Republic of the PhilippinesMunicipal Trial CourtBranch 11Cauayan City

Mr. Mar Aquino, Plaintiff

Civil Case No. 214For: Forcible Entry

-versus -

Mr. Noynoy Binay, Defendant

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

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this most Honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

1. The Plaintiff is of legal age, married and a resident of Barangay San Fermin, Cauayan City, Isabela. The Defendant is likewise of legal age, married and temporary residing at Kingsville Subdivision, Cauayan City.

2. The Plaintiff is the owner of a two hectare land located at Barangay San Fermin, Cauayan City, as evidenced by pertinent documents like tax declaration and deed of sale. ( EXHIBIT A )

3. The Defendant is claiming ownership to the adjacent lot with a house unit that is owned by him.

4. The Plaintiff decided to engage the services of and Engineer in the person of Mr. Allan Trillanes to survey the property and determine the boundaries of their lots. (Exhibit B)

5. Later on, the Plaintiff found out that Mr. Noynoy Binay encroached 500 meters of his property and on the same day he (plaintiff) went to the Defendant to discuss the result of the survey expecting that the same will be settled smoothly.

6. The Defendant however refused to cooperate with the Plaintiff to discuss on the matter, instead he filed before the Municipal Trial Court praying that the survey be declared void and judgment be rendered in favor of him that there were no encroachment of the property as the plaintiff is now claiming.

7. The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant claimed that the 500 meters was part of his property as evidenced by a survey a long time ago. (Exhibit C)

8. The reason why the plaintiff was compelled to file this case against the defendant.

9. After continuous demands, the defendant constantly refuses to vacate the property and even invited relatives to stay with him.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE,premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgement be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement;

i. The defendant shall vacate the property owned by the plaintiff.ii. The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 50,000 php for the Attorneys Fees.

Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are likewise prayed for.Cauayan City, Philippines, this 29thday of November 2014.

Coco CayetanoCounsel for the PlaintiffPTR No. 18909595:1-04-07: IsabelaIBP No, 693095:1-04-07: IsabelaRoll No. 42481:5-10-97: IsabelaRm. 4 2/F Cauayan Bamboo Center180 Cauayan, CityVERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Mr. Mar Aquino, of legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and a resident of Barangay San Fermin, Cauayan City, Isabela after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;

1. I am the Complainant in this proceeding.2. I have read and understood the filed complaint and allegations therein.

Mar AquinoComplainant

In witness thereof, I, Mr. Coco Cayetano, counsel of the plaintiff, have hereunto set my hand this 29thof November at Cauayan City.

Coco CayetanoCounsel for the PlaintiffPTR No. 18909595:1-04-07: IsabelaIBP No, 693095:1-04-07: IsabelaRoll No. 42481:5-10-97: IsabelaRm. 4 2/F Cauayan Bamboo Center180 Cauayan, City

Republic of the PhilippinesMunicipal Trial CourtBranch 11Cauayan City

Mr. Mar Aquino, Plaintiff

Civil Case No. 214For: Forcible Entry

-versus -

Mr. Noynoy Binay, Defendant

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

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers:

1. That he ADMITS the contents of paragraph 3 only insofar as his personal circumstances are concerned;

2. That he DENIES his refusal to cooperate to discuss on the controversy cited in paragraph 6, but ADMITS the rest of the allegation therein as to the prayer to declare the recent survey void;

3. That the defendant has a reasonable ground to believe that there were no encroachment as the same were part of his property;

4. That defendant at that moment, have all the records of survey determining the boundaries therein;5. That the defendant DENIES the allegations in paragraph 9.

WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays that the complaints be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.

Other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

City of Cauayan, November 29, 2014

SOLIMAN AND DELIMA LAW OFFICECounsel for the DefendantSuite 258, The TowerSantiago City, Isabela

BY:

Dinky De LimaRoll No. 12345/1-3-2013/IsabelaPTR No. 34567/1-3-2013/Isabela

Copy Furnished:

ATTY.COCO CAYETANOCounsel for the PlaintiffRm. 4 2/F Cauayan Bamboo Center180 Cauayan, City

November 29, 2014

To: Mr. Mar Aquino

Dear Sir,

We have been instructed to give an opinion as to the validity under the law regarding the filing of Forcible Entry Case (attached) which is to be filed before the Municipal Trial Court and in so doing, it must be in compliance with Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.This opinion is confined to matters of [jurisdiction] law and we express no opinion with regard to any system of law other than the laws of [jurisdiction]. Subject to the above, we are of the opinion that under the laws of jurisdiction:

1. An ejectment case is a summary proceeding designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved(Barrientos v. Rapal, G.R. No. 169594, July 20, 2011).

2. It is expeditious as it is governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, a special rule where extra pleadings and motions (other than the Complaint and Answer), otherwise available in an ordinary civil action, are prohibited precisely to insulate it from unnecessary delays. The main issue to be resolved here is the issue of possession or the right to hold possession.

3. If youre a lessor of real property, you may, if you havent already, have to resort to the remedy of ejectment in cases where a lessee withholds possession of leased property after the latters right to hold the same has already terminated, as where lessee has failed to pay rental, or has failed to comply with the conditions of the lease contract, in which case it is called Unlawful Detainer.

4. It is also available where a present possessor has held possession of a subject property at the tolerance of the owner or the one entitled to its possession, and thereafter refused, after demand to vacate has been made upon him, or continues his possession thereof. In this case, an inceptively lawful possession has become unlawful, when the tolerated possessor refused to return the property upon demand by the rightful possessor or owner. Anyone, whose stay in the property is merely tolerated, is bound by an implied obligation to vacate and return the same to, upon demand of, the rightful possessor or owner.

5. Note that even the owner of the property may be sued for ejectment when he deprives another of lawful possession, as in a case of a lessor depriving or ousting a lessee, who has been compliant with his obligations under a lease contract, of possession thereof.

6. Another species of ejectment is Forcible Entry. It is the same special proceeding as Unlawful Detainer, but the means whereby the lawful possessor or owner of the subject property has been deprived thereof are: Force, Intimidation, Strategy, Threat, and/or Stealth (FISTS). Anyone who has been ousted of possession to a real property by a "strong hand" using any of the means mentioned, may resort to this summary remedy to restore him immediately to possession.

7. In both cases, ownership is not imperative in order for a plaintiff to acquire legal personality to sue, as again, the issue is mere right to possession. In unlawful detainer it is indispensable or jurisdictional that a demand to pay rental or comply with the conditions of the lease and vacate is made before an action may properly be filed. Accordingly, absence of such prior demand could lead to the dismissal of the case. However, the same is not true in forcible entry.

8. In both cases, resort to barangay conciliation iscondition precedent, meaning that the opposing party may raise as objection the fact that the dispute has not been referred to the barangay authorities for conciliation, and the same may be ground for the dismissal of the action. However, it is not jurisdictional, meaning that it may be waived by such opposing party. It is deemed waived when the opposing party failed to timely object to the fact of its (barangay conciliation) absence.

9. Both actions must be brought (filed in court) within one year. The period of one year is reckoned from, in the case of forcible entry, the date of actual possession if the deprivation or the ground for the action is force, intimidation, or threat; and the date of discovery and prohibition if the deprivation or ground for the action is strategy or stealth. In unlawful detainer, the period of one year is counted from the date of last demand.

10. In the case of forcible entry, the possession is unlawful/illegal from the very beginning, while in unlawful detainer, it is inceptively lawful until the defendant refused and failed to vacate, after demand is made upon him by the plaintiff. Demand is made upon the termination of the defendant's right to hold possession of the subject property, either by expiration of contract, breach of terms of the contract, or when an owner who tolerated the defendant's stay has manifested its intention to use the property effectively ending the tolerance.

11. In both cases, the provisional remedy ofpreliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO)is available under the provision of Rule 70, on forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and in relation to Rule 58, on preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. This opinion is given for your sole benefit and may not be disclosed or relied upon by any other person without our prior written consent.

Very truly yours,

OLIVIA S. ALMAZANCauayan City, Isabela