REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH (4th) JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 16
CAVITE CITY

ROBERTO M. MORADOS,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case: n-8148

Defendants
X ----------------------X

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITH

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

COMES NOW, herein above-named defendant, , by and through the

undersigned, unto this Honorable Court, by way of an Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim to the instant cause of action, now hereby avers and states, to wit:

Specific Admissions and Denials

1. Answering defendant, categorically ADMITS the material averments

embodied under paragraph 1 of the instant complaint only insofar as to her
identity, address, and personal circumstances is concerned;

2. Defendant hereby specifically DENIES those material averments

embodied under paragraphs 3 and 4 of the instant complaint, more particularly,
as to the plaintiff’s title of ownership over the parcel of land subject matter
hereof for lack of any knowledge, information and belief sufficient to form any
reasonable belief as to the full veracity or falsity thereof;

3. Answering defendant hereby specifically DENIES the grossly

misleading, highly irresponsible, and worse, perjurious allegations set forth under
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the instant complaint for lack of any knowledge,
information and belief sufficient to form any reasonable belief as to the full
veracity or falsity thereof, the truth being that set forth in the herein defendant’s
Special and Affirmative defenses;

4. Defendant likewise DENIES the material allegations set forth under

paragraph 6 of this instant complaint for having no knowledge, information or
belief whatsoever sufficient to ascertain the veracity or the falsity thereof and for
reasons of causes hereinafter mentioned in his Special and Affirmative defenses;

7. Answering defendant likewise strenuously and vigorously DENIES the

wholly unsubstantiated imputations and unfounded allegations embodied under
paragraph 7 as well as the rest of all the numbered paragraphs of this present
complaint due to a complete absence of any knowledge or information sufficient

1
to form any reasonable belief as to the truthfulness or veracity thereof as well as
for reason of causes hereinafter indicated in his Special and Affirmative defenses;

8. Answering defendant further deploringly DENIES the utterly irrelevant,

entirely baseless and extraneous matters stated in paragraph 11 of this present
complaint considering that the decision and engagement of counsel to litigate
and prosecute this instant action is plaintiff-corporation’s own look out given the
lack of cause of action and absence of compliance with pertinent applicable laws;

Special and Affirmative Defenses

8. Answering defendant hereby repleads, reiterates, incorporates, and

altogether adopts by way of reference all those foregoing allegations contained
in the preceding paragraphs only insofar as they are relevant and material herein

The instant cause of action has

utterly failed to state any cause
of action against the defendant;

Plaintiff company’s subsequent

actuation of converting the said
loan application to an in-house
financing in effect had novated
or altered said agreement itself
and thus, puts it under estoppel

9. Foremost, it can be clearly gleaned from the defectively verified and

improperly filed complaint that the same despairingly and disappointingly failed
to state any valid or meritorious cause of action whatsoever against defendants;

10. While the petition was apparently grounded upon the premise that the
defendant had failed or refused to submit all the documentary requirements
needed to process his loan application with the Home Development Mutual Fund,
suffice it to state that the same is of no moment in view of the admission made
by herein plaintiff realty itself in 2 nd paragraph 6 of the complaint that it was
constrained to subject the outstanding balance to an in-house financing scheme;

11. Thus, it now appears that since the primary cause of action was the
supposed violation of Article IV of the fore-relied Agreement to Buy and to Sell,
that is, failure or refusal to submit or complete the loan requirements with the
HDMF, the subsequent action on the part of plaintiff-corporation to divert and
thereafter apply all previous periodic or monthly installment payments instead to
its above-described in-house financing plan operates as an estoppel by conduct;

12. Needless to state, the instant cause of action as well as the complaint
itself in its entirety has been rendered inutile or without any leg to stand on
utterly having now failed to tender any justiciable issues or points of controversy;

Regardless of whatever ruling is

made on such fore-cited legal
grounds, plaintiff corporation’s

2
allegations of subsequent non-
remittance or a delinquency in
payments on the part of herein
defendants is likewise baseless
as it is wholly unsubstantiated
given the receipts for payments
it issued in favor of the former;

Even assuming there is indeed

such failure to pay, the plaintiff
Realty corporation nevertheless
failed to comply with both the
jurisdictional and the obligatory
requirements of Republic Act
No : 6552, otherwise known, as
“Realty Installment Buyer’s Act”

13. Anent the plaintiff-corporation’s alternative cause of action of alleged

non-payment or arrears incurred by defendant in his monthly installments, the
same likewise is without any basis whether in fact and in law inasmuch as the
latter actually had been religiously remitting his monthly payments as well as all
other charges therefor as borne out by the several official receipts issued by the
plaintiff-corporation itself in favor of the above-named defendant. As evidence
thereof, machine copies of the corresponding loan payments delivered are hereto
attached and also appended as Annexes “A” up to “A-25” hereof, respectively;

14. Thus, in the light of the foregoing certified proof of official payments,
it goes without saying that the sole and only exclusive issue in this instant action,
if there is indeed any, is just a matter of accounting and reconciliation of records
and not the validity of notarial rescission of contracts more so unlawful detainer;

15. Be that as it may, even assuming en arguendo that there might be

some tinge of factual veracity or any semblance of judicial persuasion anent such
claims of subsequent non-payment and / or any delinquency thereof, suffice it to
state that aforesaid defendant nonetheless must first be proceeded with in strict
accordance with the pertinent and applicable provisions of Republic Act: 6552,
otherwise known as the “Realty Installment Buyer’s Act”, which provides, thus:
“Section 3. --- In all transactions or contracts involving
the sale or financing of real estate on installment payments,
including residential condominium apartments but not
excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to
tenants under Republic Act No: 3844, as amended by
Republic Act No: 6389, where the buyer has paid at least two
(2) years of installments, the buyer is entitled to the following
rights in case he defaults in the payment of succeeding
installments:

(a) To pay, without additional interest, unpaid

installments due within a total grace period
earned by him which is hereby fixed at the
rate of one month grace period for every
year of installments made. Provided, that
this right shall be exercised by the buyer

3
 only once in every five years of the life of
the said contract and its extensions, if any;

(b) If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall

refund to the buyer the cash surrender
value of the payments on the property
equivalent to fifty percent of the total
payments made, and after five years of
installments, an additional five percent
every year but not to exceed ninety percent
of the total payments made: Provided, that
the actual cancellation of the contract shall
take place after thirty days from receipt by
the buyer of the notice of cancellation or
the demand for rescission of the contract
by a notarial act and upon the full payment
of the cash surrender value to the buyer.”

16. There is nothing on record to indicate whether from those material

averments made in the complaint or in its documentary attachments that herein
plaintiff-corporation has ever sufficiently complied with or followed to the letter
the mandatory and procedural dictates of the above-quoted provisions of the
“Maceda Law”. Failing thereon, there is therefore a glaring absence at hand of
any legal right on the part of the plaintiff realty company to demand rescission of
the subject Agreement to Buy and To Sell a Lot dated 18 th May 1998 much more
cause the ejectment or removal of herein defendants from the subject premises;

There appears no compliance with

the requirement to attach a board
resolution authorizing the signatory
Maria Lourdes Teodora Vibar to file
the complaint in behalf of plaintiff
Ana Caridad Holdiongs Corporation

17. Lastly, it is should be pointed out that under the Rules, a plaintiff is
required, among all other things, a sworn certification together with the incipient
complaint a sworn certification of non-forum shopping and any failure to comply
with this obligatory requisite is a sufficient ground for outright dismissal thereof;
18. All told, with respect to juridical entities, the proper signatory in such
cases should be a duly authorized director or an officer of the corporation who
has personal knowledge and information of such matters being certified therein;

19. In Gonzales vs. Climax Mining Ltd. G.R. No: 161957 promulgated on
28 February 2005 and in Tamondong vs. CA, G.R. No: 158397, 26 th November
th

2004, it has been held that if the petitioner is a corporation, a board resolution
and not only a Secretary Certificate authorizing a corporate officer to execute the
said certification against forum-shopping is necessary. Hence, it appearing herein
that there was no subsequent compliance with the requirement to attach a board
resolution authorizing the designated signor to file the above-docketed petition in
behalf of plaintiff corporation the same renders the petition subject to dismissal;

Allegations in support of the prayer

4
 for award of Compulsory Counterclaim

20. By reason of the irresponsible institution of this baseless, unfounded

and malicious suit, defendant suffered mental anguish, sleepless nights, moral
fright, public ridicule and embarrassment, loss of appetite, serious anxiety as well
as other distress damages, which, although incapable of pecuniary estimation
may nevertheless be reasonably assessed in the total amount of Php 100,000.00;

21. Likewise, if only to serve as a deterrent as well as corrective measure

to teach the general public at large and all others who are likewise involved in
the business of realty and development in particular who might be so situated
and similarly predisposed in like manner of committing such deceitful actuations,
the herein plaintiff corporation should likewise be made liable for the payment of
exemplary or corrective damages, which, while not also susceptible of monetary
quantification may be reasonably pegged in the total amount of Php 100,000.00;

Reliefs Sought:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, it is now hereby

respectfully beseeched of this Honorable Municipal Trial Court of Noveleta, Cavite
that the instant Answer be duly noted and favorable considered preparatory to a
judicious and appropriate dismissal of the above-docketed cause of action for
lack of cause of action as well as the absence of any legal basis or factual merit.

WHATEVER any other reliefs and remedies that are available under the
law and in equity are likewise being prayed for all in favor of the above-named
defendant, Roger B. Buenaflor under the obtaining circumstances hereunder.

Respectfully submitted.

Cavite City, Philippines, March 7, 2011

Plaza Soledad Street, Samonte Park Area

Cavite City

By:

5
 Notice of Submission:

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, Branch 16, Cavite City

G R E E T I N G S:

Upon your receipt hereof, please submit the foregoing Motion filed by the
undersigned Public Attorney for the above-named accused for the careful
perusal, deliberate scrutiny and kind consideration of the Honorable Court.

Thank you very much!

Copy furnished:

Counsel for the Plaintiff

875- C P. Burgos Ave., San Roque
4100 Cavite City