PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

College of Law
City of Manila

GRACIANO LOPEZ JAENA,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. CM - 123456
FOR: RECOVERY OF
DAMAGES
-versus-

MARCELO DEL PILAR,

Defendant.

x---------------------------------x

VERIFIED ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, MARCELO DEL PILAR, through undersigned

counsel, unto the Honorable Court, having received the Summons on
June 1, 2017 and a copy of plaintiffs’ complaint on the same day, hereby
respectfully submits this Verified Answer with Counterclaim and states
that:

1. The defendant firmly denies the assertions made in paragraphs 1

of the complaint and casts doubt upon the veracity and proper
execution of the deed of sale presented as evidence to
substantiate the alleged contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant. After a meticulous examination of the document in
question, the defendant is compelled to contest its authenticity
and raises substantial concerns regarding its validity. In the
defendant's view, it is imperative to undertake a comprehensive
investigation into the origins and authenticity of the deed before
contemplating any subsequent legal measures;

2. The defendant asserts a lack of knowledge or adequate

information to form a belief regarding the truthfulness of the
assertions made in paragraph 2. Due to the defendant's limited
awareness or access to relevant facts or evidence, they are
 unable to ascertain the accuracy or validity of the statements
presented in that particular paragraph. It is important to note
that the defendant's position is not one of denial but rather a
genuine acknowledgment of their inability to confirm or refute
the claims put forth in paragraph 2;

3. The defendant denies the allegations presented in paragraph 3,

specifically pertaining to any monetary transactions or
payments mentioned by the plaintiff. The defendant firmly
denies the existence of any such financial obligations or
agreements as asserted by the plaintiff. The defendant maintains
that they have not engaged in any transactions or made any
payments as described in paragraph 3. It is important to
emphasize that the defendant vehemently refutes the claims
made by the plaintiff in relation to monetary matters, asserting
their complete innocence and lack of involvement in the alleged
financial affairs described in paragraph 3;

4. That defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the veracity of the averments in paragraph
4;

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant hereby repleads and incorporates by way of reference all

the allegations in the preceding paragraphs, and further state as follows:

5. That on the day of the incident, the defendant was indisputably

away on a vacation in Cebu City, accompanied by their family.
To substantiate this claim, the defendant attaches herewith as
Annex "A" a copy of the plane ticket and proof of hotel
accommodation, providing concrete evidence of their absence
from the locality during the aforementioned period. It is crucial
to note that the defendant was physically out of town on the day
in question, rendering it impossible for them to have been
present or engaged in any activities related to the incident
described. Furthermore, the defendant vehemently denies ever
entering into any agreement or receiving any payment from the
plaintiff, as asserted by the plaintiff. The defendant stands firm
in their stance that they were not involved in the events
 mentioned by the plaintiff and were physically absent from the
location at the time of the incident;

6. The defendant contests the purported authenticity of the alleged

deed of sale, specifically noting that it was allegedly notarized
on the same day as the payment between the plaintiff and the
defendant. This proximity in timing raises significant doubts as
to the validity and credibility of the transaction in question. The
defendant questions the unusual circumstances surrounding the
notarization process, wherein it appears to have occurred
immediately following the payment. Such a sequence of events
raises concerns about the genuineness and proper execution of
the deed. The defendant asserts that a thorough investigation
into the timing and procedures followed during the notarization
is necessary to ascertain the accuracy and legitimacy of the
document. The defendant maintains that the apparent synchrony
between the payment and notarization activities warrants a
closer examination to determine if any irregularities or potential
improprieties were involved in the creation and authentication
of the alleged deed of sale;

I. Marcelo Del Pilar’s acts can be excused under the rules of deed of
sale.

7. Marcelo Del Pilar staunchly asserts their complete innocence

regarding the alleged deed of sales. They categorically deny any
involvement in the execution or signing of the document
presented as evidence of the sales transaction. Marcelo Del Pilar
emphasizes that they never participated in any capacity in the
creation or authorization of the document in question. It is
important to note that a similar case exists where the defendant's
actions were deemed inconsequential and unrelated to the
disputed deed. Marcelo Del Pilar firmly maintains their position
of non-involvement and emphasizes that their actions were
completely innocent. They adamantly refute any association
with the alleged deed of sales and firmly reject any claims
suggesting their involvement. As stated in the similar case of
IVQ LANDHOLDINGS, INC., vs. REUBEN BARBOSA1:

Article 1358 of the New Civil Code requires that the form of a
contract transmitting or extinguishing real rights over immovable
property should be in a public document. x x x.
1
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_193156_2017.html
 xxxx

Not having been properly and validly notarized, the deed of sale
cannot be considered a public document. It is an accepted rule,
however, that the failure to observe the proper form does not
render the transaction invalid. It has been settled that a sale of real
property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal w
riting is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for the
time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real
estate produces legal effects between the parties.

8. That as per Graciano Lopez Jaena, there is no witness to the

incident or when they are signing the said alleged deed of sale
even when he give the money with Marcelo Del Pilar;

COUNTERCLAIM

9. Due to the plaintiff’s unwarranted filing of the instant case

against herein defendants, the latter were constrained to engage
the services of legal counsel to plead their case in court in order
to fend off this baseless and unfounded suit foisted by plaintiffs.
Said defendants engaged the services of the undersigned
counsels for a fee of Php70,000.00 plus Php10,000.00 per
hearing as appearance fee. They likewise incurred and will
continue to incur, litigation expenses estimated at
Php100,000.00. Defendants also suffered mental anguish and
anxiety hence, they should be made to pay moral damages in
the amount of Php500,000.00 and exemplary damages of
Php500,000.00. The plaintiffs must be made to reimburse these
amounts to herein defendants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that instant Answer with
Counterclaim be duly considered and that the instant Complaint be
dismissed or denied for reasons afforested.
 Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

City of Manila, Metro Manila, June 05, 2023

HULTON GO
Counsel for the Defendants
IBP No. 1234, City of Manila
PTR No. 8888, May 2023
Roll of Attorneys No. 5555
MCLE Compliance No. 5544332211
124 Malate, Metro Manila

COPY FURNISHED:

GRACIANO LOPEZ JAENA

Plaintiffs
ADDRESS
124 Green, Brgy Rosario,
Ortigas Ext., Pasig City