REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH 41

TERESA P. CRUZ
Plaintiff,

– versus – CIVIL CASE NO. R – MNL – 17 – 00781 – CV

For: COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY

DANILO G. LOPEZ and

ELENYGYN LOPEZ
Defendants.
x-------------------------------x

ANSWER

Comes now, THE DEFENDANTS, through the undersigned Public Attorney

and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states that:

1. Defendants admit Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 in so far as the names of

the Parties are properly identified;

2. Defendants have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truthfulness of the averments in Paragraph 2.1 to Paragraph 2.9 of
the Complaint.

SPECIAL AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3. There is absolutely no truth as to the allegations of the Plaintiff in her

Complaint’s Paragraph 2.1 in relation to Paragraph 2.2.

The Defendants never borrowed the amount of Five Hundred

Thousand Pesos (Php500, 000.00) from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff clearly
was unable to prove as a fact the allegation in the Complaint that the
Defendants borrowed the said amount. It is hardly comprehensible that the
Plaintiff alleges such large amount of money being borrowed from her but
fails to provide, adduce, or attach in her Complaint any proof of the
existence of the said indebtedness. It is also questionable that the Plaintiff
was able to provide for an alleged proof of the agreement with the
Defendants entitled, “KASUNDUAN NG PAGBABAYAD NG UTANG”
without providing for the proof of the debt itself.

The truth is that the Defendants, loaned sums of money, on different

dates, from the Plaintiff in order for them to attend to the medical needs of
their dear mother. Such loans were without stipulation as to the interest, on
how and when the principal and the interest are to be paid, and at what rate
of interest is to be imposed on the principal amount. Upon demand by the
Plaintiff of the payment of the debt, there were however, additional
monetary impositions on the principal amounts of the debt, such impositions
being claimed by the Plaintiff as interest to the Defendants’ debt causing
the same to balloon to the amount now being claimed by the Plaintiff, which
is Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500, 000.00).
 Article 1956 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, provides that:

“No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly

stipulated in writing.” [Emphasis supplied]

Clearly, there is absence of any writing wherein it is expressly

stipulated that the Defendants will pay for the interest agreed by them;
otherwise, the Plaintiff could have attached the same to her Complaint to
prove the “express stipulation reduced in writing” as regards the interest
rate in question. The Plaintiff, however, failed to provide for the same in her
Complaint, only claiming for the supposed total amount of the indebtedness
of the Defendant without disclosing the breakdown of the principal debt and
the arbitrarily imposed interest rate which made the principal amount
increase to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500, 000.00), in the hope of
gaining a massive sum of money form the Defendants.

Moreover, in the case of ROLANDO C. DE LA PAZ vs. L & J

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (G.R. No. 183360, September 8, 2014.), the
Supreme Court, in citing the case of SIGA-AN V. VILLANUEVA [596 Phil.
760, 769 (2009)], held that:

“The lack of a written stipulation to pay interest on the

loaned amount disallows a creditor from charging
monetary interest.

“Under Article 1956 of the Civil Code, no interest shall be due

unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.
Jurisprudence on the matter also holds that for interest
to be due and payable, two conditions must concur: a)
express stipulation for the payment of interest; and b) the
agreement to pay interest is reduced in writing.

“Here, it is undisputed that the parties did not put down

in writing their agreement. Thus, no interest is due. The
collection of interest without any stipulation in writing is
prohibited by law.” [Emphasis, italics, and underscoring
supplied.]

Having no proof to support the existence of written express

stipulation as to the interest, the Plaintiff is without authority to impose, more
so, to collect from the Defendants the amount equivalent to the value of the
interest rate she arbitrarily, whimsically, and capriciously imposed on the
principal debt.

4. There is also no truth as to the “express agreement” between the parties

that the Plaintiff alleges. Like the absence of the actual proof of the
existence of the debt itself, there is also absence of proof to the existence
of the said “express” agreement. Nothing is attached to the Complaint of
the Plaintiff supporting this allegation, nor was the circumstance/s entailing
the “express agreement” detailed by the Plaintiff in her Complaint. As such,
said allegation cannot be given weight and credence.

5. Defendants likewise refute the allegation of the Plaintiff in Paragraph 2.4 of

her Complaint stating that under the “Kasunduan ng Pagbabayad ng
Utang,” the Defendants “expressly confirmed” their indebtedness to the
 Complainant and promised to pay the amount of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500, 000.00) into two installments, with a statement further
detailing how, when and in what amounts the indebtedness is to be paid.

The Defendants maintain that they were made to sign a blank paper
by the Plaintiff, after the latter took possession of the former’s land title to
serve as a security for the indebtedness. It is worthy to note that the value
of the land subject of the title taken in possession by the Plaintiff is worth
more than the value of the indebtedness of the Defendants.

The signing in blank was facilitated on the premise that it was only
for the sake of formality in acknowledging the principal amount of the
indebtedness of the Defendants and/or that the land title of the Defendants
is in the possession of the Plaintiff to serve as collateral for the former’s
principal obligation, but the Defendants did not know that the same would
be converted into the “Kasunduan” now in question.

It is therefore clear that there was no “express confirmation” given by

the Defendants in acknowledging their debt in the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500, 000.00), nor was there any promise from them that
the same amount will be paid in two installments.

6. The Defendants vehemently deny the allegations in Paragraph 2.5 to

Paragraph 2.7 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint as they are related and
connected to the deceptive “Kasunduan” executed and used by the latter
in support of her allegation of the Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P5000,000.00) indebtedness of the Defendants.

Having signed the paper in blank, the Defendants could not have
intelligently ascertained the purpose for which they are being made to sign,
albeit, they were told that the same was for formalities sake of
acknowledging their principal indebtedness and/or the Plaintiff’s possession
of the Defendants’ land title. It is, however, clear that the respective
signatures of the Defendants in the alleged “Kasunduan” were procured by
fraud and deceit by the Plaintiff, making the former to believe into something
which in reality only made them stand on a more prejudicial position as
before.

Also in the Demand Letter of the Plaintiff against the Defendants, it

is there contained that the obligation of the latter to the former amounts to
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500, 000.00). To reiterate, the
Defendants’ principal indebtedness to the Plaintiff is not in this amount, as
already discussed above.

Being connected with the “Kasunduan” made in deception of the

Defendants, Paragraph 2.5 to Paragraph 2.7 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint,
as well as the “Kasunduan” itself, as well as the Demand Letter, should not
be given weight and credence.

COUNTERCLAIM

The foregoing allegations are re-pleaded herein by reference and, by

way of counterclaim states that:

1. Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines explicitly provides that:
 “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.”

Indeed, Plaintiff herein committed injurious acts that caused injury

and damage to the Defendants.

2. Thus, by reason of the malicious filing of the present case, Defendants

suffered sleepless nights, humiliation, anxiety and besmirched reputation,
thereby warranting the award of moral damages which can be reasonably
assessed at Php 200, 000.00 to be paid to Defendants.

3. Likewise, to deter the practice of herein Plaintiff in committing similar

unjustifiable acts in the future to the detriment of peace loving people,
Defendants pray that they be awarded the amount of Php 200, 000.00 by
way exemplary or corrective damages and cost of suit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Court that the instant Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Manila, Philippines. September 8, 2017.

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Manila District Office
4th Floor William Godino Building
350 A. Villegas Street, Ermita Manila
Tel. No. 400-9755

By:

ATTY. DYANNE O. JOAQUIN

Lifetime Member Roll No. 017707
Roll of Attorney No. 59347
MCLE Compliance No. v – 0006248

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ROBERTO G. DIOKNO, JR.

ATTY. MELVIN C MALABANAN
DIOKNO AND DIOKNO LAW OFFICES
Counsels for the Plaintiff
4298C Emilia St., corner Bautista St., Makati City
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Manila )S.S.
x------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION AGAINST

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, DANILO G. LOPEZ and ELENYGYN LOPEZ, Filipino and of legal

age, after having been duly sworn to before the law, do hereby depose and state,
that:

1. We are the defendants in the above entitled case;

2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER and the

contents thereof are true and correct of our own knowledge and belief;

3. We have not commenced any other court action or proceedings involving

the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency; If we should learn thereafter that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending, we undertake to report the same
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the
original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been
filed.

DANILO G. LOPEZ ELENYGYN LOPEZ

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this ___ day of

____________2017 in the City of ____________________.

__________________
Public Attorney ___
(Pursuant to RA 9406)