Documents

A n s w e r s

Description
A N S W E R S 1. ANSWER DENYING GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT 2. ANSWER OF DEBTOR TO PETITION FOR INSOLVENCY 3. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE 4. ANSWER FOR PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS 5. ANSWER TO PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION 6. ANSWER WITH NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 7. ANSWER WITH PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM 8. ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITH COUNTERCLAIM 9. ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL UNDER OATH 10. ANSWER WITH
Categories
Published
of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
     A N S W E R S 1.    ANSWER DENYING GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT 2.    ANSWER OF DEBTOR TO PETITION FOR INSOLVENCY 3.    ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE 4.    ANSWER FOR PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS  5.    ANSWER TO PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION 6.    ANSWER WITH NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 7.    ANSWER WITH PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM 8.    ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITH COUNTERCLAIM 9.    ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL UNDER OATH 10.    ANSWER WITH INTERVENTION    1. ANSWER DENYING GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF AN INSTRUMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FIRST JUDICIAL REGION Branch 60 Baguio City  ________ MICKEY S. INAKANU  Plaintiff,   CIVIL CASE NO .  _______  For:  Annulment / Cancellation of REM with Prayer for - versus -  Preliminary Injunction with Issuance of TRO DONDY N. AMETEN  Defendant. x---------------------------x  ANSWER NOW COMES  the defendant, by the undersigned counsel, and in answer to plaintiff’s complaint, in the above -entitled case and to this Honorable Court most respectfully alleges:   1.   That defendant specifically denies under oath the genuineness and due execution of the alleged promissory note (  Annex B ) attached to said complaint; 2.   That said promissory note was executed through fraud, threats, and intimidation, and therefore null and void. PRAYER  WHEREFORE , it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed,  with costs against the plaintiff. Other relief's, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED  this 15 th  day of February 2014, Baguio City, Philippines. CINDY P. ENDENG Counsel for the Defendant Copy furnished by registered mail with registry return card: (EXPLANATION)      2.  ANSWER OF DEBTOR PETITION FOR INSOLVENCY Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT FIRST JUDICIAL REGION Bontoc, Mountain Province JOMAR MERAIZ, Plaintiff Civil Case no.: 354673 - versus - For : Insolvency    KATYA JUAN, Defendant x -------------------------- x  A N S W E R COMES NOW   the defendant, the debtor mentioned in the above-entitled insolvency proceedings, and in ANSWER to the petition to have him adjudged insolvent alleges: That she denies that she has committed any of the acts of insolvency set forth in said petition, or that she is insolvent.  WHEREFORE , the undersigned prays that these proceedings be dismissed,  with costs, expenses, damages, and counsel fees as may be fixed and allowed by this Honorable Court. Baguio City, Philippines, February 26, 2014. MARIA CORAZON VALENTIN-CABADING   Counsel for the Defendant    VERIFICATION   JURAT   PROOF OF SERVICE   EXPLANATION (if by mail)   3. ANSWER OF PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE      Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT FIRST JUDICIAL REGION Bontoc, Mountain Province JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff CIVIL CASE NO. 375864   - versus - FOR: Cancellation of Title   JASON ESTRADA, Defendant x -------------------------- x  A N S W E R RESPONDENT,  by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court, answering the petition for cancellation of title, respectfully alleges: 1) He admits the allegations in par. 1 of the petition regarding the personal circumstances and addresses of the parties. 2) He admits the allegations in pars. 2 to 5 to the petition, subject to qualifications and affirmative defenses herein alleges; By way of SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, respondent alleges: 1) That the parcel of land in question is a conjugal property of respondent and his wife, Letty Estrada; 2) That the court in Civil Case NO. 7593 has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of his wife because she was not a party litigant therein: 3) That the money judgment in Civil Case No 7593 arose from the personal transaction of petitioner in connection with the accommodation surety he executed to secure payment of the loan extended by respondent to the corporation, ICORP, which loan did not benefit the conjugal property, and accordingly said conjugal property is exempt from execution to satisfy said personal judgment of respondent. 4) That the execution sale is invalid because there was no valid levy made by the sheriff, as at the time the court in Civil Case No. 7593 has not acquired  jurisdiction over the per son of respondent’s wife, who was not a party litigant in said case. 5)   The value of the land in question has market value far exceeding the amount of money judgment rendered in favor of petitioner, as to unfairly and unjustly enrich petitioner. 6.) As the Supreme Court ruled in Padilla, Jr. v. Phil. Producers’ Cooperative  Marketing Assn.,  G.R. No. 141256, July 15, 2005:
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks