Republic of the Philippines

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch ___
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
-o0o-

MARIANO P. FLORES,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. ______

For: Action for Forcible Entry

and Damages with a Prayer
for issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO)
-versus-

JAIME DELIZO, ESTELITA

DELIZO, and all other persons
claiming rights under her,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR EARLY RESOLUTION

Plaintiff-Movant Mariano P. Flores, by himself and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1) On November 23, 2020, the undersigned Plaintiff filed a Motion

to Litigate as Indigent with attached Complaint for Forcible
Entry and Damages with a Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order through LBC;

2) The aforementioned motion with attached complaint was received by

this Honorable Court on November 25, 2020;

3) However, due to voluminous workload of this Honorable Court,

according to this Honorable Court’s staff, the plaintiff’s Motion to
Litigate as Pauper was not yet acted upon by this Honorable Court;

4) The undersigned plaintiff understands Under Article 539 of the Civil

Code of the Philippines, “Every possessor has a right to be respected
in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be
protected in or restored to said possession by the means established
by the laws and the Rules of Court.
 2

A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may

within ten days from the filing of the complaint present a motion to
secure from the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his
possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days
from filing thereof (446a)

5) “xxx for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege
and prove: (1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2)
unlawful deprivation of it by the defendant through force,
intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth.”1

6) In the case at bar, for more than fifty (50) years, plaintiff 2 and
plaintiff’s predecessor in interest’s occupation over the subject
property of this case was undisturbed until on April 9, 2020 despite
that the whole Luzon is under Enhanced Community Quarantine
wherein strict home quarantine shall be followed, defendants Jaime
Delizo and Estelita Delizo3 with their cohorts entered the above-
mentioned agriculture lot without plaintiff’s consent armed with bolo
and “panabas” and then proceeded to cut down different trees
planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T.
Flores without permit from Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area without
undergoing judicial process4

7) In explaining what amounted to force, the Honorable Supreme

Court ruled that:

“Unlawfully entering the subject property and

excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that is
necessary. In order to constitute force, the trespasser
does not have to institute a state of war.  No other
proof is necessary. 5”

1 Nenita Quality Foods Corp. vs. Crisostomo Galabo, Adelaida Galabo, and Zenaida Galabo-
Almacbar, G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013.
2 Copy of Punong Barangay of Barangay Labit Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Hon.
Godofredo F. Dulay is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
3 Copy of Fedencia Flores-Andrada and Trinidad Fontanilla’s Judicial Affidavits are hereto
attached as Annex “B” and “C” respectively.
4 Copy of certifications issued by Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan and Regional Trial Court Office of the Clerk of Court, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
are hereto attached as Annex “D” and “E” respectively.
5 Georgia T. Estel vs. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R. No. 174082,
January 16, 2012.
 3

8) The Honorable Supreme Court further explained what

constitutes force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth in
David v. Cordova6 -

“The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or

stealth" include every situation or condition under
which one person can wrongfully enter upon real
property and exclude another, who has had prior
possession therefrom. If a trespasser enters upon land
in open daylight, under the very eyes of the person
already clothed with lawful possession, but without
the consent of the latter, and there plants himself and
excludes such prior possessor from the property, the
action of forcibly entry and detainer can
unquestionably be maintained, even though no force is
used by the trespasser other than such as is necessarily
implied from the mere acts of planting himself on the
ground and excluding the other party.”

9) As stated above, on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is

under Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home
quarantine shall be followed, defendants Jaime and Estelita with
their cohorts entered the subject property of this case without
plaintiff’s consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then
proceeded to cut down different trees planted by his late parents
Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
burned it and cleaned the area without undergoing judicial
process;

10) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Mariano Flores was deprived

of his possession through forcible entry;

11) Furthermore, jurisprudence has established that the following

requisites must be proven first before a writ of preliminary
injunction, whether mandatory or prohibitory, may be issued:

1. The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be

protected, that is right in esse;
2. There is a material and substantial invasion of such right;

6 G.R. NO. 152992 July 28, 2005.

 4

3. There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable

injury to the applicant; and
4. No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to
prevent the infliction or irreparable injury.7

12) There is without a scintilla of a doubt that all the

aforementioned elements are present in the above-entitled case filed
by the plaintiff. Being the possessor of the property subject matter of
this case, his right to be respected in his possession is clear and
unmistakable. Pursuant to such right, defendant Jaime and Estelita
cannot enter, cut down planted trees, harvest fruits; clean; ordered
anyone to destroy any improvements/ construction; and construct
their house and/ or any improvements/ construction in the above-
stated lot except in accordance with the requirements provided by
law. As discussed in plaintiff’s complaint, the defendants materially
and substantially invaded plaintiff’s right. They did it even if
defendant Estelita Delizo is not the true owner of the land in dispute
and without undergoing judicial process;

13) Defendants’ continued illegal occupation of the said parcel of

land and refuse to vacate the same and to peacefully surrender
possession thereof to herein plaintiff is working grave injustice and
causing damage to the latter because they are continuously cutting
down plants owned and planted by plaintiff’s predecessors.
Defendants were also destroying improvements made on the land
and will construct their own house thus depriving the plaintiff of a
place to farm;

14) Plaintiff MARIANO P. FLORES therefore is entitled to the relief

demanded and the whole or part of such relief consist in restoring
him on his possession;

15) Plaintiff is willing to put up a bond in such amount as this

Honorable Court might determine to answer for whatever damage
that defendants will suffer if it will be finally determined that
plaintiff is not entitled thereto;

16) There is no other speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law except the filing of this complaint with prayer for
issuance of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order;

7Bicol Medical Center vs. Noe B. Botor et al., G.R. No. 214073, October 4,
2017.
 5

17) By virtue of the foregoing, the undersigned Plaintiff

respectfully moves for issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that a writ of preliminary mandatory be issued to
restore plaintiff Mariano Flores’s possession over the land in dispute.

City of Manila, November 30, 2020.

MARIANO P. FLORES
Plaintiff-Movant

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

MTCC, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

JAIME DELIZO AND ESTELITA DELIZO

Zone 1, Labit Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

Greetings:

Please take notice that the undersigned plaintiff will submit this
Motion for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction for the
consideration of this Honorable Court on December 7, 2020 at 8:30 in the
morning.

MARIANO P. FLORES
Plaintiff-Movant

EXPLANATION

Filing and a copy of this Motion for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary

Mandatory Injunction was filed to this Honorable Court and served to
other parties by LBC due to distance constraint.

MARIANO P. FLORES
Plaintiff-Movant