Republic of the Philippines

4th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
Gonzaga – Sta. Teresita
Province of Cagayan

ANGELINO DAQUIGAN
Represented by ANGELINO
DAQUIGAN, JR AND DENNIS M.
LLAPITAN
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. 460
-versus-
For: Forcible Entry with
Claim for Damages
CARLITO C. CAMIT.,
Defendant.
X-----------------------------------------------X

ANSWER

Defendant, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court respectfully

states:
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Defendant admits the averments in paragraphs _____ of the

Complaint;

2. Defendant has no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the averment in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 21, 30,
31… of the Complaint;

3. Defendant likewise denies paragraphs 32 to 48 for being legal

arguments

4. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 11 of the

Complaint, the truth being that:

a) ____

1
 5. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 22 and 23
of the Complaint considering that the allegations were solely based on
the statements of Shelbert Ganguey, James Agustin and Johnald
Padios which are hearsay in nature;

6. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 22 of the

Complaint, the truth being that Defendant Camit was never called for
possible settlement and/or reconciliation before the Lupon
Tagapamayapa of San Jose, Gonzaga Cagayan. As can be clearly
gleaned from the Certification to File Action mark as ANNEX K in
the Complaint-Affidavit, Defendant Camit was not impleaded as a
respondent therein. In fact, only Shelbert Ganguey, James Agustin and
Johnald Padios were named as respondents and only them were called
by the Lupon Tagapamayapa. Moreover, the Certification to File
Action clearly stated that Ganguey, Agustin and Padios were called to
the Office of the Punong Barangay of San Jose to settle the issue of
Coercion and not as to the issue of physical possession of the subject
property;

7. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 26 of the

Complaint, the truth being that Defendant Camit…

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Complaint contains a defective

Verification and Certification of Non-
forum Shopping

8. An affiant verifies a pleading to indicate that he or she has read it and

that to his or her knowledge and belief, its allegations are true and
correct and that it has been prepared in good faith and not out of mere
speculation;1

9. Here, the complaint was dated 02 February 2023 whereas the

Verification was signed and notarized on 01 February 2023 or a day
before the Complaint was even prepared and signed;

10. The Verification signed by the Plaintiffs, therefore, contains a false

statement that they have read the contents of their Complaint;

1
In the matter of the change of name of Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic, 125 Phil. 1098, 1100 (1967), see
also Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, 410 Phil. 483, 492 (200l) citing Robern Development Corporation v. Quintain, 373
Phil. 773 (1999); Medada v. Heirs of Antonio Consing, 681 Phil, 536, 545 (2012) citing Republic v. Coalbrine
International Philippines, Inc., 631 Phil. 487 (2010).

2
 11. The consequence thereof is that the Complaint shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading as provided for under Section 6 Rule 7 of the 2019
Amendments to the Rules of Court, last paragraph of the same, which
provides that:

Section 6. Verification. - xxx

xxx

A pleading required to be verified that contains a

verification based on "information and belief," or upon
"knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper
verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
(Underscoring ours.)

12. Moreover, what was signed by the Plaintiffs was a Certification

AGAINST NON-FORUM Shopping. Based on the title of the
document, Plaintiffs seem to admit that they committed forum
shopping;

13.Again, the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was signed a day after

the Complaint was even prepared and signed;

14. As held in the case of Altres v. Empleo,2 non-compliance with the

requirement of certification against forum shopping, or a defect
therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof;

Condition precedent for filing the

claim has not been complied with

15. Considering that both Plaintiffs and Defendant resides in the same
barangay, that is, barangay San Jose, they are required to undergo
barangay conciliation as mandated under the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law under R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991;

16. As discussed above, there was no compliance on the requirement of

barangay conciliation since Defendant Camit was never impleaded
thereto;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
2
594 Phil. 246 (2008).

3
 17. By reason of the instant precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant
was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to defend his rights
and interests for a professional fee of ₽________.00 plus ₽______.00
per court appearance;

18.Similarly, the Plaintiffs’ unfounded suit has caused the Defendant

mental anguish and suffering for which the defendant claims moral
damages of ₽_____________.00.

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED
NAME ABSTRACT OF TESTIMONY

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED

Exh Description Purpose
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that a judgment be rendered

in defendant’s favor:

1. DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit, with costs against

the plaintiffs;

2. GRANTING the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim; and

3. ORDERING the plaintiffs that the physical possession of the

disputed portion be awarded to the defendant; and

4
 Defendant further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable in the premises.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan for Sta. Teresita, Cagayan. ___ March

2023.

CHO-LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Petitioner
405 Gomez Stret, Carig Sur
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Valley)
nrsupnet@gmail.com
by:

ATTY. NICHOLO RUDOLF A. SUPNET

Counsel for Accused-Movant
Roll No. 54755
PTR No. TUG3053653/01-06-22/Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
IBP No. Lifetime No. 011542/Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
MCLE Complied (Certificate not yet issued)
0916-946-3428
nrsupnet@gmail.com

Copy furnished:

4TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

Sta. Teresita Cagayan

ATLAS LAW OFFICE

1299 Enrile Boulevard,
Caggay, Tuguegarao City