Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court


Branch 11
Cauayan City

Mr. Mar Aquino,


Plaintiff
Civil Case No. 214
For: Forcible Entry
-versus Mr. Noynoy Binay,
Defendant
x-----------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned
counsel to this most Honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY
STATES THAT;
1. The Plaintiff is of legal age, married and a resident of Barangay
San Fermin, Cauayan City, Isabela. The Defendant is likewise of
legal age, married and temporary residing at Kingsville
Subdivision, Cauayan City.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of a two hectare land located at Barangay
San Fermin, Cauayan City, as evidenced by pertinent documents
like tax declaration and deed of sale. ( EXHIBIT A )
3. The Defendant is claiming ownership to the adjacent lot with a
house unit that is owned by him.
4. The Plaintiff decided to engage the services of and Engineer in the
person of Mr. Allan Trillanes to survey the property and determine
the boundaries of their lots. (Exhibit B)

5. Later on, the Plaintiff found out that Mr. Noynoy Binay encroached
500 meters of his property and on the same day he (plaintiff) went
to the Defendant to discuss the result of the survey expecting that
the same will be settled smoothly.
6. The Defendant however refused to cooperate with the Plaintiff to
discuss on the matter, instead he filed before the Municipal Trial
Court praying that the survey be declared void and judgment be
rendered in favor of him that there were no encroachment of the
property as the plaintiff is now claiming.
7. The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant
claimed that the 500 meters was part of his property as evidenced
by a survey a long time ago. (Exhibit C)
8. The reason why the plaintiff was compelled to file this case against
the defendant.
9. After continuous demands, the defendant constantly refuses to
vacate the property and even invited relatives to stay with him.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that judgement be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and that after judgement;
i.
ii.

The defendant shall vacate the property owned by the


plaintiff.
The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 50,000 php for
the Attorneys Fees.
Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Cauayan City, Philippines, this 29 th day of November
2014.

Coco Cayetano
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07: Isabela
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07: Isabela
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Isabela

Rm. 4 2/F Cauayan Bamboo Center


180 Cauayan, City
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, Mr. Mar Aquino, of legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and a
resident of Barangay San Fermin, Cauayan City, Isabela after
being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;
1. I am the Complainant in this proceeding.
2. I have read and understood the filed complaint and
allegations therein.

Mar Aquino
Complainant
In witness thereof, I, Mr. Coco Cayetano, counsel of the plaintiff,
have hereunto set my hand this 29th of November at Cauayan City.

Coco Cayetano
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07: Isabela
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07: Isabela
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Isabela
Rm. 4 2/F Cauayan Bamboo Center
180 Cauayan, City

Republic of the Philippines


Municipal Trial Court
Branch 11
Cauayan City

Mr. Mar Aquino,


Plaintiff
Civil Case No. 214
For: Forcible Entry
-versus Mr. Noynoy Binay,
Defendant
x-----------------------------------------x
ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned


counsel unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers:

1. That he ADMITS the contents of paragraph 3 only insofar as


his personal circumstances are concerned;
2. That he DENIES his refusal to cooperate to discuss on the
controversy cited in paragraph 6, but ADMITS the rest of the
allegation therein as to the prayer to declare the recent
survey void;
3. That the defendant has a reasonable ground to believe that
there were no encroachment as the same were part of his
property;
4. That defendant at that moment, have all the records of
survey determining the boundaries therein;

5. That the defendant DENIES the allegations in paragraph 9.


WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays that the
complaints be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.
Other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

City of Cauayan, November 29, 2014

SOLIMAN AND DELIMA LAW OFFICE


Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258, The Tower
Santiago City, Isabela

BY:
Dinky De Lima
Roll No. 12345/1-3-2013/Isabela
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2013/Isabela

Copy Furnished:
ATTY.COCO CAYETANO
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Rm. 4 2/F Cauayan Bamboo Center
180 Cauayan, City

November 29, 2014

To: Mr. Mar Aquino

Dear Sir,

We have been instructed to give an opinion as to the validity under


the law regarding the filing of Forcible Entry Case (attached) which
is to be filed before the Municipal Trial Court and in so doing, it
must be in compliance with Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
This opinion is confined to matters of [jurisdiction] law and we
express no opinion with regard to any system of law other than the
laws of [jurisdiction].
Subject to the above, we are of the opinion that under the laws of
jurisdiction:

1. An ejectment case is a summary proceeding designed to


provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or
the right to possession of the property involved (Barrientos v.
Rapal, G.R. No. 169594, July 20, 2011).
2. It is expeditious as it is governed by the Rule on Summary
Procedure, a special rule where extra pleadings and motions
(other than the Complaint and Answer), otherwise available in
an ordinary civil action, are prohibited precisely to insulate it
from unnecessary delays. The main issue to be resolved
here is the issue of possession or the right to hold
possession.
3. If youre a lessor of real property, you may, if you havent
already, have to resort to the remedy of ejectment in cases
where a lessee withholds possession of leased property after
the latters right to hold the same has already terminated, as
where lessee has failed to pay rental, or has failed to comply
with the conditions of the lease contract, in which case it is
called Unlawful Detainer.
4. It is also available where a present possessor has held
possession of a subject property at the tolerance of the
owner or the one entitled to its possession, and thereafter
refused, after demand to vacate has been made upon him, or

continues his possession thereof. In this case, an inceptively


lawful possession has become unlawful, when the tolerated
possessor refused to return the property upon demand by the
rightful possessor or owner. Anyone, whose stay in the
property is merely tolerated, is bound by an implied obligation
to vacate and return the same to, upon demand of, the
rightful possessor or owner.
5. Note that even the owner of the property may be sued for
ejectment when he deprives another of lawful possession, as
in a case of a lessor depriving or ousting a lessee, who has
been compliant with his obligations under a lease contract, of
possession thereof.
6. Another species of ejectment is Forcible Entry. It is the same
special proceeding as Unlawful Detainer, but the means
whereby the lawful possessor or owner of the subject
property has been deprived thereof are: Force, Intimidation,
Strategy, Threat, and/or Stealth (FISTS). Anyone who has
been ousted of possession to a real property by a "strong
hand" using any of the means mentioned, may resort to this
summary remedy to restore him immediately to possession.
7. In both cases, ownership is not imperative in order for a
plaintiff to acquire legal personality to sue, as again, the issue
is mere right to possession. In unlawful detainer it is
indispensable or jurisdictional that a demand to pay rental or
comply with the conditions of the lease and vacate is made
before an action may properly be filed. Accordingly, absence
of such prior demand could lead to the dismissal of the case.
However, the same is not true in forcible entry.
8. In both cases, resort to barangay conciliation is condition
precedent, meaning that the opposing party may raise as
objection the fact that the dispute has not been referred to
the barangay authorities for conciliation, and the same may
be ground for the dismissal of the action. However, it is not
jurisdictional, meaning that it may be waived by such
opposing party. It is deemed waived when the opposing party
failed to timely object to the fact of its (barangay conciliation)
absence.
9. Both actions must be brought (filed in court) within one year.
The period of one year is reckoned from, in the case of
forcible entry, the date of actual possession if the deprivation

or the ground for the action is force, intimidation, or threat;


and the date of discovery and prohibition if the deprivation or
ground for the action is strategy or stealth. In unlawful
detainer, the period of one year is counted from the date of
last demand.
10.
In the case of forcible entry, the possession is
unlawful/illegal from the very beginning, while in unlawful
detainer, it is inceptively lawful until the defendant refused
and failed to vacate, after demand is made upon him by the
plaintiff. Demand is made upon the termination of the
defendant's right to hold possession of the subject property,
either by expiration of contract, breach of terms of the
contract, or when an owner who tolerated the defendant's
stay has manifested its intention to use the property
effectively ending the tolerance.
11.
In both cases, the provisional remedy of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) is
available under the provision of Rule 70, on forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, and in relation to Rule 58, on preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order.

This opinion is given for your sole benefit and may not be disclosed
or relied upon by any other person without our prior written
consent.

Very truly yours,

OLIVIA S. ALMAZAN
Cauayan City, Isabela

Похожие интересы