Sample Pre Trial | PDF | Injunction | Complaint

Sample Pre Trial

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 41

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT


MORONG, RIZAL

Layla A. Sanchez,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234
For: Forcible entry with Prayer
-versus- for issuance for destruction or
removal of the things planted by
defendant without payment of
indemnity, payment of damages
and prayer for TRO and Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

Balmond C. Dalanghari,
and all persons claiming
rights under them,
Defendant.

X-------------------------X

C O M P LA I N T
(With Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction)

COMES now, Plaintiff through undersigned counsel by way of her


cause of action against the defendant, respectfully alleges that:

1. Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of No. 00001


Leopoldo St., Bankers Village, Antipolo City, where she could be
served with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable
Office;
2. Defendant, who is of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of Sitio
Yapak, Brgy. Lagundi, Morong Rizal were summons and the
complaint could be served upon him;

3. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of a parcel of land situated at


MayBangkal, Morong, Rizal, described as Lot No. 1079-K-2, (LRC)
Psd-162948, containing an area of Twenty Thousand (20,000) square
meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. T-66733 registered in her own name, in the Registry of Deeds in
Rizal. A copy of this document being attached as Annex 1;

4. Plaintiff had long been in prior possession in the concept of an owner,


public, peaceful and uninterrupted, of said property from the time it
was acquired by her from the former owners of said property, as
evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale transferring the said property
in her favor, attached and marked as Annex 2 hereof;

5. Her ownership and continued possession until present is further


bolstered by performing possessory acts such as planting crops and
trees and harvesting the same in the preceding years, and her religious
payments of real estate tax every year, as evidenced by the
Declaration of Real Property (Annex 3), Real Property Tax Clearance
(Annex 4) and Real Property Tax Receipts (Annex 5);

6. However, as early as July 2, 2020, and subsequently thereafter, or


within one year from the filing of this complaint, plaintiff was
unlawfully deprived of her possession as the present owner of the said
property by defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth by constructing a nipa hut and planting crops in the subject

Page 2 of 12
property, and putting up a fence around it, clearly preventing plaintiff
in performing possessory acts on the said property;

7. Specifically, on July 2, 2020, plaintiff visited the subject property at


MayBangkal, Morong, Rizal and she saw the nipa hut and plantings
made by defendant inside the subject property, to which she asked
why defendant has done so and tried to resolve the issue but to no
avail. A copy of the pictures of the nipa hut and plantings made by
Balmond are attached and marked as Annex 6 and 7, respectively;

8. On July 4, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint in the barangay, and asked


the assistance of the Barangay chairman for the peaceful removal of
defendant from her property, however, upon arriving, plaintiff was
surprised as defendant now constructed a fence surrounding her
property. The issue was again not settled. A copy of the picture of the
fence made by Balmond are attached and marked as Annex 8;

9. After numerous attempts to set the conciliation proceedings in the


barangay level, defendant failed to appear and so the Punong
Barangay certified that the issue was not resolved and that the case
can now be filed in court. A copy of the Certification to File Action is
herein attached as Annex 9;

10.Said entry of the defendant on the property of the plaintiff is clearly


illegal from the very beginning as he is merely squatting on the
subject property not belonging to him, without any lawful or, at the
very least, colourable title to it, nor did the plaintiff allowed by
tolerance, or entered a lease contract with defendant, for the latter to
validly possess said property;

Page 3 of 12
11.Defendant unlawfully deprived plaintiff of her enjoyment and
possession of the subject land through force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth, specifically by putting a fence, constructing a nipa
hut and planting crops within the subject property which were not
authorized, permitted or tolerated by plaintiff from the onset, and
continuously refusing to vacate the subject property;

12.Under Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it is stated


that:

“Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. —


Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person
deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land
or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any
contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns
of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any
time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper
Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or
persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs. (1a)” (Emphasis
supplied)

13.In clarifying the requisites for forcible entry, the Supreme Court in
Abad v. Farrales1 stated that there are two allegations which are
indispensable in actions for forcible entry, to wit:

First, that the plaintiff had prior physical possession of the


property; and

1 Abad v. Farrales, G.R. No. 178635 (2011).

Page 4 of 12
Second, that the defendant deprived him of such possession by
means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

14.As stated in the preceding paragraphs, firstly, plaintiff had prior


physical possession of the property flowing from the fact of her
ownership of the said land, and the possessory acts she performed
since the time of her acquisition of said property, such as planting and
harvesting trees and crops in the subject lot;

15.Secondly, plaintiff has sufficiently proven in the preceding paragraphs


that defendant deprived her of the possession of her property through
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, by constructing a nipa
hut, planting various crops, trees and plants, and putting up a fence
around her property;

16.Based on the foregoing discussions, it is clear as day that the present


complaint for forcible entry provides a sufficient cause of action
against the defendant. Moreover, the additional requirement of
undergoing barangay conciliation proceedings and the subsequent
issuance of a Certification to File Action has also been complied with;

17.It must also be mentioned that the defendant illegally made plantings
on the property of the plaintiff. As such, the plantings were made in
bad faith. Thus, the plaintiff may demand the removal of the planting
or sowing, in order to replace things in their former condition at the
expense of the person who planted or sowed in bad faith pursuant to
Article 449 and 450 of the Civil Code which states:

Article 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on


the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without
right to indemnity.

Page 5 of 12
Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has
been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the
demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed,
in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense
of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the
builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the
proper rent.

18.It must be emphasized that the planting or sowing was made in bad
faith by the defendant, having known fully well that he has no valid or
even a mere colorable title to the said lot, as such, he had no right to
plant or sow in the property of another;

ALLEGATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TRO AND


PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION

19.Plaintiff hereby replead all the foregoing allegations as are consistent


with her prayer for the grant of preliminary mandatory injunction
against defendant and anyone claiming any right of possession over
the subject premises, and further avers;

20.Section 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that:

“Section 15. Preliminary injunction. – The court may


grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of
Rule 58 hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further
acts of dispossession against the plaintiff.

A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible


entry or unlawful detainer may, within five (5) days from the filing
of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry
or unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court
shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing
thereof.”

Page 6 of 12
21.Furthermore, Section 3 of Rule 58 enumerates the grounds when the
issuance of preliminary injunction may prosper, to wit:

“Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. – A


preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded , and


the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained
of, or in requiring performance of an act or acts, either
for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing,
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation
of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the
action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.

22.In the case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. The Court of


Appeals2, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“In actions involving realty, preliminary injunction will lie


only after the plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto
by a proper action for the purpose. To authorize a temporary
injunction, the complainant must make out at least a prima facie
showing of a right to the final relief. Preliminary injunction will
not issue to protect a right not in esse (Buayan Cattle Co. Inc. v.
Quintillan, 128 SCRA 286-287 [1984]; Ortigas & Company,
Limited Partnership v. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326 [1987]).

Two requisites are necessary if a preliminary injunction is


to issue, namely, the existence of the right to be protected, and the
facts against which the injunction is to be directed, are violative

2 Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. The Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 102881 (1992).

Page 7 of 12
of said right. In particular, for a writ of preliminary injunction to
issue, the existence of the right and the violation must appear in
the allegations of the complaint and an injunction is proper also
when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in
his complaint…” (Emphasis supplied)

23.Plaintiff, without any doubt, is entitled to the injunctive relief it prays


considering the circumstances of this case, which are consistent with
the foregoing rules and jurisprudence. Plaintiffs are entitled to all the
reliefs herein demanded, the whole or in part of such relief being that
of mandating the defendant and all persons claiming rights over him,
to immediately vacate the premises and to restore plaintiff in her
possession;

24.The unlawful acts of the defendant have caused and still causing
great and irreparable injury to the plaintiff due to the following
reasons:

a. Defendant continues to harvest and/or take the produce, fruits


and benefits from the subject lot to the prejudice of the plaintiff;

b. Defendant, by force, stealth and strategy, has dispossessed and


prevented plaintiff from exercising its authority to develop and
maintain the subject lot;

c. Plaintiff lost and is still losing her privileges and benefits, such
as at the very least being able to receive just rental
compensation for defendant’s unlawful stay in the subject land.

Page 8 of 12
25.Unless defendant is barred, restrained or prohibited from performing
further acts prejudicial to the plaintiff, the latter’s rights of ownership,
possession, use, benefit and enjoyment of the subject land, will be
severely impaired;

26.Unless injunctive relief is granted, the judgment in this case may be


rendered ineffectual and illusory because of the irreparable damage
caused to the plaintiff since the defendant have already constructed a
fence, nipa hut and plantings in the subject property, in violation of
the exclusive right of plaintiff to enjoy and possess the subject
property;

27.Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to post a bond executed to the


defendant in the amount which the Honorable Court may fix, to the
effect that plaintiff will pay the defendant all damages which they may
sustain by reason of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction,
if the Honorable Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not
entitled thereto.

DAMAGES

28.Being the rightful owner, plaintiff has been harvesting the plantings
and crops from the subject property ever since she acquired the same,
as evidenced by a picture of plantings of plaintiff last year and the
receipt of payment for the agricultural products which she harvested
and sold on the same year, attached and marked here as Annex 10 and
Annex 11, respectively. Thus the act of defendant dispossessing her of
the subject property prevented her from planting and harvesting the
plantings and crops on the subject property this year, thereby
depriving her of profits from said harvest. As such, plaintiff is entitled
to a actual damages for P50,000, based on her previous harvest;

Page 9 of 12
29.Because of said illegal intrusion by defendant on the property not
belonging to them but to the plaintiff through force, intimidation,
strategy or stealth, plaintiff was forced to hire the services of counsel
and pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000 and P2,000 for every
appearance of counsel in the instant case which payment of attorney’s
fees is justified under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code. A copy of
the Statement of Account and Official receipt of the corresponding
payment for legal services are hereby attached and marked as Annex
12 and Annex 13.

PRAY E R

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant case be


covered by the RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE and after all the
requirements under said summary procedure have been complied with, that
judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as
follows:

1. Upon filing of this Complaint, the Honorable Court issue a TRO and
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction ordering the defendant,
their agents, representatives and any one acting for and on their
behalf, to restore plaintiff of her possession of the subject property;

2. Ordering the defendant to remove the planting or sowing made by


defendant as it is an act of bad faith on the part of defendant, in
accordance with Articles 449 and 450 of the Civil Code;

3. After trial on the merits, the Honorable Court renders judgment:


a. Declaring plaintiff as the true owner and possessor of the
subject parcel of land;

Page 10 of 12
b. Declaring defendant to have unlawfully deprived plaintiff of
possession of the subject land by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;

c. Ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of


P50,000 and P2,000 for every appearance of the counsel in the
instant case, and P50,000 as a reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation by defendant of the property belonging to
plaintiff.

Plaintiff prays for such other and further relief as may be just and
equitable under this premises with costs against defendant.

Rizal City, July 31, 2020.

Layla A. Sanchez
Plaintiff

Assisted by:

Atty. Zyra D. Kee


KC Law Firm
Roll of Attorney No. XXXXX
MCLE Compliance No. XXXXXXX
Telefax No. XXXXXXXXXXX

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, LAYLA A. SANCHEZ with personal circumstances already earlier


mentioned after having been duly sworn to an oath depose and say:

1. That I am the plaintiff of owner of the property subject matter of the


complaint;
2. That as such I have caused to prepare and file with the Court the
instant complaint;

Page 11 of 12
3. That I have read and fully understood the allegations in said
Complaint;
4. That the allegations of said Complaint are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge;
5. I hereby certify under oath that I have not filed any case before any
Court or quasi-judicial agency involving the same issues stated in the
instant complaint;
6. That neither is one pending in any Court or quasi-judicial agency
involving the same issues as those alleged in the instant complaint;
7. That should I learn that one has been filed or is pending in any Court
or quasi-judicial agency I shall endeavor within 5 days from
knowledge thereof to report the matter to the Court or quasi-judicial
agency concerned.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HEREUNTO set my hand this 31st of


June, 2020, at Cainta, Rizal.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31st day of July,


2020, at Cainta, Rizal, affiant exhibiting to me her CTC No. 11874190,
issued July 21, 2020, at Rizal City.

ATTY. NANA A. ESTES


Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 2021
PTR OR No. 1-5-20, Antipolo City
Doc No. XX
Page No. XX
Book No. XX
Series of 2020.

Page 12 of 12
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT


MORONG, RIZAL

Layla A. Sanchez

Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 1234

For: Forcible entry with Prayer


-versus- for issuance for destruction or
removal of the things planted
by defendant without payment
of indemnity, payment of
damages and prayer for TRO
and Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction

Balmond C. Dalanghari

and all persons claiming rights under him,


Defendant.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

Plaintiff Laya A. Sanchez (“Plaintiff), by counsel respectfully submits


this Pre-Trial Brief.

Prefatory Statement

This is a complaint for forcible entry filed by plaintiff against herein


defendants alleging that defendants through force, strength, intimidation,
stealth or strategy and other machinations forcibly entered a portion of the
land of the plaintiff

A. Brief Statement of Claims and Defenses


1. The plaintiff instituted this complaint of forcible entry against the
defendant.

2. The plaintiff further claims for the restoration of possession of the


property.
3. Because of the illegal intrusion of the defendant, the plaintiff
through his legal representative was forced to hire the services of
counsel and pay attorney’s fees amounting to P50,000 and P2,000
for every appearance, and thus, claims for the payment thereof.

4. The plaintiff further claims for the value of the harvest on the
property of not less than P50,000 a year.

B. Possibility of Amicable Settlement

5. Plaintiff is willing to consider any fair, just and reasonable


proposal for settlement which Defendant may offer.

C. Summary of Admitted Facts:

The following facts are admitted:

6. Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of No.


00001 Leopoldo St., Bankers Village, Antipolo City.

7. Defendant, who is of legal age, Filipino with personal


circumstances not known to the plaintiff, is a resident of Sitio
Yapak, Brgy. Lagundi, Morong, Rizal.

D. Proposed Stipulation of Facts

8. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of a parcel of land situated at


MayBangkal, Morong, Rizal, described as Lot No. 1080-K-2,
(LRC) Psd-123456, containing an area of Twenty Thousand
(20,000) square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-66733 registered in her own name,
in the Registry of Deeds in Rizal. This document being attached as
Annex A;

Page 2 of 5
9. As the owner of the aforementioned property, plaintiff had been in
prior possession of the said property from the time it was acquired;
10.As early as July 2, 2020, within one year from the filing of the
complaint, plaintiff was deprived of her possession as the present
owner of the property by the defendants through force,
intimidation, strategy or stealth when plaintiff saw defendant
constructing a nipa hut and has made plantings in bad faith, in the
said property;
11. On July 3, 2020, defendant constructed a fence surrounding the
property, completely depriving plaintiff of possession of her own
property.

E. Proposed Issues
12. Whether or not the defendant is guilty of forcible entry?

13. Whether or not the defendant planted or sowed in the subject


property in bad faith?
14. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction?

15. Whether or not the defendant is liable to pay damages?

F. Documentary Evidence

Plaintiff intends to present the following documents as evidence:

16. A copy of the Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. T-66733 as


proof of ownership of the aforementioned property, herein attached
as Annex 1;

17. A copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale showing the sale of land to
plaintiff is attached as Annex 2;

18. A copy of the Declaration of Real Property is herein attached as


Annex 3;

19. A copy of the Real Property Tax Clearance is herein attached as


Annex 4;

Page 3 of 5
20. A copy of the Real Property Tax Receipt is herein attached as
Annex 5;
21. A copy of the picture of the nipa hut is herein attached as Annex
6;

22. A copy of the picture of the plantings made by Balmond is


attached herein as Annex 7;

23. A copy of the picture of the fence made by Balmond is attached


herein as Annex 8;
24. A copy of the Certification to File Action is herein attached as
Annex 9;

25. A copy of the picture of plantings of plaintiff last year is attached


as Annex 10;
26. A copy of the receipt for payment of the agricultural products the
plaintiff harvested and sold last year is attached as Annex 11;

26. A copy of the Statement of Account from KC Law Firm for legal
services rendered for plaintiff is attached as Annex 12;

27. A copy of the Official Receipt issued by KC Law Firm for the
corresponding payment for legal services is attached as Annex 13.

Plaintiff respectfully reserves the right to present additional


documentary evidence as may be necessary to prove her allegations in the
course of trial.

G. Testimonial Evidence

The Plaintiff intends to present herself as witness. Her testimony is


summarized as follows:

27. Layla A. Sanchez is the owner and possessor of a portion of land


situated at MayBangkal, Morong, Rizal, described as Lot No.
1080-K-2, (LRC) Psd-123456, containing an area of Twenty
Thousand (20,000) square meters, more or less, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-66733. Sanchez has

Page 4 of 5
previously harvested agricultural products on the land and
Balmond entered the property through force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth and constructed a nipa hut, erected a fence and
planted crops in bad faith.

H. Admissions

28. Plaintiff has no admissions to make at this time.

I. Applicable Laws

29. Plaintiff submits that this case would have to be resolved primarily
on the basis of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court for Forcible Entry,
Rule 58 of the Rules of Court for Preliminary Injunction, Articles
449 and 450 of the New Civil Code with regard to planters in bad
faith and the New Civil Code provisions pursuant to damages.

J. Trial Dates

30. Plaintiff will submit her preferred trial dates during the pre-trial,
after she has verified the availability of Defendant’s counsel and
has the calendar of this Honorable Court.

Respectfully submitted.

August 17, 2020.

Atty. Zyra Kee


KC Law Firm,
8 Rockwell, Makati City
Copy/ies furnished:

Atty. Aleezah Regado

ZGR Law Firm


8 Rockwell, Makati City


Page 5 of 5
Republic of the Philippines )
Province of Cotabato )
City of Antipolo ) SS.

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, LAYLA A. SANCHEZ, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Bankers


Village, Antipolo City, state under oath as follows:

Preliminary Statement
The person examining me is Atty. Zyra D. Kee with an address at KC Law
Firm, Bankers Village, Antipolo. The examination is being held at the same
address in Tagalog dialect which I understand. I am answering her questions
fully conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal liability for
false testimony and perjury.

Offer/Purposes of the testimony:


With the kind permission of the Honorable Court.

We are offering the testimony of the witness LAYLA A. SANCHEZ to


prove that she is the owner and possessor of a portion of land situated at
MayBangkal, Morong, Rizal, described as Lot No. 1080-K-2, (LRC)
Psd-123456, containing an area of Twenty Thousand (20,000) square meters,
more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-876543 in
her own name; that plaintiff is the lawful and absolute owner and possessor
of the subject property; that Balmond C. Dalanghari, defendant, unlawfully
deprived plaintiff of the said property through force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth by constructing a nipa hut and planting crops in the
subject property, and putting up a fence around it, clearly preventing plaintiff
in performing possessory acts on the said property; that said entry of the
defendant on the property of the plaintiff is clearly illegal from the very
beginning as he is merely squatting on the subject property not belonging to
him, without any lawful or, at the very least, colourable title to it, nor did the
plaintiff allowed by tolerance, or entered a lease contract with defendant, for
the latter to validly possess said property; that defendant’s acts of putting a
fence, constructing a nipa hut and planting crops within the subject property
were not authorized, permitted or tolerated by plaintiff from the onset. She
will identify her judicial affidavit and testify on other matters related to this
case.

Q.1. Pakisabi ng iyong pangalan, edad at tirahan. (Please state your


name, age and address.)
A.1. Ako si Layla A. Sanchez, 35, nakatira sa No. 00001 Leopoldo St.,
Bankers Village, Antipolo City (I am Layla A. Sanchez, 35, residing at No.
00001 Leopoldo St., Bankers Village, Antipolo City.)

Q.2. Bakit ka nandito ngayon sa opisina at isasampa ang kaso laban kay
Balmond C. Dalanghari? (Why are you now here in the office and file the
instant Complaint against Balmond C. Dalanghari?)
A.2. Nais kong mag-file ng isang Reklamo dahil labag sa batas na ipinagkait
sa akin ni Balmond ang kasiyahan at pag-sakop ng aking lupa sa
pamamagitan ng puwersa, pananakot, banta, diskarte o patago. (I want to file
a Complaint because Balmond unlawfully deprived me of the enjoyment and
possession of my property by through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth.)

Q.3. Ano ang pag-aari na ito na iyong tinukoy at saan ito mahahanap?
(What is this property that you’re referring to and where can it be found?)
A.3. Ito ay isang realty sa No. 00001 Leopoldo St., Bankers Village,
Antipolo City. (It is a realty in No. 00001 Leopoldo St., Bankers Village,
Antipolo City.)

Q.4. Ano ang tiyak na paglalarawan ng nasabing real estate? (What is


the specific description of the said real property?)
A.4. Inilarawan ito bilang Lot No. 1080-K-2, (LRC) Psd-123456, na
naglalaman ng Twenty Thousand (20,000) metro kuwadradong, higit pa o
mas kaunti, na sakop ng Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-876543.
(It is described as Lot No. 1080-K-2, (LRC) Psd-123456, containing an area
of Twenty Thousand (20,000) square meters, more or less, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-876543.)

Page 2 of 9
Q.5. Anong katibayan ang mayroon ka tungkol sa pagmamay-ari ng
nasabing pag-aari? (What proof do you have about the ownership of the
said property?)
A.5. Narito ang aking owner’s duplicate copy ko ng TCT No. T-876543. (I
have here the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-876543.)

Q.6. Ikakabit ko ang dokumentong ito sa iyong Judicial Affidavit bilang


mahalagang bahagi nito at mamarkahan ang kapareho ng Exhibit A,
sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach this document in your Judicial Affidavit as
integral part hereof and mark the same as Exhibit A, do you agree?)
A.6. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.7. Sino ang nakarehistrong nagmamay-ari ng parselang ito ng lupa


na saklaw ng TCT No. T-66733? (Who is the registered owner of this
parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-66733?)
A7: Ito ay nakapangalan sa akin, na makikita sa TCT No. T-66733. (It is
titled in my name, as can be seen in the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-66733.)

Q.8. Kailan mo nabili ang propriedad na ito? (When did you acquire the
subject property?)
A.8. Noong 1997, binili ko ito mula kay Kadita M. Marina sa halagang
Limampung Libong Piso (P50,000). Matapos mabayaran nang buo,
nilagdaan namin ni Kadita ang isang Deed of Absolute Sale na inililipat ang
nasabing lote sa akin, na pinatunayan ng Notary Public. (Sometime in 1997, I
purchased it from Kadita M. Marina for Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000).
After paying in full, Kadita and I signed a Deed of Absolute Sale
transferring the said lot in my favor, authenticated by the Notary Public.)

Q.9. Dala mo ba ang nasabing Deed of Absolute Sale? (Do you have with
you the said Deed of Absolute Sale?)
A.9. Oo. (Yes.)

Q.10. Ikakabit ko ang dokumentong ito sa iyong Judicial Affidavit


bilang mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng Exhibit

Page 3 of 9
B, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach this document in your Judicial Affidavit
as integral part hereof and mark the same as Exhibit B, do you agree?)
A.10. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.11. Mayroon ka bang ibang patunay na ikaw ang nagmamay-ari at


sumasakop nang nasabing propriedad hanggang sa kasalukuyang
panahon? (Do you have other proof that you owned and possessed this
said property until the present time?)
A.11. Oo, binabayaran ko taon taon ang buwis sa real estate para sa nasabing
pag-aari, Ma’am, na pinatunayan ng Deklarasyon ng Real Estate, Real Estate
Tax Clearance at Mga Resibo ng Buwis sa Real Estate. (Yes. I pay the real
property taxes for the said property, Ma’am, every year evidenced by the
Declaration of Real Property, Real Property Tax Clearance and Real
Property Tax Receipts.)

Q.12. Ikakabit ko ang Deklarasyon ng Real Estate sa iyong Judicial


Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi dito at markahan ang kapareho ng
Exhibit C, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach the Declaration of Real
Property in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark the
same as Exhibit C, do you agree?)
A.12. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.13. Ikakabit ko ang Real Estate Tax Clearance sa iyong Judicial


Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng
Exhibit D, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach the Real Property Tax
Clearance in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark the
same as Exhibit D, do you agree?)
A.13. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.14. Ikakabit ko ang Mga Resibo ng Buwis sa Real Estate sa iyong


Judicial Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi dito at markahan ang
kapareho ng Exhibit E, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach the Real Property
Tax Receipts in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark
the same as Exhibit E, do you agree?)
A.14. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Page 4 of 9
Q.15. Sinabi mo sa iyong reklamo na pinagkaitan ka ng pag-aari at
kasiyahan ng nasabing propriedad sa pamamagitan ng puwersa,
pananakot, diskarte o patago. Maaari mo bang sabihin sa amin kung
paano? (You said in your complaint that you were unlawfully deprived of
the possession and enjoyment of the subject property by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. Can you tell us how?)
A.15. Noong Hulyo 2, 2020, binisita ko ang aking nasabing lupain at nakita
ko si Balmond na tumatayo ng nipa hut sa aking lupain. Nakita ko rin ang
iba-ibang pananim na kanyang tinanim sa aking lupain. (On July 2, 2020, I
visited the subject land and I saw Balmond constructing a nipa hut inside my
property. I also saw his various plantings in my land.)

Q.16. Ano ang naramdaman mo matapos itong ma-diskubre? (What did


you feel after discovering this?)
A.16. Nagulat ako at tuliro. Hindi ko kilala ang lalaking ito na nag-aangkin
ng aking lupa, at wala akong anumang kontrata sa sinuman bilang
pagpapahalintulot sa ibang tao na sakupin ang aking lupa. (I was shocked
and puzzled. I did not know this man who was claiming my property, and I
did not have any contract with anyone else authorizing another person to
occupy my land.)

Q.17. Ano ang ginawa mo tungkol dito? (So what did you do about it?)
A.17. Noong Hulyo 4, 2020, nagsampa ako ng reklamo sa barangay, at
humingi ng tulong sa Punong Barangay para sa mapayapang pagtanggal kay
Balmond mula sa aking pag-aari, subalit, pagdating ko, nagulat ulit ako dahil
si Balmond ay nagtayo ng isang bakod na nakapalibot sa aking pag-aari. (On
July 4, 2020, I filed a complaint in the barangay, and asked the assistance of
the Punong Barangay for the peaceful removal of Balmond from my
property, however, upon arriving, I was again surprised as Balmond
constructed a fence surrounding my property.)

Q.18. Nalutas ba ang isyu sa antas ng Barangay? (Was the issue finally
resolved in the Barangay level?)
A.18. Hindi, nag isyu ang Punong Barangay ng certification na ang
maaaring na akong mag-sampa ng kaso sa korte. (No, the Punong Barangay
certified that the case can already be filed in court.)

Page 5 of 9
Q.19. Mayroon ka bang katibayan ng mga nabanggit na kilos ni
Balmond? (Do you have any proof of Balmond’s mentioned acts?)
A.19. Oo, mayroon akong mga larawan ng bakod, nipa hut na itinayo niya at
ang kanyang mga pananim sa aking propriedad. (Yes. I have here photos of
the fence, nipa hut constructed by him and the crops planted by him in my
property.)

Q.20. Ikakabit ko ang larawan ng nasabing bakod sa iyong Judicial


Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng
Exhibit F, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach the picture of the said fence in
your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark the same as
Exhibit F, do you agree?)
A.14. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.21. Ikakabit ko ang larawan ng nasabing nipa hut sa iyong Judicial


Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng
Exhibit G, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach the picture of the said nipa hut
in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark the same as
Exhibit G, do you agree?)
A.21. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.22. Ikakabit ko ang larawan ng mga nasabing pananim sa iyong


Judicial Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang
kapareho ng Exhibit H, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will attach the picture of the
said planted crops in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and
mark the same as Exhibit H, do you agree?)
A.22. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.23. Sinasakop ba ni Balmond ang nasabing pag-aari hanggang


ngayon? (Is Balmond occupying the subject property up to this day?)
A.23. Oo. (Yes.)

Q.24. Mayroon ba itong epekto sa iyo sa pinansyal na aspeto? (Did this


have any effect to you financially?)

Page 6 of 9
A.24. Oo, patuloy akong pinagkaitan ng kita mula sa nasabing pag-aani ng
mga pananim at prutas ng mga puno ng higit o mababa sa P50,000 sa isang
taon. Gayundin, labag sa batas na sumakop si Balmond sa aking lupa nang
hindi nagbabayad ng anumang renta. (Yes, I am continuously deprived of
profits from said harvest of crops and fruits of trees for more or less P50,000
a year. Also, Balmond is unlawfully occupying my land without paying any
rent.)

Q.25. May iba pa ba? (Anything else?)


A.25. Napilitan din akong kumuha ng sariling lawyer at magbayad ng mga
bayarin sa abugado sa halagang P50,000 at P2,000 para sa bawat pagpunta
ng lawyer sa korte. (I was also compelled to hire the services of counsel and
pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000 and P2,000 for every
appearance of counsel.)

Q.26. Mayroon ka bang patunay? (Do you have any proof?)


A.26. Oo, mayroon akong isang larawan ng aking mga naani noong
nakaraang taon at mga resibo ng aking pagbenta sa aking mga naani, na may
kabuuang halaga ng P50,000. Mayroon din ako ditong Statement of Account
mula sa KC Law Firm para sa mga bayarin sa abugado at ang resibo sa
pagbayad ko para sa legal services. (Yes, I have here a picture of my crops
harvested last year and the receipts of the sale of the harvested crop from
last year, totalling P50,000. I also have here the Statement of Account from
KC Law Firm for the attorney’s fees and the receipt of my payment for such
legal services.)

Q.27. Ikakabit ko ang larawan ng iyong naaning pananim noong


nakaraang taon sa iyong Judicial Affidavit bilang mahalagang bahagi
nito at markahan ang kapareho ng Exhibit I, sang-ayon ka ba? (I will
attach the picture of your said harvested crops from last year in your
Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark the same as Exhibit I,
do you agree?)
A.27. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.28. Ikakabit ko ang mga resibo ng bayad na iyong natanggap galing


sa pagbenta ng iyong mga naaning pananim noong nakaraang taon, na

Page 7 of 9
may kabuuuang halaga na P50,000, sa iyong Judicial Affidavit bilang
mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng Exhibit J, sang-
ayon ka ba? (I will attach the receipt of payment from sale of your said
harvested crops from last year, totalling P50,000, in your Judicial Affidavit
as integral part hereof and mark the same as Exhibit J, do you agree?)
A.28. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.29. Ikakabit ko ang Statement of Account mula sa KC Law Firm para


sa mga bayarin sa abugado sa iyong Judicial Affidavit bilang
mahalagang bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng Exhibit K, sang-
ayon ka ba? (I will attach the Statement of Account from KC Law Firm
for the attorney’s fees in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and
mark the same as Exhibit K, do you agree?)
A.29. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.30. Ikakabit ko ang Official Receipt mula sa KC Law Firm para sa


mga bayarin sa abugado sa iyong Judicial Affidavit bilang mahalagang
bahagi nito at markahan ang kapareho ng Exhibit L, sang-ayon ka ba?
(I will attach the Official Receipt from KC Law Firm for the attorney’s
fees in your Judicial Affidavit as integral part hereof and mark the same
as Exhibit L, do you agree?)
A.29. Oo, sang-ayon ako. (Yes, I agree.)

Q.30. Ano ang nais mong sabihin ngayon sa Kagalang-galangang


Hukuman na ito? (What do you want to say now to this Honorable
Court?)
A.30. Ipinagdarasal ko na sana ay mapaalis na si Balmond sa aking pag-aari
at ibalik sa akin ang pagmamay-ari na ito; na pahintulutan akong sirain o
alisin ang anumang mga improvements o pagtatanim na ginawa ni Balmond
na hindi sang-ayon sa batas nang walang kahit anong kompensasyon; na
bayaran ni Balmond ang attorney’s fees sa halagang ng P50,000 at P2,000 at
parehong halaga ng P50,000 bilang reasonable compensation para sa
paggamit at pag-sakop ng nasabing pag-aari. (I pray that Balmond
immediately vacate my property and restore possession and enjoyment to
me, that Balmond be made to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000

Page 8 of 9
and same amount of P50,000 as a reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the said property.)

LAYLA A. SANCHEZ
Affiant
CTC No. 11874190

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in the City of Antipolo,


Philippines this 14th of Semptember 2020, by affiant who exhibited to me
her competent evidence identity as indicated below her name.

ATTY. NANA A. ESTES


Notary Public

Doc No. XX Until 2021


Page No. XX Notarial Commission No.
Book No. XX Roll No. XXXXX
Series of 2020. IBP No. XXXXXX-XX
PTR No. XXXXXX

LAWYER’S ATTESTATION

I faithfully recorded the questions I asked LAYLA A. SANCHEZ and the


corresponding answers she gave me; and neither I nor any other person then
present coached LAYLA A. SANCHEZ regarding her answers.
ATTY. ZYRA D. KEE
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in Antipolo City, this 14th day


of September 2020, affiant personally appearing and exhibiting to me her
Judicial Affidavit.

Doc No. XX
Page No. XX
Book No. XX
Series of 2020.


Page 9 of 9
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT


MORONG, RIZAL

Layla A Sanchez, CIVIL CASE NO. 1234


Plaintiff, For: Forcible entry with Prayer
for issuance for destruction or
removal of the things planted
by defendant without payment
of indemnity, payment of
damages and prayer for TRO
and Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction

- versus -

Balmond C. Dalanghari,
Defendant.
X-------------------------X

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, through counsel, unto this Honorable


Court, respectfully submit this Position Paper and further aver the following:

TIMELINESS OF FILING THIS POSITION PAPER

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Atty. Zyra Kee received a copy of the Preliminary


Conference Order on September 4, 2020 ordering both parties to submit
position paper and affidavits relative to this case within 10 days. Hence, this
paper is filed within the reglementary period;

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Layla A Sanchez is of legal age, Filipino, married and
presently residing No. 00001 Leopoldo St., Bankers Village, Antipolo
City, Antipolo City ,where the said plaintiff could be served with
summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.

2. Defendant, Balmond C. Dalanghari on the other hand is of legal age,


Filipino with personal circumstances not known to the plaintiff and
presently residing at Sitio Yapak, Brgy. Lagundi, Morong, Rizal, where
they could be served with summons and other legal process of this
Honorable Office.

Statement of the Case

On July 31, 2020, plaintiff filed her complaint against the defendants
for forcible entry and damages, the same docketed as Civil Case No. 1234.

In its complaint, plaintiff admitted that her address is No. 00001


Leopoldo St., Bankers Village, Antipolo City, Antipolo City. On the other
hand, plaintiff admitted that the address of the defendants is in Sitio Yapak,
Brgy. Lagundi, Morong, Rizal.

Statement of Relevant and Antecedent Facts

Plaintiff is the absolute owner of a property situated at Maybangkal,


Morong, Rizal covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 66733
herein attached as Annex 1.

It has been in possession of the plaintiff from the time it was acquired
by the former owners since 1997 as shown in Annex 2. Being the rightful
owner, plaintiff has been harvesting the plantings and crops from the subject
property ever since she acquired the same, as evidenced by a picture of
plantings of plaintiff last year and the receipt of payment for the agricultural

Page 2 of 12
products which she harvested and sold on the same year, attached and
marked as Annex 10 and Annex 11, respectively.

On July 2 plaintiff was deprived of possession as the present owner by


the defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Defendant further engaged in activities such as planting trees on the
property, constructing a fence and constructing a nipa hut as well as of July
2.

Plaintiff instituted a complaint of forcible entry against defendant on


July 31, 2020.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not defendants are guilty of forcible entry?
2. Whether the defendants are planters in bad faith?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction?

4. Whether or not the defendants are liable to pay damages?

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

PLAINTIFF HAS A RIGHT TO EJECT DEFENDANT AND ALL


PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM FROM THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS LAWFUL OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY;

1. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of real

property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or


stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds
possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold
possession under any contract, express or implied.3
2. First, plaintiff is the absolute owner of a parcel of land situated at

May Bangkal, Morong, Rizal, described as Lot No. 1080-K-2,


(LRC) Psd-123456, containing an area of Twenty Thousand
(20,000) square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer

3 Heirs of Yusingco, et al. v. Busilak, et al., G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24. 2018.

Page 3 of 12
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-66733 registered in her own name,
in the Registry of Deeds in Rizal (herein attached as Annex 1).
3. In fact, plaintiff had long been in prior possession in the concept of

an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted, of said property from


the time it was acquired by her from the former owners of said
property, as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale transferring
the said property in her favor (Annex 2) and the receipt for the
payment of agricultural products she received that year (Annex
11).
4. Second, however, as early as July 2, 2020, or within one year from

the filing of the complaint, plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of her


possession as the present owner of the said property by defendant
through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth by
constructing a nipa hut and planting crops in the subject property,
and putting up a fence around it, clearly preventing plaintiff in
performing possessory acts on the said property.
5. Given that the plaintiff is the owner and was in possession of the
aforementioned land prior to the defendants, the plaintiff may eject
the defendants from the land.

DEFENDANTS ARE PLANTERS IN BAD FAITH

6. Defendant added a fence, constructed a nipa hut and planted crops


within the subject property while they were not authorized,
permitted or tolerated by plaintiff from the onset.
7. Despite efforts by plaintiff in trying to arrive at a settlement,
defendant, up to this day, continuously refuses to vacate said
property.
8. Defendant is fully aware that he is not the owners of the land as he
lacked a valid title, yet he still built the fence and nipa hut, and
planted crops. As such, the defendant is a planter in bad faith.
9. Given that the defendant made plantings on the property of the
plaintiff illegally made in bad faith, plaintiff can demand defendant
to remove such plantings without right of indemnity pursuant to
Article 449 and 450 of the New Civil Code.

Page 4 of 12
ALLEGATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TRO AND
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION

10.Plaintiff hereby replead all the foregoing allegations as are consistent


with her prayer for the grant of preliminary mandatory injunction
against defendant and anyone claiming any right of possession over
the subject premises, and further avers;

11.Section 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that:

“Section 15. Preliminary injunction. – The court may


grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of
Rule 58 hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further
acts of dispossession against the plaintiff.

A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible


entry or unlawful detainer may, within five (5) days from the filing
of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry
or unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court
shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing
thereof.”

12.Furthermore, Section 3 of Rule 58 enumerates the grounds when the


issuance of preliminary injunction may prosper, to wit:

“Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. – A


preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded , and the whole or part
of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of
the act or acts complained of, or in requiring performance of an act or
acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts
complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or

Page 5 of 12
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is
attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts
probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject
of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment
ineffectual.

13.In the case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. The Court of


Appeals4, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“In actions involving realty, preliminary injunction will lie


only after the plaintiff has fully established his title or right thereto
by a proper action for the purpose. To authorize a temporary
injunction, the complainant must make out at least a prima facie
showing of a right to the final relief. Preliminary injunction will
not issue to protect a right not in esse (Buayan Cattle Co. Inc. v.
Quintillan, 128 SCRA 286-287 [1984]; Ortigas & Company,
Limited Partnership v. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326 [1987]).

Two requisites are necessary if a preliminary injunction is


to issue, namely, the existence of the right to be protected, and the
facts against which the injunction is to be directed, are violative
of said right. In particular, for a writ of preliminary injunction to
issue, the existence of the right and the violation must appear in
the allegations of the complaint and an injunction is proper also
when the plaintiff appears to be entitled to the relief demanded in
his complaint…” (Emphasis supplied)

14.Plaintiff, without any doubt, is entitled to the injunctive relief it prays


considering the circumstances of this case, which are consistent with
the foregoing rules and jurisprudence. Plaintiffs are entitled to all the
reliefs herein demanded, the whole or in part of such relief being that
of mandating the defendant and all persons claiming rights over him,
to immediately vacate the premises and to restore plaintiff in her
possession;

4 Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. The Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 102881 (1992).

Page 6 of 12
15.The unlawful acts of the defendant have caused and still causing
great and irreparable injury to the plaintiff due to the following
reasons:
a. Defendant continues to harvest and/or take the produce, fruits
and benefits from the subject lot to the prejudice of the plaintiff;
b. Defendant, by force, stealth and strategy, has dispossessed and
prevented plaintiff from exercising its authority to develop and
maintain the subject lot;
c. Plaintiff lost and is still losing her privileges and benefits, such
as at the very least being able to receive just rental
compensation for the defendant's unlawful stay in the subject
land.

16.Unless defendant is barred, restrained or prohibited from performing


further acts prejudicial to the plaintiff, the latter’s rights of ownership,
possession, use, benefit and enjoyment of the subject land, will be
severely impaired.

17.Unless injunctive relief is granted, the judgment in this case may be


rendered ineffectual and illusory because of the irreparable damage
caused to the plaintiff since the defendant have already constructed a
fence, nipa hut and plantings in the subject property, in violation of
the exclusive right of plaintiff to enjoy and possess the subject
property.

18.Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to post a bond executed to the


defendant in the amount which the Honorable Court may fix, to the
effect that plaintiff will pay the defendant all damages which they may
sustain by reason of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction,
if the Honorable Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not
entitled thereto.

Page 7 of 12
19.Great and irreparable damages, for reasons stated above, would result
to the plaintiff unless the Honorable Court would issue writ of
preliminary injunction, upon good cause shown.

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES


20. Article 2199 of the new Civil Code provides “[e]xcept as provided
by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he
has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages.” [Emphasis supplied]

21. As the rightful owner, plaintiff, who was prevented by defendant


from harvesting the crops and fruits of the trees planted on the
subject property, was deprived of her profits from said harvest and
as such.

22. The act of defendant dispossessing her of the subject property


prevented her from planting and harvesting the plantings and crops
on the subject property this year, thereby depriving her of profits
from said harvest. As such, plaintiff is entitled to an actual
damages for P50,000, based on her previous harvest;

23. Because of said illegal intrusion by defendant on the property not


belonging to them but to the plaintiff through force, intimidation,
strategy or stealth, plaintiff was forced to hire the services of
counsel and pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000 and
P2,000 for every appearance of counsel in the instant case which
payment of attorney’s fees is justified under Article 2208 of the
New Civil Code. A copy of the Statement of Account and Official
receipt of the corresponding payment for legal services are hereby
attached and marked as Annex 12 and Annex 13.

Elements of Forcible Entry

Page 8 of 12
Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, x x x may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper
Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding
or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them,
for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

1. In Abad v. Farrales, two allegations are indispensable in actions for


forcible entry: first, that the plaintiff had prior physical possession of
the property; and second, that the defendant deprived him of such
possession by means of force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth.5
1. The first requisite is present in this case.

2. The second requisite is also present in this case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant case be


covered by the RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE and after all the
requirements under said summary procedure have been complied with, that
judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as
follows:

1. Upon filing of this Complaint, the Honorable Court issue a Writ of


Preliminary Prohibitory/Mandatory Injunction ordering the defendant,
their agents, representatives and any one acting for and on their
behalf, to immediately vacate the subject lot and cease and desist from
entering and harvesting the plants and agricultural products from the
subject property;

5 Abad v. Farrales, 647 SCRA 473, 479 (2011)

Page 9 of 12
2. Ordering the defendant not to make any unlawful act that would
prevent plaintiff from fully exercising management, development and
supervision over said land;

3. After trial on the merits, the Honorable Court renders judgment:


a. Declaring plaintiff as the true owner and possessor of the
subject parcel of land;
b. Declaring defendant to have unlawfully deprived plaintiff of
possession of the subject land by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
c. Ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of
P50,000 and P2,000 for every appearance of the counsel in the
instant case, and P50,000 as a reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation by defendant of the property belonging to
plaintiff.

Plaintiff prays for such other and further relief as may be just and
equitable under this premises with costs against defendant.

City of Rizal, September 14, 2020

Layla A Sanchez
Plaintiff
Assisted by:
Zyra Kee
Roll of Attorney No. XXXXX
MCLE Compliance No. XXXXXXX
Telefax No. XXXXXXXXXXX

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


ANTIPOLO CITY )S.S.
X----------------------------X

Page 10 of 12
I, Layla A Sanchez of legal age and Filipino, and a resident at No.
00001 Leopoldo St., Bankers Village, Antipolo City, Antipolo City after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

I have caused the preparation of the foregoing document;

I have read the same and the contents of which are true and correct of
my own knowledge and/or on the basis of authentic documents;

I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving the


same issues in any other courts and/or agency;

Should I thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed in any
other courts and or agency, I will undertake to report this fact within
five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

All the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of
our knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed our hands this


September 14, 2020, at Antipolo City, Rizal.

Layla A. Sanchez
Plaintiff

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of


September, 2020, at Cainta, Rizal, affiant exhibiting to me his CTC No.
11874190, issued July 21, 2020, at Rizal City.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this September 14, 2020

Page 11 of 12
ATTY. NANA A. ESTES
Notary Public

Doc No. XX Until 2021


Page No. XX Notarial Commission No. XX
Book No. XX Roll No. XXXXX
Series of 2020. IBP No. XXXXXX-XX
PTR No. XXXXXX
DOC. NO. XX
PAGE NO. XX NOTARY PUBLIC
BOOK NO. XX
SERIES OF 2020.

Copy furnished by registered mail


Registry Receipt No.__________
Antipolo Post Office
Date:

Atty. Aleezah Regado


Counsel for the Defendants
ZGR Law Firm
8 Rockwell, Makati City

Page 12 of 12
Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
MORONG, RIZAL

Layla A. Sanchez,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234
FOR: EJECTMENT AS A
- versus - RESULT OF FORCIBLE ENTRY
WITH PRAYER FOR
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Balmond C. Dalanghari,
and all persons claiming
rights under them,
Defendant.

X-------------------------X

URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION TO CONDUCT SPECIAL RAFFLE

PETITIONER LAYLA A. SANCHEZ by and through the


undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully files this
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Conduct Special Raffle and further states that:

1. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of a parcel of land situated at


MayBangkal, Morong, Rizal, described as Lot No. 1079-K-2,
(LRC) Psd-162948, containing an area of Twenty Thousand
(20,000) square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-66733 registered in her own name,
in the Registry of Deeds in Rizal.
2. Defendant unlawfully deprived plaintiff of her enjoyment and
possession of the subject land through force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth, specifically by putting a fence, constructing a
nipa hut and planting crops within the subject property which were
not authorized, permitted or tolerated by plaintiff from the onset,
and continuously refusing to vacate the subject property.
3. Defendant consistently excludes plaintiff from possession and
enjoyment of the property, such as the profits from the fruits of her
own land which she could have received had defendant not
deprived her of such possession.
3. Petitioner, thus, filed a petition for Ejectment with Prayer for TRO
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
4. In view of the urgency of such Ejectment case, there is a need to
request for the Conduct of Special Raffle considering that the next
Regular Conduct of Raffle of the cases will be held on September
17, 2020.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed


that Office of the Honorable Executive Judge conduct a Special Raffle
due to the urgency of the herein petition.

All other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

City of Rizal, September 14, 2020

Atty. Zyra Kee


Counsel for the Petitioner
KC Law Firm,
8 Rockwell, Makati City
Roll No. 123456
PTR No. 808080/12-12-17
IBP No. 080808/08-08-19
MCLE Compliance No VI-00088800

Copy/ies furnished:
Atty. Aleezah Regado
ZGR Law Firm
8 Rockwell, Makati City

Page 2 of 3
REQUEST OF AND NOTICE OF HEARING

ATTY. ISABELLE CORPUS


Branch Clerk of Court
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
Municipal Trial Court

Please submit the foregoing Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Conduct


Special Raffle for Conduct Special Raffle for consideration and approval of
the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof sans oral argument.

Atty. Zyra Kee


Counsel for the Petitioner
KC Law Firm,
8 Rockwell, Makati City
Roll No. 123456
PTR No. 808080/12-12-17
IBP No. 080808/08-08-19
MCLE Compliance No VI-00088800

Page 3 of 3

You might also like