Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 31, San Pedro Laguna
SPOUSES ANICIETO A. ASIO
AND FELOMENA ASIO
Plaintiffs,
-vsSPC-1061

CIVIL CASE No.

FOR: Annulment of

Real
SPOUSES BENIGNO U. TAGAS AND
Mortgage and Damages

Estate

SARAH T. TAGAS,
RURAL BANK OF CANLUBANG
PLANTERS, INC., PLANBANK, and
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALAMBA,
LAGUNA,
Defendants
x--------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW, the defendants through the undersigned
counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver:

Admissions and Denials:

1. That we admit the contents of the following paragraph:

paragraph 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12 and 14 of the Complaint.

2. We hold that the contents of the paragraph 4, 10 and 16

of the Complaint are irrelevant to the liability of the
defendant bank.

3. We deny the allegation of the plaintiffs allegation in

paragraph 6 and 8 of the complaint of not having
knowledge of both the loan and the spouses who
contracted the same with the defendant bank, wherein
they acknowledge the spouses as their agent in paragraph
15 of the Complaint. As an agent there is a presumption
that the act of the agent is the act of the principal.

4. We deny the allegation of the Plaintiff that they did not

executed the Special Power of Attorney in Paragraph 7 of
the complaint. The said Special Power is valid until proven
otherwise, it is the name of the plaintiff that appears in
the said Special power therefore the burden of proof shifts
to them in proving such allegation. The Plaintiffs did not
have sufficient evidence such as an affidavit from an
expert or amicus curae in disproving the validity of the
said Special Power of Attorney.

5. We deny the allegation of forgery in paragraph 7 of the

complaint by the plaintiff relating to the Special Power of
Attorney that was presented by Spouses who contracted
the loan. Theres no sufficient proof of forgery therefore
the SPA is valid having presented by an Agent of the
Principal.

6. We deny the allegation of Negligence the spouses having

presented themselves as Agent of the Plaintiffs and
supported with a Special Power of Attorney were lead to
believe that they are legible to contract a loan on behalf
of the plaintiffs.

Affirmative and Special Defences

7. The Complaint is clearly nothing but a malicious lawsuit

that is intended to harass the defendant bank in order to
obtain a specific sum of money.

8. This Action was a result of a conflict between the spouses

and the plaintiff wherein the defendant bank has no part
with.

9. The Plaintiffs allegations are not supported by sufficient

evidences to support their claims.

10. The Plaintiffs cause of action can only extend up to the

spouses and not to the defendant bank.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Deed of Real

Estate Mortgage made Annex G of this complaint be upheld and
hereby ordering the plaintiffs to pay:

a) 500,000.00 Pesos as Moral Damages;

b) Litigation Expenses

c) 100,000.00 as Attorneys Fee.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premise are considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court, as follows:
1) To dismiss the case against the defendant bank for having no
cause of action.
2) To uphold the validity of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
3) To award the defendant bank of its counterclaim
4) To compel the Plaintiff to pay the Loan which is already due

EXPLANATION
Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel through
registered mail as personal service is impracticable.

Ruperto A. Alfafara III

Counsel for Defendants (PLANBANK)
Roll of Attorneys No. 42879
MCLE No. III-007843/11 Sep 2013/Manila
IBP No. LPN-07835/Lifetime Member/Manila
PTR No. 612976/21-Feb-2013/Manila