Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Lagao, General Santos City
Branch 3

GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION NO.
6113-3
Plaintiff,
- versus - -for–

CRESTITA M. AUJERO, EJECTMENT

Defendant,
X------------- ----------- X

ANSWER

COMES now, Defendant DAISY D. DRILON, by herself, to this

Honorable Court respectfully alleges THAT:

1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of the

complaint in so far as its source of creation but denies its
representative’s authority to sue for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief;

2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2;

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is qualifiedly admitted to the

effect that Plaintiff is the registered owner of the questioned
residential property as shown in its self-serving title, however,
its genuineness is denied under oath for said title looks like
spurious as the title’s name of the registered owner
appeared to be superimposed;

4. Paragraph 4 is admitted;

5. Paragraph 5 is vehemently denied under oath as there was no

proof Defendant having conformed to said Deed of Absolute
Sale with Assignment, in truth and in fact, the signature
appearing therein was done in the form of blank
documents and the procedure in doing so was so
anomalous considering that the said Deed of Absolute
Sale with Assignment was done and dated May 28, 1992,
same date appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale but
no date of its execution;

6. Paragraph 6 of the complaint is admitted as far as the right of

the Plaintiff to cancel the contract in case in default of payment
is concerned for the law and the contract of mortgage and or
sale governed the parties, which action should be in court
proceedings, but denied having been in patent violation of the
DCS, to the contrary, the vendor was the one violating it
because the materials used in the housing unit were
substandard that at present , unit is now deteriorating;

1
7. Paragraph 7 is admitted in so far as sending notarized notice of
cancellation under date MARCH 16, 2005 is concerned, but its
main purpose was only to cure the prescription that sets in as
thirteen (13) years have already passed from the execution of
the documents to date of said notice;

8. Paragraph 8 is admitted, but said notice to vacate was

anchored on the premise that there was a lease contract
between the vendor and the vendee, which is not in this case
as the same was governed under the law on real estate
mortgage and or contract of sale. Plaintiff herein lacks valid
possession as it is the Defendant, being the mortgagor or
vendee, lawfully possesses the same, and for the latter to be
dispossessed, the mortgage should be judicially foreclosed or
the contract of sale shall be judicially cancelled first before she
can be ejected;
9. Paragraphs 9 & 10 are mere conclusions of the Plaintiff from its
self-serving facts, hence being denied for lack of basis sufficient
to form a belief;
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10. Defendant repleads and incorporate all the admissions,
denials and allegations in the preceding paragraphs and
hastens to add;
11. Plaintiff has no better right to have a physical possession over
the subject parcel of land and the residential unit for the
following reasons:

a. Plaintiff GSIS is not a party to the contract of mortgage,

it was only through the execution of DASA that Plaintiff
plays in, which requires consent and conformity from
the mortgagor or vendee, before the same can validly
effect the debtor;
b. The relationship of the parties is under a contract of
mortgage or contract of sale and not a contract of lease
and for ejectment to suffice, there should be a valid
prior possession by the Plaintiff on the property, hence
the action taken by the Plaintiff is not obtaining as it is
not a proper remedy;
c. Granting that the action for ejectment is a proper
remedy, the same had already been lapsed as the
action from 1992 to 2001 requires that the same be
done within ten (10) years;

12. Plaintiff’s representative has no authority to file this case for

there is nothing mentioned his specific name in its Board
Resolution No. 64.

13. Having prescription sets in and the remedy being undertaken

is not a proper remedy, Plaintiff therefore has no cause of
action against Defendant, and hence, the instant case should
be outright dismissed.

PRAYER

2
 WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully
prayed of the Honorable Court that the instant case be summarily
DISMISSED.
Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Polomolok, South Cotabato, Philippines, February 20, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Copy furnished:
CRESTITA M. AUJERO
Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo Registry Receipt #:______ Defendant
Conusel for the Plaintiff Date:__________
GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City