REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
PROVINCE OF BATANGAS
BRANCH _____
BALAYAN, BATANGAS

ROBIN Y. TONG,
WELLINGTON Y. TONG and
MARIE LOUISE Y. TONG
Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. ___________

FOR: RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
(ACCION PUBLICIANA)

____________________

Defendants.
x----------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, ROBIN Y. TONG, WELLINGTON Y. TONG
and MARIE LOUISE Y. TONG, by counsel unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully allege that:

1. Plaintiff, ROBIN Y. TONG is of legal age, Filipino

citizen and with residence and postal address at
12-A Mariposa St., Quezon City where he may be
served with summons and court processes;

Plaintiff, WELLINGTON Y. TONG is of legal age,

Filipino citizen and with residence and postal
address at 798 Harvard St., Mandaluyong City
where he may be served with summons and court
processes;

Plaintiff, MARIE LOUISE Y. TONG is of legal age,

Filipino citizen and with residence and postal
address at 798 Harvard St., Mandaluyong City
where she may be served with summons and
court processes;
2. Defendant, ________________, of legal age,
Filipino citizen and with residence and postal
address at San Rafael, Calaca, Batangas where he
may be served with summons and court
processes;

3. Plaintiffs are the absolute and registered owners

of a parcel of land including all improvements
found thereon (if there is any) covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
76504 and consists of ONE HUNDRED
THIRTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY
EIGHT SQUARE METERS (113,168 m2)
Attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof is a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title
No T- 76504 marked as Annex “A”.

4. Immediately after the acquisition of the above-

mentioned property, Plaintiffs took physical
possession of the property. In fact, they hired
security guards to protect and secured the
abovementioned property.

5. The said property is situated at Dacanlao, Calaca,

Batangas and is classified as industrial land since
the very beginning. Attached herewith and made
an integral part hereof is a copy of Tax
Declaration No. 06-0018-02242 marked as
Annex “B”;

6. Plaintiffs have been consistently paying the annual

real property taxes before the Municipality of
Calaca, Batangas as regards the said property.
The assessed value of the property subject matter
of this case in One Million Two Hundred One
Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Pesos (Php.
1,201,570.00). Attached herewith and made an
integral part hereof is a copy of the Certificate of
Non-Delinquency dated August 10, 2018
issued by the Office of the Municipal
Treasurer of Calaca, Batangas marked as
Annex “C” and the Assessed Value as Annex
“C-1”.

7. Sometime in 2016, plaintiffs discovered that

defendants surreptitiously and by means of stealth
 and strategy entered, used and occupied plaintiffs’
property;

8. Plaintiffs through their lawyer, Atty. Erwin L.

Aguilera, ask assistance of the Barangay Chairman
Dominador Razon of San Rafael, Calaca, Batagas,
to summon all the residents within the said
property;

9. On June 2016, the Barangay Chairman of Brgy.

San Rafael, Calaca set a meeting with Atty. Erwin
L. Aguilera together with the illegal settlers of the
property;

10. Eventually, Plaintiffs hired the services of Geodetic

Engineer in the person of Engr. Katrina J.
Mendeja. She was hired to determine the meets
and bounds of their property and to identify the
illegal structures built therein. Further to secure
the names of the persons occupying the said
illegal structures;

11. Engr. Katrina J. Mendeja conducted a survey on

the said property. On July 2018, she submitted to
the plaintiffs’ lawyer a report and a copy of Sketch
Plan of the land with the list of names of illegal
settlers that occupying the said property.
Attached herewith and made an integral part
hereof is a copy of Sketch Plan of Land with
the complete list of names of illegal settlers
marked as Annexes “D to D-3”.

12. The Defendants are occupying the land area within

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
76504 owned by the Plaintiffs as according to
Engr. Katrina J. Mendeja’s survey, to wit:

NAME AREA (Sq. M.)

1. Menandro Pastoral 16 sq. m.
TOTAL AREA: 935 sq. m.

13. After the receipt of the report and a copy of

Sketch Plan of Engr. Katrina E. Mendeja, the
plaintiffs discovered the real and true illegal
 settlers of their property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- 76504;

14. We also discovered that the above-mentioned

illegal settlers have been assessed by Office of
Provincial Assessor to registered the illegal
improvements erected on the property covered by
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- 76504
under their name;

15. In the case Sumulong v. Court of Appeals (G.R

No. 108817, May 10, 1994, 232 SCRA 372, 383)
held that;

“In actions for Accion Publiciana, three (3)

requisites have to be met for the Regional Trial
Court to acquire jurisdiction;

First, the plaintiffs must allege

their prior physical possession of the
property; 

Second, they must also assert that

they were deprived of possession either
by force, intimidation, threat, strategy,
or stealth, and;

Third, the action was filed after one

(1) year from the time the owners or
legal possessors learned of their
deprivation of physical possession of the
land or building.”

16. In the present case, the first element is present.

Plaintiffs are the absolute and registered owners
of the parcel of land. The Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-76504 (TCT No. T-76504) and Tax
Declaration No. 06-018-02242 will be served as
evidence of ownership including the payment of
the annual real property taxes;

They also took physical possession of the property

by hiring security guards to protect and secured
the premises.
17. The second element is likewise present. Without
the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs,
unknown illegal settlers surreptitiously through
stealth and strategy entered, used and occupied
the said property. Deprivation of physical
possession was discovered during the ocular
inspection made on April 2016 but the illegal
settlers was still unknown;

18. As regards the third element, the timeliness of the

filing of this case is complied with the same being
filed after one-year upon discovery of its
deprivation of physical possession of the land;

19. The case at bar is not covered by the Barangay

Justice since the plaintiffs are residents of Quezon
City and Mandaluyong City whether the
defendants are all residents of Calaca, Batangas;

20. Accion publiciana  is an ordinary civil proceeding to

determine the better right of possession of realty
independently of title. (Bejar v. Caluag, id.; Sps.
Cruz v. Torres, 374 Phil. 529, 533 (1999); Bishop
of Cebu  v. Mangaron, 6 Phil. 286, 291
(1906); Ledesma v. Marcos, 9 Phil. 618, 620
(1908). It refers to an ejectment suit filed after
the expiration of one year from the accrual of the
cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
possession of the realty. (Encarnacion v. Amigo,
G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA
172, 179; Lopez v. David, Jr., G.R. No. 152145,
March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 535, 543).

21. In the case decided by the Supreme Court entitled

Encarnacion v. Amigo, (G.R. No. 169793,
September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 172, 179) states
that;

“If the owner of the land knew that

another person was occupying his
property way back in 1977 but the
owner only filed the complaint for
ejectment in 1995, the proper action
would be one for Accion Publiciana and
not one under the summary procedure
on ejectment. Furthermore, as
 explained by the court, if petitioners are
indeed the owners of the subject lot and
were unlawfully deprived of their right
of possession, they should present their
claim before the Regional Trial Court in
an Accion Publiciana or an Accion
Reinvindictoria, and not before the
metropolitan trial court in a summary
proceeding for unlawful detainer or
forcible entry.”

22. As the assessed value of the property subject

matter of this case is One Million Two Hundred
One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Pesos
(Php1,201,570.00), jurisdiction properly belongs
to the Regional Trial Court.

23. Since more than one year had expired after the
dispossession, this case properly belongs to the
Regional Trial Court.

24. The unjustified refusal of Defendants to vacate the

property, for their continued occupancy and for
their refusal to vacate the property caused the
Plaintiffs to suffer anxiety and sleepless nights.
For all these, Defendants should be adjudged
liable for moral damages in the sum of Philippine
Pesos: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php
100,000.00).

25. So as to deter others who might be similarly

inclined to follow the unlawful acts of Defendants,
the latter should likewise be adjudged liable to pay
exemplary damages in the sum of Philippine
Pesos: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php
100,000.00).

26. The Plaintiffs in order to enforce their rights and

interest, have sought the services of a legal
counsel with attorney’s fees amounting to THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php
300,000.00) and an appearance fee of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 5,000.00) per
hearing;
 27. Defendant remains in possession of the premises
to the damage and prejudice of the Plaintiffs, thus
preventing the plaintiff from utilizing the property
for their own use.

28. After proper proceedings, defendants and all

persons claiming rights under are ordered to
immediately vacate the premises and to surrender
peaceably to the plaintiffs the possession and
occupation of the subject premises.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and
hearing, a judgment be rendered:

1. Ordering the defendants to respect plaintiffs'

peaceful possession of the subject property;

2. Declaring plaintiffs’ rights to remain in

possession of the property;

3. Ordering the defendants and other person

living in the property to permanently vacate
the subject premises and surrender
immediate possession to the plaintiffs;

4. Ordering the defendants to cancel the Tax

Declaration registered under their name;

5. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs the

amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php 100,000.00) as moral damages.

6. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs the

amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php 100,000.00) as exemplary damages.

7. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs the

amount of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php 300,000.00) as attorney’s fee
and Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00)
as appearance fee per hearing.
 8. Ordering defendants to pay the costs of the
suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the foregoing

premises are similarly prayed for.

City of Batangas for Balayan, Batangas, 18th day of

December 2018.

AGUILERA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Plaintiffs
ROBIN Y. TONG,
WELLINGTON Y. TONG and
MARIE LOUISE Y. TONG
Block E, Unit 1-4, Caedo Commercial Center
National Highway, Bo.Calicanto
Batangas City, 4200 Philippines

By:

ERWIN L. AGUILERA
PTR No. 3307274/01-03-18/Batangas City
IBP LRN No. 03031/April 5, 2002/Batangas City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 47189
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0010999; 07/30/18