Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
CALOOCAN CITY
BRANCH 1

JUAN DELA CRUZ,


Plaintiff,

- versus – CIVIL CASE NO. 19-31519


For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

PEDRO DELA ROSA,


DEFENDANT.
============================

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully


alleges:

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Juan dela Cruz, is of legal age, Filipino and with a postal
address at #12 Biglang Awa St., Quezon City.

2. Defendant, Pedro dela Rosa, of legal age, Filipino, married and


with postal address at #15 Lupang Hinirang St., Bayan ng
Magiliw, Caloocan City, which he can be served with Court
summons , notices and other court processes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. Plaintiff is the absolute and registered owner of the house and


lots which located at #15 Lupang Hinirang St., Bayan ng Magiliw,
Caloocan City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 123456
of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City

A photocopy of the certified true copy of the Transfer Certificate


of Title No. 123456 is hereto attached as Annex “A” to be
marked.

Herein attached also the Photocopy of the Owner’s Duplicate


Copy of the above Transfer Certificate of Title as ANNEX “B” to
be marked.

Herein attached affidavit of the Plaintiff notarized and it was filed


in Registry of Deeds of Caloocan stating that plaintiff did not
execute any document that will transfer her ownership over the
said property marked as ANNEX “C”
4. Upon verbal agreement of the Owner/Plaintiff and the defendant
allowed the defendant and her family to stay in the above
property for free for almost 15 years.

5. Moreover, plaintiff also went to talk to the Defendant personally


to asked the defendant to vacate the property sometime on
January 2018 but the defendant refuses to vacate the said
property.

6. In a demand letter dated December 25, 2017, it was personally


delivered by Rodrigo Manluctao UNDER THE DIRECT
CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PLAINTIFF on
December 28, 2017 which was personally received by PEDRO
DELA ROSA, plaintiff demanded to defendant to vacate the
property and plaintiff also demanded that any person under her
direction or claiming irghts under him, to vacate and deliver
possession of the property to the Plaintiff. Herein attached the
Letter marked as Annex “D”.

7. Despite such notice and demands to vacate, defendant continy


to remain in the premises and refuse to vacate, as they continue
to occupy said property lot despite defendants’ receipt of
plaintiff’s due notice to vacate and to peacefully deliver
possession thereof to him.

8. The reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the


property according to prevailing lease rate in the area is
P20,000.00 a month.

9. As the parties are residents of different cities, plaintiff being a


resident of Quezon City and defendant in Caloocan City, the
referral therefore of the dispute and the parties to Barangay
Lupon for mediation/conciliation proceedings is not required
under the circumstances. A certification to File Action need not
be issued and thus, the dispute can already be the subject of
judicial proceedings.

10. Defendant’s insolent and presumptuous behavior towards


plaintiff property owner, despite the latter’s forbearance and
leniency, has caused plaintiff emotional stress and wounded
feelings, which entitle plaintiff to moral damages and actual
damages.

11. On account of defendant’s unjustified refusal to vacate and


surrender possession of the subject property lot, plaintiff suffered
serious anxiety, stress and wounded feelings, for which
aggravations he is entitled to moral and exemplary damages of
at least P50,000.00.
12. Plaintiff was also constrained to engage the servces of
lawyer to enforce her rights, for a professional fee of P30,000.00
plus appearance fee of P5,000.00 for every hearing attended and
to incur necessary litigation expenses and costs which can be
estimated at P50,000.00

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due


summary proceedings, judgment be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff,

a) Ordering the defendant and all persons claiming rights


under her as well as those persons acting under her
direction occupying the subject property, to fully vacate
and peacefully deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff;

b) Ordering defednat to pay plaintiff:

i. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of


P20,000.00 as reasonale monthly rental plus 6%
interest per annum reckoned from December 25,
2018 until possession is restored or returned to
the platinff;
ii. The sum of P50,000.00 litigation expenses and
costs as may be proved to have been incurred;
iii. Moral and exemplary damages in the amount of
P50,000.00;
iv. Attorney’s fees and professional fee of
P50,000.00 and P5,000.00 per appearance or
hearing and

Other just and equitable reliefs are further prayed for.

Quezon City. March 15, 2018

By:

ATTY. RODRIGO MANLUCTAO SR.


PTR NO. MLA 1234122134, 04-05-15
IBP NO. 23123123 lifetime member
ROLL NO. 24578923
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. X-123123
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
CALOOCAN CITY
BRANCH 1

JUAN DELA CRUZ,


Plaintiff,

- versus – CIVIL CASE NO. 19-31519


For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

PEDRO DELA ROSA,


DEFENDANT.
============================

ANSWER
With Affirmative Defenses
And Compulsory Counter Claims

Defendant, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully


avers:

THE TIMELINESS
On April 11, 2018, the Defendant received a copy of Summons
of this Honorable Court requiring him to file within ten (10) days his
Answer to the complaint.

Counting therefrom, the Defendant has until April 21, 2018 within
which to submit her Answer, However, the last day falls on Saturday.

Thus, the submission of her Answer today, April 23, 2018 is


timely considering that this day is the immediate working days to
submit as such.

ANSWER PROPER

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted.

2. Paragraph 3 is admitted only in so far as to the existence of the


Transfer Certificate of Title No. 123456 of the Register of Deeds
of Caloocan City and denied her claimed of ownership over the
said parcel of land. The plaintiff is stressing the absence of
document that will transfer her ownership proves only that she is
aware that the document she and the defendant had executed
on February 24, 2017 will somehow be used against him. This
document that the defendant is aware of is the Deed of Absolute
Sale for the purchase of the property covering transfer Certificate
of Title No. 123456.
3. Paragraph 4 is denied in that allegation that she allowed the
defendant and her family to stay in the property for almost 15
years. The plaintiff has never mentioned the existence of his
relation with the defendant. He has failed to mention that the
defendant is his poster son and he never mentioned that he had
taken care of the defendant since 1985, together with his were
the two sons of the plaintiff where one from them was aka Rex
Racer, a former showbiz personality.

4. Paragraph 5 is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a


belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. Since they had separated
ways due to the plaintiff’s relationship with one of the members
of Kapatiran Group which caused their relationship to be strange,
there were no more personal communication had occurred
between the defendant and the plaintiff.

5. Paragraph 6 is admitted but the allegation of refusal to vacate


the premises is denied because the defendat is the owner of the
property subject matter of this case.

6. Paragraph 7 is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a


belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. There is no reason for the
defendant to vacate the property because he is the owner
thereof.

7. Paragraphs 10 and 11 denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to


from a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof.

8. Paragraph 12 are denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form


a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof. The defendant and the
plaintiff were in a good relationship as poster father and son and
in fact they were in an active participation in the organization
wherein the plaintiff was the financers thereof.