. Alegre Suite 201-202 Lolita Building Cor. Quezon - Gen. Luna Streets Iloilo City Received by: _______________________ Date Received: _____________________