Macalinao, Jesus Jr. M.

2016-83359-2

Republic Of The Philippines

Sixth Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Muntinlupa City
Branch 256

SPS PRESCO,
Plaintiffs,

-versus -

CIVIL CASE NO: __________________

FOR:ACCION REIVINDICATORIA,
ANNULMENT OF TITE – TCT NO.
12345, DAMAGES, & ATTORNEY’S
FEES.

PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLD,

Defendants.

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

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff, through counsel, to this HonorableCourt
respectfully alleges:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff NINO PRESCO, of legal age, Filipino, married to

JACKIE PRESCO and resident of the Muntinlupa City.

2. Plaintiffs JACKIE PRESCO, of legal age, Filipinos, married to

NINO PRESCO and residents of Muntinlupa City.

3. Defendant PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLD, of legal age,

Filipinos, and residents of Muntinlupa City, where summons can be made.
Page 2 of 8

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS

4. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the subject parcel of

land located in Muntinlupa City through a TCT No. 12345 in favor of the
same.

5. The defendant herein PRINCESS DIANA VILLADOLD, is the

adjoining owner of the plaintiffs.

6. The defendants property was evinced by TCT No. 67890 and

the Declaration of Real Property.

7. That a relocation survey was issued by Engr. Madolin Carag a

Survey Contractor of Bangs Realty Surveying Office.

8. According to the survey, the building and concrete fence that

was built by the defendant herein encroached the portion of the property of
the defendant “the frontage of Lot 1, the adjoining lot on the south side
should only be 13.00 m. but appeared to be 15.88 m. Thereby appearing that
Lot 2 has encroached Lot 1 by 2.88 m. eventually forming an overlap of
36.00 m.”

9. That the plaintiff On 30th November, a demand letter was sent

to Princess Diana Villadolid to vacate the encroached parcel of land. Said
demand was ignored by Princess Diana Villadolid.

10. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Lupon ng

Tagapamayapa, but no settlement was reached

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

ACCION REIVINDICATORIA
AND ANNULMENT OF TITLE

11. Plaintiffs seek to recover ownership and possession over the

subject lot under the right of an absolute owner;

11.1. Defendants claim that they are the rightful owners,

however their claim is tainted with fraud. Considering the Defendants
claim, Accion Reivindicatoria is the proper remedy:

Accion Reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicatoria is

thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over
a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full
possession.1

1
Serdoncillo v. Fidel, G.R. No. 118328, October 8, 1998.
Page 3 of 8

11.2. The Plaintiffs are the rightful owners. They have

acquired the property from Ruby Ryza Mae Lee Kum Kee through a
Deed of absolute Sale. It is clear, that they have acquired ownership
over the subject property through sale;

12. Plaintiffs must be restored of the ownership of the property as

the survey stated that the defendants purportedly encroached the portion of
the plaintiffs lot by building improvements thereon denying the rights over
the property to Sps. Presco;

13. Incidental to the rights of the Plaintiffs, being the real owners of
the property, is the right for the use and enjoyment of the property. It is
therefore clear that there is an imperative need to award them the
reconveyance of the possession of the property. With that, the improvements
must demolished.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES,
AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

14. Plaintiffs was deprived of all the beneficial use of subject

lot.Thus, bythe defendants continued illegal and unlawful possession and
occupation of the subject lot, the Plaintiffs have suffered sleepless nights,
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, and wounded
feelings. Plaintiffs, hence, is entitled to recover by way of moral damages in
the sum of Php. 10,000.

15. In view of the forgoing, Plaintiffs were constrained to retain the

services of counsel thereby incurring expenses in the amount of Php
50,000.00 as acceptance fee, and in addition thereto, a fee of Php 3,000.00
per court appearance, which should be charged against the Defendants and
shall be made payable to the Plaintiff as attorney’s fees, including the costs
of litigation;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that a judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs
and that after judgment;

a) Order the defendants to immediately vacate and surrender

possession of the subject property in favor of the plaintiffs;

b) Order the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the amount of Php 10,000
as moral damages;
Page 4 of 8

c) Order the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the

amount of Php 50,000.00 and Php 3,000.00 per court hearing; and,

d) Order the Defendants to pay the costs of suit.

Plaintiffs further humbly pray for such other relief and remedies under
the premises and in the sound discretion of the Honorable Court.

Muntinlupa City, this 9th day of March, 2018

Dodong Tigasin
Counsel for the Plaintiff
619 Naliligaw De Mahanap St.,
New York Cubao, Pasig City.
Roll No. 81234 / 5-22-16 / Pasig City
IBP No. 943210 / 3-09-16 / Pasig City
PTR No. 201688359 /3-09-16 / Pasig City
Page 5 of 8

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, NINO PRESCO, of legal age, Filipino, married and resident of

theRepublic of the Philippines, after duly sworn by law; and,

I, JACKIE PRESCO, of legal age, Filipino, married, a resident of the

Philippines, after duly sworn by law; and,

All hereby state:

That I am the same plaintiff in the above-entitled case and that I have
caused the preparation and filing of the said complaint, the allegations of
which are all true and correct of my own personal knowledge and belief and
based on authentic documents;

That I have not commenced or filed nor do I know of any similar

action pending before the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeals, or any
court or tribunal or agency, involving the same parties and cause of action
and that should I come to know of such fact, I hereby undertake to inform
the Honorable Court within five (5) days from knowledge of the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on this 9 TH

day of MARCH, 2017 in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.

NINO PRESCO
Plaintiff / Affiant

JACKIE PRESCO
Plaintiff / Affiant
Page 6 of 8

SUBSCIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 9th day of March

2017 in the City of Makati, by affiants exhibiting to me their passports with
Passport Nos. 1234567890, 1234567891, 1234567892, respectively, all
issued on March 8, 2017 at City of Manila, Philippines.

DODONG S. TIGASIN.
Notary Public
Commission Expires December 31, 2017
Roll No. 81234 / 5-22-16 / Pasig City
IBP No. 943210 / 3-09-16 / Pasig City
PTR No. 201688359 / 3-09-16 / Pasig City

Doc. No.222
Page No.22
Book No.2
Series of 2018
Page 7 of 8

Basis for Computation

of Filing Fees

According to A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, in cases regarding real property,

the fair market value or the zonal valuation of the property, whichever is
higher, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof alleged by the
claimant shall be the basis in computing the fees.

Sec 7. Clerk of Regional Trial Courts2. –

a) For filing an action or a permissive or compulsory counter-claim, cross-

claim, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing a
third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total
sum claimed, inclusive of interests, penalties, surcharges, damages of whatever
kind, and attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs and/or in cases involving
property, the fair market value of the real property in litigation stated in the
current tax declaration or current zonal valuation of the bureau of internal
revenue, whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated value of the
property in litigation or the value of the personal property in litigation as
alleged by the claimant, is:

From Nov. 11, Nov. 11, Effective

effectivitytoNov. 2004toNov. 2004toNov. Nov. 11,
10, 2004 11, 2005 11, 2005 2006

1. Less than P 625.00 P 750.00 P 875.00 P 1,000.00

P100,000.00

2. P100,000.00 or 1000.00 1,200.00 1,400.00 1,600.00

more but less than
P150,000.00

3. P150,000.00 or 1,250.00 1,500.00 1,750.00 2,000.00

more but less than
P200,000.00

4. P200,000.00 or 1,875.00 2,250.00 2,625.00 3,000.00

more but less than
P250,000.00

5. P250,000.00 or 2,190.00 2,630.00 3,070.00 3,500.00

more but less than
P300,000.00

2
Rule 141, Rules of Court, as amended.
Page 8 of 8

6. P300,000.00 or 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00

more but less than
P350,000.00

7. P350,000.00 or 2,820.00 3,380.00 4,000.00 4,500.00

more but not more
than P400,000.00

8. For each 12.50 15.00 17.50 20.00

P1,000.00 in
excess of
P400,000.00

xxx

(b) For filing:

From Nov. 11, Nov. 11, Effective

effectivity 2004 2004 Nov. 11,
to to to 2006
Nov. 10, Nov. 11, Nov. 11,
2004 2005 2005

1. Actions where the value of P 750.00 P1,000.00 P1,500.00 P2,000.00

the subject matter cannot be
estimated

2. Special civil actions, except 750.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00

judicial foreclosure of
mortgage, expropriation
proceedings, partition and
quieting of title which shall be
governed by paragraph (a)
above

3. All other actions not 750.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00

involving property