Branch 126, Caloocan City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 126, Caloocan City
KOALISYON PABAHAY NG
PILIPINAS (KPP) (CALOOCAN
CHAPTER), its members:
DIONESIO COMPLETADO,
JOSEPH S. TIO, GAUDELIA A.
PILLAS, EVELINA G. GROYON,
MA. TERESA N. CAPINIG, EDDIE
PALMONES, JENNIFER L.
PALANCA, and all other similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
-versus- Civil Case No. C-1534

(2019)
NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY (NHA), NATIONAL
HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE
CORP., (NHMFC), and
BALIKATAN PROPERTY
HOLDINGS, INC. (BPHI) and
BALIKATAN HOUSING FINANCE,
INC. (BFSI), PALMERA HOMES
INC., AND ACCO HOMES,
Defendants,
x----------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW DEFENDANT, NATIONAL HOUSING

AUTHORITY (NHA for brevity), by counsel, respectfully avers to the
Honorable Court that:
1. NHA denies pars. 1 for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth thereof;
2. NHA specifically admits par. 2 of the complaint for being

erroneous, the truth being that NHA is a government owned
and controlled corporation duly recognized and existing by
1
virtue of Presidential Decree No. 757, with principal office at
NHA Building Ellip0tical Road, Diliman Quezon City;
3. NHA admits par. 3 to 6 for being a mere recitation of the

personal circumstances of the other government agencies
impleaded as defendants herein;
4. ]NHA specifically denies pars. 7 to 28 for lack of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
5. A careful perusal of the complaint for Quieting of Title, Nullity of

TCT and Nullity of Foreclosure would reveal that NHA was only
mentioned on paragraph 2 of the entire complaint;
6. There is no specific cause of action directed against the NHA,

which would explain why it was impleaded as a party to this
case.
7. The Supreme Court defined a cause of action in the case of

Magellan Aerospace Corp. vs. Philippine Air Force, G.R. No.
216566, February 24, 2016:
“Cause of action is defined as an act or

omission by which a party violates a right of
another.16 In pursuing that cause, a plaintiff
must first plead in the complaint a "concise
statement of the ultimate or essential facts
constituting the cause of action."17 In
particular, the plaintiff must show on the face
of the complaint that there exists a legal right
on his or her part, a correlative obligation of
the defendant to respect such right, and an act
or omission of such defendant in violation of
the plaintiff’s rights.18”
8. The complaint anchors its complaint on the socialized housing

program they availed through the National Home Mortgage
Finance Corp. (NHMFC) and its partner Palmera Homes. NHA
2
is not a party to the said contract or any project with Palmera
Homes. The plaintiff on the allegations and narration on the
complaint must enumerate the infractions committed by the
defendant. In the present case, there is no act or omission
directed towards NHA;
9. There is nothing in the complaint which mentions NHA or its

involvement in the project of NHFMC and Palmera Homes, and
it is a wonder why NHA was even impleaded as a party
defendant;
10. There is a failure to state a cause of action against NHA

and it is only proper that NHA be dropped as a party defendant
for failure of the plaintiffs to state a cause of action;
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Zuniga-Santos vs.

Santos-Gran, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014 explained the
effect of failure to state a cause of action, thus:
“A complaint states a cause of action if it

sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3)
essential elements of a cause of action,
namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the
part of the named defendant to respect or not
to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission
on the part of the named defendant violative of
the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach
of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages.29 If the allegations of the
complaint do not state the concurrence of these
elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to
a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to
state a cause of action.30”
It is well to point out that the plaintiff’s cause of

action should not merely be "stated" but,
importantly, the statement thereof should be
"sufficient." This is why the elementary test in a
motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or
not the complaint alleges facts which if true
would justify the relief demanded.31 As a
3
corollary, it has been held that only ultimate
facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary
facts are considered for purposes of applying
the test.32 This is consistent with Section 1,
Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which states that
the complaint need only allege the ultimate
facts or the essential facts constituting the
plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if
they cannot be stricken out without leaving the
statement of the cause of action
33
inadequate. Since the inquiry is into the
sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material
allegations, it follows that the analysis should
be confined to the four corners of the
complaint, and no other.34
12. Based on elements no. 2 and 3 of a cause of action as

cited above, there should be an obligation on the part of the
defendant to respect or not violate the right of the plaintiff and
an act or omission on the part of the defendant which is
violative of that right;
13. Considering that public defendant NHA is not a party to

the socialized housing contract between the plaintiffs and the
NHFMC or Palmera Homes, then there is no right which the
NHA could have violated, which would justify impleading NHA
as a defendant;
14. It bears stressing that the NHA was only mentioned once
in the complaint and that pertains only to its personal
circumstances, and nothing else. To continue to let NHA be a
party to this case when clearly it committed no violation nor
infraction is a clear violation on the rights of NHA to dismiss a
complaint which failed to state a cause of action against it;
15. In HSBC vs. Catalan, G.R. No. 159590, October 18,

2004, the Supreme Court ruled:
“The elementary test for failure to state a cause of

action is whether the complaint alleges facts
4
which if true would justify the relief demanded.
Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid
judgment upon the facts alleged therein? The
inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of
the material allegations. If the allegations in the
complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can
be maintained, it should not be dismissed
regardless of the defense that may be presented
by the defendants.”
16. Thus, based on the foregoing, the instant complaint

should be dismissed for failure of the plaintiffs to state a cause
of action against NHA.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is

respectfully prayed for that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for
utter lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Other reliefs just and equitable under premises are likewise

prayed for.
Quezon City for Caloocan City, 01 December 2020.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE

GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL:
ELEONOR ARCADIO BALATBAT

Manager, Trial Services Division
Roll of Attorney’s No. 53804
IBP No. 100997 / 01-03-2020/ Bulacan
5
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0025329 valid
until April 14, 2022
- (all with office address at)

National Housing Authority Building
Elliptical Rd., Diliman, Quezon City 1101
E-mail: nha_legal@yahoo.com
Tel. No.: (02) 928-9177
Copy furnishing and notice of hearing:
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Caloocan City, Branch 126
Hall of Justice, Caloocan City
ATTY. SALVADOR SOLIS / ATTY. CESAR SOLIS

Counsel for the plaintiff
G/F Manere Bldg., I, V. Luna Ave., cor.
Matahimik St., Diliman, Quezon City
National Home Mortgage Finance Corp. (NHMFC)

ATTY. ARNULFO I. CATALAN
4F, Filomena Bldg. III, 104 Amorsolo St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
PALMERA HOMES
ACCO HOMES
827 Capitol Development Bank Bldg.,
Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City
BALIKATAN PROPERTY HOLDINGS INC. &

BALIKATAN FINANCE SERVICES INC. (BFSI)
23rd Flr., RCBC Savings Bank Corporate Center 26th &25th St.,
Bonifacio South, Bonifacio Global, Taguig City
Please note that the undersigned will submit the foregoing answer
with Motion to Dismiss for the consideration of the Court on 16
December 2020 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon or on any day most
convenient to the Court.
6
EXPLANATION
The filing of the copies of the foregoing pleading are being done
by registered mail due to lack of office personnel to effect personal
filing of the same as the lone liaison officer is heavily burdened with
works in filing equally important pleadings.

Branch 126, Caloocan City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Branch 126, Caloocan City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Branch 126, Caloocan City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

-versus- Civil Case No. C-1534

COMES NOW DEFENDANT, NATIONAL HOUSING

1. NHA denies pars. 1 for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a

2. NHA specifically admits par. 2 of the complaint for being

3. NHA admits par. 3 to 6 for being a mere recitation of the

4. ]NHA specifically denies pars. 7 to 28 for lack of knowledge

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5. A careful perusal of the complaint for Quieting of Title, Nullity of

6. There is no specific cause of action directed against the NHA,

7. The Supreme Court defined a cause of action in the case of

“Cause of action is defined as an act or

8. The complaint anchors its complaint on the socialized housing

9. There is nothing in the complaint which mentions NHA or its

10. There is a failure to state a cause of action against NHA

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Zuniga-Santos vs.

“A complaint states a cause of action if it

It is well to point out that the plaintiff’s cause of

12. Based on elements no. 2 and 3 of a cause of action as

13. Considering that public defendant NHA is not a party to

15. In HSBC vs. Catalan, G.R. No. 159590, October 18,

“The elementary test for failure to state a cause of

16. Thus, based on the foregoing, the instant complaint

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is

Other reliefs just and equitable under premises are likewise

Quezon City for Caloocan City, 01 December 2020.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE

ELEONOR ARCADIO BALATBAT

- (all with office address at)

Copy furnishing and notice of hearing:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

ATTY. SALVADOR SOLIS / ATTY. CESAR SOLIS

National Home Mortgage Finance Corp. (NHMFC)

BALIKATAN PROPERTY HOLDINGS INC. &

ELEONOR ARCADIO BALATBAT

You might also like