Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court in Cities

6th Judicial Region
Branch 5 - Bacolod City
-o0o-

AMT- MIO INC.,

Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case : 69123

For: “UNLAWFUL
DETAINER”
                                                                                                            
                                                                                         
KARL T. MANZON
Defendants.
X-------------------------------------X

ANSWER
(WITH SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES WITH GROUNDS FOR
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT)

COMES NOW, the defendant, Karl T. Manzon, thru the

undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
aver that:

1. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the complaint are denied for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof,
except as to personal circumstances of the defendant that they
are residents of Barangay 30;

2. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint are denied for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
Defendant is not privy to the discussion or any arrangement
between the alleged former owner and the plaintiff. As far as the
defendants are concerned, the very first time defendants knew
of existence of the plaintiff when this case was filed in court.

3. As to paragraph 6 of the complaint, this is denied for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
There was no service of letters identified as Annex “C” of the
complaint. In fact, defendant had not seen Mr. Teofilo Auxtero
giving him the said letter. In the affidavit of Service, it was
mentioned by Mr. Teofilo Auxtero that “he personally served to
 each of them a copy of the letter notice to vacate dated
February 9, 2017, however, the person refused to sign the letter
notice to vacate.” If this is not falsity, then Mr. Auxtero could
have perjured himself because the name indicated in the said
demand letter was already dead and it is impossible for Mr.
Auxtero to serve the notice to vacate to a dead person. That the
defendant herein is the son of the person in the said demand
letter.

4. Further, the allegations that there was refusal on the part of the
defendant to receive the notice to vacate, herein defendant
cannot imagine in what or how is the manner dead person
refused to receive the notice to vacate;

5. Paragraph 7 of the complaint is denied for lack of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the falsity thereof.
There was no communication whether verbal or written
regarding tolerance of stay in the subject property. On the basis
of the complaint filed, clearly plaintiff has not acquired prior
possession of the subject property that would qualify the plaintiff
to institute the action “unlawful detainer”.

6. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint are denied for lack

of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
The said action whether it is subject or not to Barangay
Conciliation is a matter law. The filing of the case has no basis
and defendant are not privy to the said filing and hiring of
counsel. On the basis of the documents attached to the
complaint, plaintiff does not own the land where the house of
the defendant was erected, hence, plaintiff has no right to
collect the said rental and even institute the case. The above-
entitled case is subject to mediation before the Barangay.

SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

WITH GROUNDS FOR THE DISMISSAL

7. Herein answering defendant, most respectfully repleads,

reiterates, adopts and incorporates the foregoing Answer and
alleges by way of Special Affirmative Defenses;

8. There was no service of notice to vacate to the defendant. As

already amplified, the name indicated in the demand letter was
already dead and it is quite impossible for the plaintiff through
Mr. Teofilo Auxtero to serve notice to vacate to dead persons.
Granting arguendo the notice to vacate were served to the
 afore-mentioned dead persons, in what manner it was received
by the defendant.

9. The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the

complaint for ejectment filed by the plaintiff. What the plaintiff
should have done is file a case of “ACCION PUBLICIANA”, and
jurisdiction of which is with the Regional Trial Court. Clearly, the
plaintiff has no prior possession of the subject property, hence,
unlawful detainer can never prosper.

10. There was no detailed lot plan of the alleged subject

property that could point out the portion being allegedly
occupied by the defendant. Plaintiff cannot just allege hook, line,
and sinker that the lot where the house of the defendant was
erected is owned by the plaintiff.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

before this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, the
case be DISMISSED.

Defendant prays for such other reliefs and remedies which are
just and equitable in the premises.

Bacolod City, Philippines. March 2, 2021.

THALIA B. DELA CRUZ

Counsel for the Defendant
c/o 590 Ylac St., Villamonte, Bacolod City
PTR No. 6685691 - Jan. 5, 2021 - Bacolod City
IBP No. 1064046 - Jan 16, 2021 - Manila
MCLE Compliance No. V-0022824 - July 4, 2021
Roll No. 52814

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

 I, KARL T. MANZON, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of
Bacolod City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:

I am defendant in the above-captioned case;

I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and do hereby

certify that:

a. I have read all the allegations made in the said Answer and
found them to be true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic documents at hand;
b. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
c. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for discovery; and further certify
that;
d. No other action or proceedings involving the same causes of
action in the above-entitled case had been instituted by me in any
other court, tribunal, quasi-judicial body to the best of my
knowledge, no such other proceeding or action is pending before
in any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body
e. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before any other court, tribunal, quasi-
judicial body, the I undertake to report the fact within five (5)
days therefrom to this Honorable Commission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this ___ day of ____________ at Bacolod City, Philippines.

KARL T. MANZON
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of

_____________ at Bacolod City, Philippines the affiant exhibiting to me
his Government-issued ID ______________ issued at ____________ on
_______________ with his signature and picture appearing thereon.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of _____.