Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region

Branch 31, San Pedro Laguna

SPOUSES ANICIETO A. ASIO

AND FELOMENA ASIO

Plaintiffs,

-vs- CIVIL CASE No. SPC-1061

FOR: Annulment of Real

SPOUSES BENIGNO U. TAGAS AND Estate Mortgage and Damages

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 plaintiff’s 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. There’s 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 Plaintiff’s allegations are not supported by sufficient evidences

to support their claims.

10. The Plaintiff’s 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 Attorney’s 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 IIICounsel for Defendants (PLANBANK)

Roll of Attorneys No. 42879MCLE No. III-007843/11 Sep 2013/Manila

IBP No. LPN-07835/Lifetime Member/ManilaPTR No. 612976/21-Feb-2013/Manila