REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 416B
Baguio City

MIA CORAZON SIQUIA, Civil Case No:

Plaintiff,
For: Forcible Entry with
prayer for issuance of writ
vs. of preliminary mandatory
injunction

DANTE GUEVARRA,
Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT
(With Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction)

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:
1. Plaintiff, is of legal age, single and a resident of #1475
Outlook Drive, Baguio City.

2. Defendant, is of legal age, single and a resident of #1476

Outlook Drive, Baguio City, where he may be served
summons and other processes.

3. The plaintiff is the owner of a 980 square meter property

covered by TCT No. 98765, located at Outlook Drive,
Baguio City. A copy of TCT No.98765, herein attached as
Annex “A”.

4. Plaintiff, by herself and through her predecessors in-

interest, have been in peaceful possession of the land
continuously and uninterrupted for more than fifty (50)
years.

5. Erected on the said property is the Plaintiff’s ancestral

summer house, which she wants to convert into a Bed
and Breakfast. She also intends to build a spa on the far
end of the property.

6. When Plaintiff’s hired contractors were about to begin

excavation for the spa on October 22, 2019, they found
 that the old stable for horses at the farthest end of the
property was now a dwelling of construction workers of
the adjoining property owned by Defendant, who
managed to cut five (5) pine trees that served as the
demarcation of the property line between the properties.

7. Defendant together with hired laborers, without the

knowledge, consent and authority of the plaintiff, by
force, strategy and stealth entered the land described in
paragraph 3, encroached on and took possession of a
portion of the land having an area of 200 square meters
with the following boundaries: on the Northeast by the
remaining portion; and on the Southwest by a road.

8. Simultaneous to their unlawful entry, defendant

managed to cut ten more trees and there appears to be
no intent on the part of Defendant to stop.

9. Plaintiff, by themselves and through their representative,

repeatedly demanded of the defendant to vacate the area
occupied by them and to deliver the peaceful possession
of the same to them, but defendant, without any just or
legal reason, refused and continue to refuse to leave the
premises and restore peaceful possession to the plaintiff
of the portion which they unlawfully wrested from the
plaintiff.

10. Efforts for a possible settlement and/or

reconciliation was exerted by the plaintiff by seeking the
intervention of barangay officials of Barangay Lualhati,
regrettably all efforts to amicably settle their dispute were
in vein. 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
Lualhati on November 3, 2019. 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 “B” hereof.

11. As a consequence of the unlawful entry and

occupation of their land by the defendant and their
subsequent refusal to vacate the premises, plaintiff was
compelled to file this action and, for this reason have to
engage the services of counsel for an agreed professional
fee of P25,000.00.

12. As further consequence of the defendant refusal to

surrender and restore peaceful possession of the land,
plaintiff, suffered mental anguish, emotional disturbance,
embarrassment besmirched reputation which entitles
them to recover moral and exemplary damages
 amounting to not less than P50,000.00.

ARGUMENTS/ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE

PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT FOR
PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

1. 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;

2. 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.”

3. 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)

4. 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)
5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. As previously stated, the defendant has caused

construction works in the premises being occupied by
him as well as the cutting of several trees in the said
property that have caused continuous damage to the
property of the plaintiffs. 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.

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) ORDERING the ejectment of the defendant and to

vacate the property of Plaintiff PERMANENTLY.

3) 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.

Baguio City, November 11, 2019.

PPT LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
4th floor, CAP bldg., Post office loop, Baguio City
Tel. No. 0908-8976-816
Email Add.: PPTLawOffice@gmail.com

By:

(sgd.)
DEBORAH MICAH O. PEREZ
PTR No. 1234567; January 5, 2019; Baguio City
Roll No. 56789; May 5, 2018; Manila
IBP No. 54321; January 5, 2019; Baguio-Benguet
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Baguio ) S.S.

I, MIA CORAZON SIQUIA of legal age, single, Filipino and a

resident of 1475, Outlook Drive, Baguio City, under oath depose and state
that:

1. I have caused the preparation of the same; I have read the

allegations contained therein; and I certify that they are all true
and correct to the best of my own knowledge.

2. I have not commenced any action of proceeding involving the

same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no
such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency.

3. If I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before these courts of tribunal or agency,
I undertake to report the fact to the Court within five (5) days
therefrom.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 11th of

November, at Baguio City.

(sgd.)
MIA CORAZON SIQUIA
Plaintiff

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 19th day of August

at Baguio City, Philippines, Affiant presented to me her Driver’s License
with No. 172738216.
 (sgd.)

ATTY. FRANCIS DOMINICK PEDROCHE ABRIL

Notary Public
Baguio City
Notarial Commission No. 01-2019-416B (21 August 2019)
Commission Expires on 31 Dec 2021
Roll No. 108008; 28 June 2018
IBP No. 0287888; IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter- 01 Jul 2018
PTR No. 2651863; La Trinidad- 03 Jan 2019
MCLE No. VII- 01234; 05 May 2019
Room 208, Juniper Building, Bonifacio Street, Baguio City
afd0410@gmail.com / 0906-968-0910

Doc. No. 3
Page No. 2
Book No. 5

Series of 2019.
 ANNEX “A”

CITY OF BAGUIO

98765
Outlook Drive, Baguio City

ANNEX “B”

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Barangay Lualhati
 City of Baguio

OFFICE OF THE LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA

MIA CORAZON SIQUIA, Barangay Case No:

Complainant
For: Forcible Entry

-against-

DANTE GUEVARRA,
Respondent

CERTIFICATION TO FILE ACTION

This is to certify that:

1. There has been no confrontation between the parties

before the Punong Barangay because the respondent
was absent and the mediation failed.

2. The Pangkat Tagapagkasundo was constituted but

there has been no personal confrontation before the
Pangkat likewise did not result into a settlement
because the respondent was absent.

3. Therefore, the corresponding complaint for the

dispute may now be filed in court.

This 3rd of November 2019.

(sgd.)
Luzviminda Pilipinis
Pangkat Secretary

Attested by:

(sgd.) (sgd.)
 Jose Villarde Paolo Ginapogi
Pangkat Chairperson Pangkat Member

(sgd.)
Ray Liceraldo
Pangkat Member

Noted by:

(sgd.)
PATROCIONO DELA CRUZ
Punong Barangay/Lupon Chairperson