REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR
PROVINCE OF BULACAN

Sps.Gardo and Alexa Batuta,

Plaintiffs,

-versus- Civil Case No: 888-123456

For: Maintenance of
Possesion and of
Agricultural Leasehold
with prayer for issuance
of writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction
and temporary restraining
order.

Rosanna Matinik,
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
(With Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order)

COMES NOW Plaintiffs, spouses Sps.Gardo and Alexa Batuta,

through undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that;

1. Plaintiffs Sps.Gardo and Alexa Batuta are spouses, of legal age,

Filipinos and currently residing at 1998 Tatalon St., Ugong,
Valenzuela City. At the time of the filing of this complaint, plaintiff
Gardo Batuta is working overseas and is duly represented by his
wife, plaintiff Alexa Batuta. A copy of the Special Power of Attorney
executed by plaintiff xxx in favor of plaintiff xxx is attached and
marked as Annex “A” hereof;

2. Defendant Rosanna Matinik is single, of legal age, Filipino, and

currently an occupant at 157 Mc Arthur Highway, Lolomboy,
Bocaue, Bulacan where he may be served with summons and
other processes of this Honorable Court;

3. The plaintiffs are the registered and absolute owners Agricultural

Land located at 157 Mc Arthur Highway, Lolomboy, Bocaue,
 Bulacan covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. xxx. Moreover,
as an act of ownership, plaintiffs have been faithfully paying the
property’s annual real property taxes and other related fees to the
local government. As such, the defendant cannot raise the issue of
ownership in the present case considering that the plaintiffs are
the registered owners of the property as clearly indicated in TCT
No. 12345678 nor can he assail its validity as the same would be
tantamount to a collateral attack which both law and
jurisprudence prohibit. Copies of TCT No. 12345678 and tax
declarations of the subject property are attached and marked as
Annex “B” and Annex “C” hereof;

4. Sometime in 2009, Alexa Batuta, the mother of plaintiff Gardo

Batuta, requested from the plaintiffs to allow the defendant, her
friend, to occupy and lease the said Agricultural land. Considering
that the defendant is the close friend of her mother, the plaintiffs
allowed the defendant to occupy and lease the said Agricultural
land with the consideration to pay a monthly lease for the amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 50,000.00). In other words, the
possession of the defendant is by means of lease;

5. Despite being allowed to occupy and lease the said Agricultural

land with the consideration to pay a monthly lease for the amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 50,000.00), the defendant
proved to be a very undesirable tenant. There have been many
instances where the defendant caused disturbances and
commotions much to the displeasure of the plaintiffs. In one
instance in 2013, the defendant had a party with many people
invited who were too noisy and rowdy which caused discomfort to
plaintiff Alexa Batuta who was pregnant at that time;

6. Also, there have been many instances when the defendant caused
the cutting of the main pipe of Irrigation in the plaintiffs’ property.
The first instance was when the plaintiffs caught Rosanna
Matinik, the brother in law of the defendant, cutting the main pipe
as commanded by the defendant. The only reason why Rosanna
Matinik stopped was because of the argument that ensued
between him and the spouses. Also, in another incident when a
plumber was caught cutting the main pipe again, the defendant
shouted to plaintiff Gardo Batuta, “Kahit anong gawin ko wala
 kang pakialam, nagkaroon ka ng titulo dahil sa akin! Lumayas ka
kung hindi ka makatagal!”;

7. Moreover, the defendant also caused several construction works

that have been causing damage up until now to the property of the
plaintiffs. The defendant made undesirable activities in the said
Agricultural land such as building Warehouses. Copies of
photographs showing the damage caused as a result of the
construction works performed by the defendant are attached and
marked as Annex “D” to “D-1” and the photographs showing the
construction works done by the defendant are attached and
marked as Annex “E” to “E-1” hereof, respectively;

8. There was also an incident when the defendant threw water to

plaintiff Gardo Batuta and threatened to hit her with a metal pipe
if she continued from meddling with the activities of the defendant.
As a matter of fact, the defendant had the gall to post a “No
Trespassing” sign along the Agricultural land. Truly, the defendant
being an undesirable lessee is an understatement;

9. Due to the damaging activities of the defendant and the fact that
his occupation is merely by tolerance of the plaintiffs, defendant
Rosanna Matinik, through undersigned counsel, sent a Notice to
Vacate dated October 15,2013 through LBC courier as personal
service was not feasible at that time due to the unstability and
tendency for violence of the defendant. Copies of the Notice to
Vacate and the registry mail receipt are attached and marked as
Annexes “F” to “F-1”;

10. On 4 November 2016, plaintiff Gardo Batuta filed a

complaint for ejectment and damage to property against the
defendant in the Barangay Hall of Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan
considering that he has not left the property despite the notice to
vacate sent to her. During the barangay conciliation hearings
scheduled last 15 November 2016, 29 November 2016 and 16
December 2016, the defendant purposely failed to appear in any of
the said hearings. Copies of the complaint filed in the barangay
dated 4 November 2016 and the minutes of the hearings in
aforementioned dated are attached and marked as Annex “G” and
Annex “H” to “H-2”;
11. As a result of the defendant’s failure to appear during the
scheduled barangay conciliation hearings, a Certification to File
Action was issued by Barangay San Antonio on 16 December
2016. Necessarily, the requirement under Section 12 of Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court has been complied. A copy of the Certification to
File Action is attached and marked as Annex “I” hereof;

12. In addition, the neighbors of the plaintiffs namely Bo Ang,

executed affidavits to corroborate the foregoing allegations and to
attest to their truthfulness. Copies of the affidavits are attached
and marked as Annex “J” , Annex “K”, Annex “L”, Annex “M”,
Annex “N”, and Annex “O” hereof, respectively;

13. 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)

As stated in the preceding paragraphs, from the very beginning,

the possession by the defendant of the premises was merely by
tolerance or leniency of the plaintiffs which resulted from the pleas
of the mother of plaintiff x. In other words, the defendant’s right to
hold possession of the premises was by mere tolerance of the
plaintiffs that became subsequently unlawful upon expiration of
the period provided by law after the defendant was demanded to
vacate the premises. Moreover, the plaintiffs have one year from
 October 2016 to file the present case for unlawful detainer as
provided by law;

14. Going further, Section 2 of Rule 70 provides;

“Section 2. Lessor to proceed against

lessee only after demand. — Unless
otherwise stipulated, such action by the
lesser shall be commenced only after
demand to pay or comply with the
conditions of the lease and to vacate is
made upon the lessee, or by serving written
notice of such demand upon the person
found on the premises if no person be found
thereon, and the lessee fails to comply
therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case
of land or five (5) days in the case of
buildings. (2a)”

Also, as previousy stated, the defendant was demanded to vacate

the premises within 5 days from receipt of the Notice (Annex “E” to
“E-1”) which the defendant failed to do. Upon expiration of the said
period, the defendant’s possession of the premises had already
become illegal. As a matter of fact, the defendant has been
occupying the premises up until now despite demand and the
termination of the barangay conciliation proceedings which
defendant purposely failed to attend. Moreover, the continued
possession by the defendant has been causing damage to the
property of the plaintiffs due to the construction works done by the
defendant;

15. In the case of Republic of the Philippines et al versus

Sunvar Realty Development Corporation [G.R. No. 194880
dated 20 June 2012], the Supreme Court discussed the requisites
of a valid complaint for unlawful detainer:

“Hence, a complaint sufficiently alleges a

cause of action for unlawful detainer if it
states the following elements:

1. Initially, the possession of the property by

the defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff.
 
2. Eventually, the possession became illegal
upon the plaintiffs notice to the defendant of
the termination of the latters right of
possession.
 
3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in
possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the latters enjoyment.
  
4. Within one year from the making of the
last demand on the defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the
Complaint for ejectment.[63]”

Based from the foregoing discussion in relation to the above cited

ruling, it is as clear as day that the present complaint for unlawful
detainer 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;

16. To elaborate on the initial nature of the defendant’s

possession of the premises, it bears stress repeating that the same
was initially lawful as it was merely torelated by the plaintiffs. In
the case of Rey Castigador Catedrilla versus Mario and Margie
Lauron [G.R No. 179011 dated 15 April 2013], the Supreme
Court discussed the implied promise that an occupant makes
when his possession of the premises is merely by tolerance. To wit:

“In ejectment cases, the only issue to be

resolved is who is entitled to the physical or
material possession of the property involved,
independent of any claim of ownership set
forth by any of the party-litigants. 31 In an
action for unlawful detainer, the real party-
in-interest as party-defendant is the person
who is in possession of the property without
the benefit of any contract of lease and only
upon the tolerance and generosity of its
owner.32 Well settled is the rule that a
person who occupies the land of another
at the latter’s tolerance or permission,
without any contract between them, is
bound by an implied promise that he will
vacate the same upon demand, failing
which a summary action for ejectment is
the proper remedy against him. 33 His
status is analogous to that of a lessee or
tenant whose term of lease has expired
but whose occupancy continued by
tolerance of the owner.34” (Emphasis
supplied)

Considering that the defendant was occupying the premises by

mere tolerance or leniency of the plaintiffs due to the request of x,
the mother of defendant and plaintiff x, the defendant is bound by
an implied promise to vacate the premises of the plaintiffs upon
demand. Due to her failure to vacate, the present complaint for
unlawful detainer against him is therefore proper;
 ARGUMENTS/ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT FOR PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

17. Plaintiffs hereby replead all the foregoing allegations as are

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

18. 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.”

19. 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;

-xxx-” (Emphasis
supplied)

20. In the case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation

versus The Court of Appeals et al., [G.R. No. 102881 dated 7
December 1992], 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)

21. Plaintiffs, without any doubt, are 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;

22. It is sufficiently clear upon the facts and the circumstances

obtaining in the case at bar, that irreparable damage and injury
would result to the prejudice of the plaintiffs due to the continued
unlawful possession by the defendant of plaintiff’s property;

23. Plaintiffs are willing and ready to post a bond executed to the
defendant, in an amount that may be fixed by this Honorable
Court, to the effect that plaintiffs will pay the defendant all
damages which the latter may sustain by reason of the injunction,
if subsequently, this Honorable Court would finally decide that
plaintiff is not entitled thereto;

24. As previously stated, the defendant has caused several

construction works in the premises being occupied by him that
have caused continuous damage to the property of the plaintiffs. In
addition, there have been previous episodes wherein the defendant
 verbally maligned plaintiff x. Thus, on account of the foregoing
actions committed by the defendant, the plaintiffs suffered
damages as follows:

a) Temperate Damages in the amount of Php 20,000 (TWENTY

THOUSAND PESOS) to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage
caused by the constructions works of the defendant:

b) Moral Damages in the amount of Php 50,000.00 (FIFTY

THOUSAND PESOS) for the mental anguish, sleepless nights
and serious anxiety experienced by the plaintiffs as a result of
the acts committed by the defendant and continued possession
of the premises despite demand to vacate:

c) Attorney’s Fees and Expenses of Litigation in the amount of

Php 40,000.00 (FORTY THOUSAND PESOS) as a result of the
unlawful continued possession of the defendant which
compelled the plaintiffs to engage the services of counsel in
order to defend their rights and enforce their claim. A copy of
the retainer agreement executed by and between plaintiff x and
undersigned counsel is attached and marked as Annex “P”
hereof;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that, after proper proceedings, judgment be
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs as follows;

1) ISSUING a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of

the plaintiffs, during the course of the trial, ordering the
defendant and anyone who claims title and possession over the
premises to immediately vacate the subject premises;

2) ISSUING a temporary retaining order in favor of the plaintiffs,

during the course of the trial, ordering the defendant and
anyone who claims title and possession over the premises to
immediately vacate the subject premises;

3) ORDERING the ejectment of the defendant and to vacate the

premises PERMANENTLY in order to restore the rightful
possession of the premises to the the plaintiffs:
 4) ORDERING the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the reasonable
amount for the use and occupation of the premises, which
amount must be at least TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00)
per month starting from the month of last demand in October
2016 until the defendant’s eventual ejectment from the
premises;

5) ORDERING the defendant to pay plaintiffs the following:

a. Temperate Damages in the amount of Php 20,000.00

(TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS)
b. Moral Damages in the amount of Php 50,000.00 (FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS)
c. Attorney’s Fees and Expenses of Litigation in the
amount of Php 30,000.00 (THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS)

Other reliefs, just and equitable, under the circumstances are

likewise prayed of this Honorable Court.

Malolos City, Bulacan 4 February 2017.

Alexa Batuta
Affiant

BY:

LUCKY JAVELLANA
Counsel for the Plaintiff
JAVELLANA LAW OFFICE
157 Mc Arthur Highway, Lolomboy,
Bocaue, Bulacan
 VERIFICATION

I, Alexa Batuta, of legal age, Filipino and is presently

residing at 1998 Tatalon St., Ugong, Valenzuela City, under oath
hereby deposed and state that:

1. I am the plaintiff in the above – entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the forgoing

Complaint for Ejectment;

3. I hereby attest that the allegations herein are all true

and correct of my own personal knowledge or base on
authentic document or records;

Alexa Batuta
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 4th

day of February 2017 at Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines.

Doc. No. 88;

Page No. 6;
Book No. VXI;
Series of 2021.

Atty. Marven R. Lurem

Notary Public for Bocaue & Malolos
Until 31 December 2021
Appointment No.123 (2020-2021)
PTR No. 32434, 07 Jan 2021, Malolos City
IBP No. 103786, 07 Jan 2021, RSM
Roll of Attorney’s No. 72339
MCLE Compliance No. VI-991019
05 January 2021
 “ANNEX A”

SPA FOR ALEXA BATUTA