REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESFIFTH JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITYLegazpi City

NGATASYA GUTTIEREZ,                                Plaintiff,

                               -versus-                             CIVIL CASE NO. _________ For : Unlawful Detainer

JEANE NAPULIS, Defendant.x--------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

  COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 1 only insofar as her personal circumstances are concerned; but she denies that she is singly residing in the said apartment as she lives with her 11-year-old son.

2. That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 2 except that she is occupying Unit 1 of the said studio-type apartment;

3. That she ADMITS her obligation of paying the monthly installments cited in paragraph 3 of the complaint;

4. That she DENIES the allegation that the continuous refusal of payment of the agreed rental was without justification.

That the Php. 28,000.00 payment agreed upon in the Barangay Conciliation was already paid through and by deducting the expenses incurred for the repair of damages caused by the typhoon Jeje last May 25, 2013 as shown in the Appendix __; the expenses for the repair amounted to _____ as shown by the receipts. (Appendices __, ___, __).

5. That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 5;

6. That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 6 only insofar as to the submission of the matter before the barangay justice system, but DENIES the allegation of failure to make good of her promise to pay as stipulated in the kasunduan since both parties made a new agreement as to the method of the payment of the said obligation stipulated in the kasunduan.

The defendant, here, EXPLAINS the circumstances of the new method of payment as agreed by both parties:

Defendant gave a written notice on May 26, 2013, about the damages incurred caused by the typhoon Jeje. Plaintiff in her reply letter dated May 27, 2013 said “Puonan nyo na patrabahuan yan, kung guranu man ang magastos nyo ibawas

na sana duman sa pinagkasunduan ta sa barangay ta wara kami matataong kwarta ngunyan ta kaipuhan mi man ipaayos digdi samo.” (Appendix __)

7. That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 7 only insofar as to the letter of demand dated August 1, 2013 but DENIES the receipt of the second demand letter on July 15, 2013, which was actually on July 17, 2013.

That on July 15, 2013, plaintiff went to the unit occupied by the defendant, supposedly to serve the second demand letter, however only the son was at home. Plaintiff harassed the child causing the defendant to report the incident to the nearby police station as evidenced in Appendix __;

8. That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 8 only insofar as to the series of letters of demand which were repeated by oral demands but DENIES as to refusal to pay the agreed amount.

  WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be

dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.

  Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

  Legazpi City, September 11, 2013.