Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 84
Caloocan City

HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL

FUND (PAG-IBIG FUND for brevity)
represented by SEBASTIAN D. ABE JR.
and Spouses RANDI B. NITE and JANETH
A. NITE,
Plaintiff/s,

- versus - Civil Case No. 23-32157

For: Unlawful Detainer

LANI P. PENUELA and MA. DERLY

TILOS ORO,
Defendant/s.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

ANSWERING DEFENDANT DERLY TILOS ORO (“DERLY”), represented

by the Public Attorney’s Office, through the undersigned Public Attorney, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

1. Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Complaint is DENIED for lack of personal knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

2. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, pertaining to the personal circumstances of the

Defendant Derly is ADMITTED. The allegation, however, as to the personal
circumstances of Defendant Lani P. Penuela (“LANI”)is DENIED for lack of personal
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

3. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is SPECIFICALLY DENIED for being a mere

fabrication. The truth of the matter is, the Defendant did not receive any demand letter
from the Plaintiff nor from his counsel.

4. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is SPECIFICALLY DENIED. What actually

transpired was, sometime in 1997, Defendant’s father Adriano R. Oro Sr. purchased the
property subject of this case from DNG Realty & Development Corporation. It must be
clarified likewise that Defendant Derly is not related nor in any way connected with Lani,
the other defendant in this case.

5. Paragraphs 6 to 11 of the Complaint are DENIED for lack of personal knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

6. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is SPECIFICALLY DENIED for being a mere

fabrication and considering further that Plaintiff Janeth A. Nite (“JANETH”) is without
authority to file a complaint before the barangay, as discussed in the Special and
Affirmative Defenses.
 Page 2 of 10

7. Paragraphs 13 to 14 of the Complaint are DENIED for lack of personal knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

8. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint is SPECIFICALLY DENIED. The truth is, the

Defendant did not receive any demand to vacate, verbal or written, from the Plaintiff nor
from his counsel. The allegation, however, that the Plaintiff was granted by the Pag-Ibig
to administer and possess the subject property is DENIED for lack of personal
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

9. Paragraph 16 to 20 of the Complaint is DENIED for lack of personal knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

10. Paragraphs 17 to 20 of the Complaint are DENIED for lack of personal knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

11. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint is SPECIFICALLY DENIED for the same reasons
stated in paragraphs 3 and 8 of this Answer.

12. Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the Complaint are DENIED for lack of personal knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS
13. Defendant Deryl and her family have been in the possession of the subject property
located at B3 L41 P4 Natividad Subdivision, Deparo, Caloocan City (“subject property”)
in the concept of an owner by virtue of a Purchase Agreement executed by Defendant’s
father Adriano R. Oro Sr. (now deceased and hereinafter referred to as “Adriano”) and
DNG Realty & Development Corporation (“DNG Realty”) sometime in 1997. Copies of
the Purchase Agreement between DNG Realty and Adriano and Official Receipts as
proof of payment of monthly amortization are attached as Exhibits “1” and “2” series to
the Panghukumang Sinumpaang Salaysay of Derly Tilos Oro dated 9 August 2023
hereto attached and made an integral part of this Answer.

14. After the aforementioned sale, DNG Realty turned over physical possession of the
subject property to the Defendant’s family, who immediately occupied the same. Adriano
even joined the Natividad Subdivision (Phase IV) Homeowners Association, Inc. being a
bonafide resident of the village. A copy of the Certificate of Membership with No. 345
issued by Natividad Subdivision (Phase IV) Homeowners Association, Inc. is attached as
Exhibit “3” to the Panghukumang Sinumpaang Salaysay of Derly Tilos Oro dated 9
August 2023 hereto attached and made an integral part of this Answer.

15. In the following years, the subject property was instituted as Defendant’s family
residence. Adriano has been occupying their property since then until his death on
October 1, 2015. Copy of the Death Certificate of Adriano with Registry No. 2015-16429
is attached as Exhibit “4” to the Panghukumang Sinumpaang Salaysay of Derly Tilos
Oro dated 9 August 2023 hereto attached and made an integral part of this Answer.

16. Since 1997, the occupation and possession of the Defendant Derly of the subject
property remained undisturbed. In fact, per the Certification issued by Barangay 168,
Caloocan City on May 2023, Defendant have been a resident of B3 L41 P4 Natividad
Subdivision, Deparo, Caloocan City since 1997 up to present or for 27 years already, a
copy of which is attached as Exhibits “5” and “6” to the Panghukumang Sinumpaang
Salaysay of Derly Tilos Oro dated 9 August 2023 hereto attached and made an integral
part of this Answer.
 Page 3 of 10

17. Hence, the Defendant was utterly shocked and dismayed when she received the
instant Complaint alleging that the subject property was acquired by the Pag-Ibig
which eventually sold the same to the Plaintiff Spouses Nite.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

A. THE PLAINTIFF HAVE NO CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

18. In Spouses Erorita v Spouses Dumlao1, the Supreme Court laid down the
requirements for the successful institution of an action for unlawful detainer:

“To make a case for unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege that:
(a) initially, the defendant lawfully possessed the property, either by
contract or by plaintiff’s tolerance; (b) the plaintiff notified the
defendant that his right of possession is terminated; (c) the
defendant remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of its
enjoyment; and (d) the plaintiff filed a complaint within one year from
the last demand on defendant to vacate the property.” (Emphasis in
original)

19. A judicious review of the Complaint and its attachments would show that the
Complaint failed to show how, when and in what manner the Plaintiff tolerated the
Defendant’s occupancy and possession over the subject parcel of land.

20. It cannot be gainsaid that the fact of tolerance is of utmost importance in an action
for unlawful detainer. Without proof that the possession was legal at the outset, the
logical conclusion would be that the defendant's possession of the subject property will
be deemed illegal from the very beginning, for which, the action for unlawful detainer
shall be dismissed.2

21. In Quijano v. Atty. Amante3, the Court ruled that in an action for unlawful detainer,
the plaintiff must show that the possession was initially lawful, and thereafter, establish
the basis of such lawful possession. Similarly, should the plaintiff claim that the
respondent's possession was by his/her tolerance, then such acts of tolerance must be
proved. A bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice. At least, the plaintiff must point to
the overt acts indicative of his/her or predecessor's permission to occupy the disputed
property. Failing in this regard, the occupant's possession could then be deemed to have
been illegal from the beginning. Consequently, the action for unlawful detainer will fail.
Neither may the ejectment suit be treated as one for forcible entry in the absence of
averments that the entry in the property had been effected through force, intimidation,
threats, strategy or stealth.4 

22. Jurisprudence has vacillated over the years that the allegations in the complaint
determine both the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court. The complaint
must specifically allege the facts constituting unlawful detainer. In the absence of these
allegations of facts, an action for unlawful detainer is not the proper remedy and the
municipal trial court or the MeTC does not have jurisdiction over the case.5

1
G.R. No. 195477, 25 January 2016
2
Cecila T. Javelosa, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Ma. Diana J. Jimenez v. Ezequiel Tapus, et. al.
G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018 (Citing Quijano v. Atty. Amante, 745 Phil. 40, 51-52 (2014))
3
Quijano v. Atty. Amante, 745 Phil. 40, 51-52 (2014)
4
Ibid.
5
Fiorello R. Jose vs. Roberto Alfuerto, G.R. No. 169380, November 26, 2012
 Page 4 of 10

23. In this case, however, the relevant portion of the instant Complaint merely alleged
as follows:

14 Based on the said Deed of Conditional Sale to Mr. Randi Nite

was granted by Pag-IBIG Fund power over the latter to manage and
administer the subject property. The right over the subject property is
unequivocal and incontrovertible due to the fact that it is Home
Development Mutual Fund, that accords authority to the herein
Plaintiffs to manage and administer the property in the concept of the
owner. A copy of the Pag-IBIG Fund Letter dated 16 March 2022
issued and signed by Atty. Rachell;e G. Patamki is hereafter marked as
Annex “K” and a photograph depicting the property unlawfully
occupied by the Defendants, is hereafter attached and marked as Annex
“K-1”

15 The Plaintiff-spouses requested the Defendants to peacefully

vacate the premises since authority to administer and possess the
subject property has already been granted by Pag-IBIG, however, the
Defendants takes no action to abided with said request.

24. Moreover, it was merely alleged in the Complaint that upon receipt of the Pag-
IBIG Fund’s Letter6 allegedly granting authority to move-in the subject property, Plaintiff
Janeth sought the intervention of Honorable Punong Barangay of Barangay 168 to
formally lodged a complaint against Derly.

25. Apparently, therefore, the requirement of facts constituting tolerance is patently and
unequivocally lacking in this case.

26. Considering that it cannot be concluded with utmost certainty that the Plaintiff
tolerated the possession of the Defendant Derly, the instant Complaint does not
sufficiently present a case for unlawful detainer. Its outright dismissal, therefore, is
WARRANTED.

B. THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO PROPER

AUTHORITY TO FILE THE INSTANT
CASE.

27. After carefully sifting through the records of the case, there is no appropriate
document (i.e. Special Power of Attorney) which would show that the Plaintiff-Spouses
Randi B. Nite and Janeth A. Nite were duly authorized to act as representative for Pag-
IBIG FUND to file the instant ejectment case against Derly.

28. Moreover, a careful  scrutiny of the Special  Power  of Attorney dated 05 January
20227 executed by  Plaintiff Randi Nite in favor of his representative- Plaintiff Janeth
Nite, only grants the latter the following power and authority:
To manage, administer, file and process, facilitate, and transact all
business with PAG-IBIG, MERALCO, MAYNILAD and any
authorized banks related to our property located at Blk 3, Lot 41, Phs4,
Natividad Subd., Deparo, Caloocan City and to enter in all agreement,
deeds, contracts and any legal writings with full authority to sign
execute all documents in behalf of me. (emphasis supplied)

29. Hence, it is clear as sun that Plaintiff Janeth’s authority is limited only with the
management, administration and other documentary transaction in relation to the subject
property. In the same manner, nowhere can it be found that Plaintiff Janeth was duly
authorized to file the instant action on behalf of her husband before the Honorable Court
nor to attend on the latter’s behalf in the mediation proceedings before Barangay 168 as
6
Attached to the Complaint as Annex “G”
7
Attached to the Complaint as Annex “H”
 Page 5 of 10

alleged in paragraph 17 of the Complaint 8 considering the fact that it was only Plaintiff
Randi who is a privy in the Deed of Conditional Sale9.

30. Pursuant  to  Article 1878 (15) of the Civil Code, a duly appointed agent has no
power to exercise any act of strict dominion on behalf of the principal unless authorized
by a special power of attorney. 

31. In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, it was elucidated that if a complaint is filed for
and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed
filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court
should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint
and the plaintiff.

32. Accordingly, since Plaintiff-Spouses Nite were not duly authorized by Plaintiff
Pag-IBIG to file the instant Complaint for Ejectment, they have no authority
likewise to affix their signature in Verification and Certification Against Forum
Shopping. Thus, this Complaint is ineffectual and should therefore, be DISMISSED.

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED/SUMMARY OF
THE INTENDED TESTIMONY

33. The Defendant will be presented as witness, whose testimony will be presented to
support her defenses and to refute the allegations in the Complaint.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED

34. The Defendant intends to present the following pieces of evidence as part of the
documentary exhibits:

a. Purchase Agreement between DNG Realty10

b. Official Receipts11
c. Certificate of Membership with No. 34512
d. Death Certificate of Adriano with No. 2015-1642913
e. Certificate of Residency issued in the name of the Defendant14
f. Judicial Affidavit of the Defendant15

The Defendant reserves the right to present additional evidence and witnesses if
necessary during the course of the proceedings.

COUNTERCLAIM

35. By reason of the unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations of the Plaintiff and the
malicious filing of this case to the prejudice of the Defendant, the latter suffered sleepless
nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral

8
Attached to the Complaint as Annex “M” series
9
Attached to the Complaint as Annex “J”
10
Hereto attached as Annex “1”
11
Hereto attached as Annex “2”
12
Hereto attached as Annex “3”
13
Hereto attached as Annex “2”
14
Hereto attached as Annex “4”
15
Hereto attached as Annex “5”
 Page 6 of 10

shock and social humiliation. Consequently, the Plaintiff should be held liable to pay the
Defendants moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.

36. For the necessary correction of public good, the Plaintiff should also be held liable to
pay P50,000.00 as exemplary damages in favor of the Defendant.

37. Despite being represented by the Public Attorney’s Office for free, the Plaintiff
should also be held liable to pay Attorney’s Fees as the Defendant was constrained to
litigate to protect her rights and which may be awarded pursuant to R.A. 9406 (PAO
Law) which provide:

“The cost of the suit, attorney’s office and contingent fees imposed upon the
adversary of PAO clients after a successful litigation shall be deposited in
the National Treasury as trust fund and shall be disbursed for special
allowances of authorized officials and lawyers of the PAO.” (Sec. 16-D).

-= P R A Y E R =-

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Defendant most respectfully prays that

after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered:

a. DISMISSING the instant case for utter lack of merit;

b. ORDERING the Plaintiffs to pay the following:

1. Moral damages in the amount of P50, 000.00;

2. Exemplary damages in the amount of P50, 000.00; and
3. Attorney’s Fees pursuant to PAO Law and cost of suit.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila, 9 August 2023

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE-CALOOCAN CITY DISTRICT OFFICE
Counsel for the Petitioner
4 Floor, Aurelio Building II, 11th Avenue West Grace Park,
th

Caloocan City, Metro Manila

Tel./Fax No. 8364-9398

BY:

THE AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL PUBLIC ATTORNEY

DAVIDSON T. SARMIENTO
District Public Attorney
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0025351, January 4, 2023
IBP Lifetime Member No. 08146
Roll of Attorneys No. 39124
 Page 7 of 10

MARIA TERESA I. BAUTISTA

Public Attorney III
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0025342, January 4, 2023
Roll of Attorneys No. 55484
IBP Lifetime No. 017591

MARK BRYANT Y. GABON

Public Attorney I
MCLE Compliance No. VIII-0001425, January 4, 2023
Roll of Attorneys No. 76502
Admitted to the Philippine Bar on May 5, 2022
IBP No. 269335 4 January 2023 / Quezon City
atty.mbgabon@gmail.com

COPY FURNISHED:

MA. EMELY C. MANUEL

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 84, Caloocan City

ATTY. HANZEL P. MENOR, DMD

ENGAY YERRO FORTEZA MENOR LAW
Counsel for the Plaintiff
2/F 3767 Sun Valley Drive Sun Valley
Paranaque, Metro Manila
Hanzel.menor@mmalaw.net

EXPLANATION
The foregoing Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim will be filed before the Honorable Court, and
copies thereof served to the counsel of the Plaintiff through registered mail as personal filing and service
cannot be made in a practical manner due to distance and lack of messenger to affect the same; and for
health reasons amidst the current pandemic.

MARK BRYANT Y. GABON

Public Attorney I
 Page 8 of 10

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Caloocan City ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, Defendant Derly Tilos Oro, Filipino, of legal age, and currently residing at B3
L41 P4 Natividad Subdivision, Deparo, Caloocan City, after being sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and say that:

1. I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the above Answer to be prepared and have read and know the
contents thereof;

3. The allegations therein are true and correct based on our personal knowledge
and authentic documents;

4. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly

increase the cost of litigation;

5. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specificallyso

identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery; and

6. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein; and

7. If I should thereafter learn that the same or a similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the
court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9 August 2023 at

Caloocan City.

DERLY TILOS ORO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Caloocan, this , 9

August 2023 affiants personally appeared, exhibiting to me their identity documents with
photo and signature, as competent evidence of identity.

MARK BRYANT Y. GABON

Public Attorney I
(Pursuant to RA 9406/PAO Law)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CALOOCAN CITY ) S.S.

LAWYER’S ATTESTATION
 Page 9 of 10

(Pursuant to Section 3(b), Rule 7 of the Amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

We, DAVIDSON P. SARMIENTO, MARIA TERESA I. BAUTISTA and

MARK BRYANT Y. GABON, currently employed as Public Attorneys of Public
Attorney’s Office-Caloocan District Office, after duly sworn to in accordance with the
law hereby depose and say that:

1. The above Answer is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing
laws or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;

3. The factual contentions have evidentiary support, or if specifically so

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of
discovery under the rules;

4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if

specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this 9

August 2023, at Caloocan City, Philippines.

DAVIDSON T. SARMIENTO
District Public Attorney

MARIA TERESA I. BAUTISTA

Public Attorney III

MARK BRYANT Y. GABON

Public Attorney I

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 9 August 2023, in Caloocan

City, witnesses exhibited to me sufficient proofs of their identification.

KAREN JOY D. TECSON

Public Attorney I
(Pursuant to R.A. 9406/PAO Law)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CALOOCAN CITY )S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, JONIEFER V. DE GUZMAN, of legal age, Filipino, Administrative Aid III of
Public Attorney’s Office, Caloocan City District Office, with office address at 4th Floor
 Page 10 of 10

Aurelio Building II, 11th Avenue, Gracepark, Caloocan City, after having been duly
sworn, depose and say that:

1. On __________________, I served a copy of the following pleading/paper

to Opponent’s Counsel:

“Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim”

in Civil Case No. 22-32157 entitled: HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL

FUND (PAG-IBIG FUND for brevity) represented by SEBASTIAN D. ABE
JR. and SPOUSES RANDI B. NITE and JANETH A. NITE v LANI P.
PENUELA and DERLY TILOS ORO

2. By registered mail through franking privilege pursuant to Republic Act

No. 9406 (PAO Law) by depositing a copy on __________________ in the
Caloocan Central Post Office 1400 Caloocan City, Philippines, as evidenced by the
Registered Mail Acceptance Counter dated _________________ of the Caloocan
Central Post Office and with mailing and statement number __________ indicated
after name(s) and addressee(s) hereto attached as Annex “A”.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this , 9 August 2023 in

Caloocan City, Metro Manila.

JONIEFER V. DE GUZMAN

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this , 9 August 2023 affiant exhibiting

to me his ____________________________

MARK BRYANT Y. GABON

Public Attorney I
(Pursuant to PAO Law/ R.A. 9406)