Answer Forcible Entry Sample

Republic of the Republic t he Philippines Sixth Judicial Region MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Branch  Iloilo City

ALBERT T. RODRIGUEZ Plaintif,

Ci!il

Case

No"

#$%&'( )or*

Forcible

Entry CARLOS R. CALINOG Deendant. + ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, +

ANSWER COM-. NO/ 0-)-N0ANT CARLO. R" CALINO12 b3 counsel and unto this 4onorable Court2 respectfull3 states and a!ers that* &" 0efendant ad5its the the paragraph & of the Co5plaint6 Co5plaint6

allegations

contained

in

Ino!"r " #"r"$r"#h % is concerned2 %" concerned2 the Plai Plainti7  nti7  re8uested the 0efendant to acco5pan3 her to the said propert3 to sho9 the 0efendant the house 9hich the Plainti7 9ants to rent out to the 0efendant2 to 9hich the 0efendant reluctantl3 agreed"  The 0efendant at that ti5e 9as loo:ing for a house to rent and the Plainti7 sa9 an opportunit3 to earn 5one3 on her other9ise idle propert36 tron$ly &enie the "lle$"tion $" 0efendant cont"ine& in #"r"$r"#h '  of the Co5plaint" In fact2 the Plainti7  is un un:n :no9 o9n n to th the e 0e 0efe fend ndan ant" t" Th The e 0e 0efe fend ndan antt on onl3 l3 :n :ne9 e9 th the e Plainti7 after the for5er called her to in8uire about the house for rent of the latter6 #" 0efe 0e fend ndan antt and and Pl Plai aint nti7 i7 en ente terred in into to a lea lease se ag agrree ee5e 5ent nt 9hereb3 the Plainti7 agreed to rent out her house for a period of  one ;&< 3ear starting in &' Ma3 %=&" The a5ount paid b3 the 0efe 0e fend ndan antt 9a 9as s ₱&%=2==="== for the 9hole 3ear and a securit3

1|P a g e

deposit a5ounting to A cop3 of the ₱%=2==="==" ac:no9ledge5ent letter is attached as Anne+ >&?6 '" )or paragraphs % "n& ' of the Co5plaint2 the 0efendant denies6 " The De!en&"nt "&(it #"r"$r"#h ) of the Co5plaint insofar as the receipt of the letter is concerned but not to the contents thereof6 @" Plainti7 9as not in possession of the subect propert3 before the 0efendant occupied the sa5e" The .upre5e Court held in the follo9ing cases2 to 9it* >Accordingl32 in forcible entr32 the plainti7 5ust allege in the co5plaint and pro!e that he 9as in prior ph3sical possession of the propert3 in litigation until he 9as depri!ed thereof b3 the defendant2 but in unla9ful detainer2 the plainti7 need not ha!e prior ph3sical possession of the propert3 (Demamay vs. Court o Appeals, 186 SCRA 608, 61 !1""0#$ or2 else9ise stated2 prior ph3sical possession is not an indispensable re8uire5ent in an unla9ful detainer case" (Pan%ilinan vs. A%uilar, &' SCRA 1'6, 1&& !1"#$ (" Considering the 0efendant ha!ing paid the rentals in ad!ance and the securit3 deposit2 Plainti7 has no right to e!ict the for5er6 " 0efendant had e+perienced harass5ent causing sleepless nights and peace of 5ind to the e+tent that the 0efendant studies as a la9 student had su7ered" In this regard2 the Plainti7 should be 5ade liable to pa3 5oral da5ages a5ounting to ₱$=2==="==6 &=" In instituting this un9arranted and clearl3 unfounded suit against the 0efendant2 Plainti7 had acted in a 9anton2 fraudulent2 rec:less and 5ale!olent 5anner and2 b3 9a3 of  e+a5ple or correction for the public good2 Plainti7 should be 5ade liable to pa3 0efendant e+e5plar3 da5ages in the total a5ount of P-.O.* ON- 4UN0R-0 T4OU.AN0 ; ₱&==2==="==