In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint, and prove,

that he was in prior physical possession of the property in dispute

until he was deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means
provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules either by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In unlawful detainer, there
must be an allegation in the complaint of how the possession of
defendant started or continued, that is, by virtue of lease or any
contract, and that defendant holds possession of the land or building
“after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by
virtue of any contract, express or implied.” (Citiation omitted)
(Sarmienta, et.al. vs. Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No.
182953, October 11, 2010)

“. . . The two are distinguished from each other in that in forcible

entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning,
and that the issue is which party has prior de facto possession while
in unlawful detainer, possession of the defendant is originally legal
but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to
possess.

The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature,

lies in the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court.
Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual
entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last
demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The issue in said cases is the
right to physical possession.” (Citations omitted) (Spouses Valdez vs.
CA and Spouses Fabella, G.R. No. 132424, May 2, 2006, 489 SCRA
369)
FORM NO. 4: ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 33, Quezon City
ALIS DI-YAN COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 2222
- versus - For : Ejectment
YOKO NGA,
Defendant.
x ----------------------------------- x
ANSWER
(With COUNTERCLAIM)
DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:
Admissions/Denials
1. He admits the contents of paragraph 1 only insofar as his personal
circumstances but specifically denies the contents insofar as plaintiff’s personal
circumstances for the reason stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.
PHILIPPINE LEGAL FORMS 2015
229
For Public Domain. For more: Scribd | Phil Legal | Phil Forms
2. He admits the contents of paragraph 2 only where it states that a
Contract of Lease was entered into but specifically denies that the Contract
reflects the true intent of the parties as explained in the Affirmative Defenses
below.
3. He admits the contents of paragraph 3 only as to the fact that demand
to vacate was made but specifically denies its contents as to the truth of the
reasons for the letter for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable
belief as to its truth or falseness..
4. He specifically denies the contents of paragraphs 4 to 6 for the
reasons stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.
Affirmative Defense
5. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the
foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that the
Complaint should be dismissed because:
5.1. Plaintiff has no capacity to sue as it is a foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license.
5.2. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action as
the Contract of Lease (ANNEX A) was, before its expiration,
superceded by a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby plaintiff sold
to defendant the parcel of land in question, a copy of which is
attached as ANNEX 1.
Counterclaim
6. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the
foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled
to relief arising from the filing of this malicious and baseless suit, as follows:
6.1. Moral Damages amounting to One Million Pesos
(PHP1,000,000/00) because his name and reputation were
besmirched by this malicious and baseless suit.
PHILIPPINE LEGAL FORMS 2015
230
For Public Domain. For more: Scribd | Phil Legal | Phil Forms
6.2. Attorney’s Fees amounting to One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) because he was compelled to
secure services of counsel to vindicate his legal rights.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be
rendered in his favor by dismissing the Complaint and granting defendant’s
counterclaim by awarding defendant: (a) One Million Pesos as Moral Damages,
and (b) Fifty Thousand as Attorney’s Fees.
Other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for.
Quezon City; 13 April 2007.
(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERE
Counsel for Defendant
[Address]