Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6th Judicial Region
BRANCH ____ - Himamaylan City
-oOo-

Sps. Eddie and Rhoda Vallega

Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. ________
-versus-
For: Recovery of
Possession with
Damages
Sps. Ricardito and Ma. Luz
Asuncion del Rio,
Defendants,
x---------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
(for Accion Publiciana with Damages)

COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, through the undersigned Counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

Parties

1. Plaintiffs, Eddie and Rhoda Vallega, are both of legal ages, married
to each other, Filipinos and residents of Purok 9, Brgy. Aguisan,
Himamaylan City where they may be personally served with
summons and other court processes.

2. Defendants, Ricardito and Ma. Luz Asuncion del Rio, are likewise
of legal ages, married, Filipinos and also residents of Purok 9, Brgy.
Aguisan, Himamaylan City where they may be personally served
with summons and other court processes.

Facts

3. Herein plaintiffs recently purchased a TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX

SQUARE (226) METER portion of Lot 1349 covered by OCT No. T-
17489 from the Heirs of Eduardo Rivera. Aforesaid purchase is
evidenced by a Contract to Sell and said Original Certificate of Title
hereto attached as Annexes “A” and “B” respectively. The specific

1
 boundaries of such 226 square meter portion are detailed in a
survey plan also hereto attached as Annex “C”.

4. Herein defendants have been occupying a portion of the said 226

square meter subject property even before the sale of the same to
the plaintiffs by the Heirs of Eduardo Rivera. The manner by which
defendants occupied said portion of the property was only by
mere tolerance of the Heirs of Eduardo Rivera.

5. Hence, when herein plaintiffs became the owners of the subject

property, they subrogated into the rights of the Heirs of Eduardo
Rivera while defendants’ possession of a portion of the same
remained by mere tolerance and therefore, unlawful.

6. To remedy the situation, plaintiffs formally demanded from the

defendants to vacate subject property through a Demand Letter
dated August 15, 2012, hereto attached as Annex “D”.

7. Defendants, however, refused to vacate said encroached

premises, thereby depriving the plaintiffs of the beneficial use of
said property two years hence, up to the present.

8. Efforts to settle through the Lupong Tagapamayapa failed as

evidenced by the Certificate to File Action dated November 21,
2012 hereto attached as Annex “E”.

9. An Ejectment Case (Civil Case No. 262-MTCC) was filed by the

plaintiffs against the defendants but the same was dismissed due
to lack of jurisdiction. A copy of the said MTCC decision is hereto
attached as Annex “F”. Hence, the filing of this Accion Publiciana
before this Honorable Court in view of the unlawful dispossession
that had lasted more than one year1.

10.Due to the unjust refusal of the defendants to peaceably

vacate the subject property despite demand, they should be
made liable to pay for the reasonable rental value of the portion
of the subject property being occupied by them at the rate of TEN
THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS per month starting August 15,
2012 from the time of legal demand made by the plaintiffs and
until they fully vacate the subject property.

11.In order to protect their legal rights and interests to which they
are clearly entitled, the plaintiffs were constrained to engage the

1
SPOUSES BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ, JR. and VENIDA M. VALDEZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
SPOUSES GABRIEL FABELLA and FRANCISCA FABELLA, Respondents. G.R. No. 132424, May 2, 2006.

2
 services of counsel at an agreed fee of FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) PESOS plus appearance fees of TWO THOUSAND
(P2,000.00) PESOS per scheduled hearing to which the defendants
must also be made to pay to the said plaintiff.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein Plaintiffs most respectfully

pray for judgment to be rendered in their favor and against the defendants
as follows:

1. Requiring defendants and their family, successors, assigns, lessees

and all persons or agents acting under them to cede and/or
surrender possession of the subject property of the plaintiffs which is
the 226-square meter portion of Lot 1349 covered by OCT No. T-
17489 as purchased from the Heirs of Eduardo Rivera.

2. Requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiff as follows:

a. ORDERING defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of TEN

THOUSAND PESOS (10,000 PHP) per month as reasonable rent
for the use of the plaintiff’s property starting August 15, 2012
and until the subject property is returned to the possession
and control of the plaintiffs.

b. FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS by way of attorney’s fees

and TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS appearance fees of
counsel for every scheduled hearing of this case.

Other reliefs deemed just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Most Respectfully Submitted.
Bacolod City for Himamaylan City, Neg. Occ. May 2, 2014.

PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III

Counsel for the Plaintiff-Spouses Vallega
C/O AMEGO & Associates Law Office, Ground Floor, CIT Bldg., Lacson-
Luzuriaga Sts., Bacolod City
PTR No. 5430608 Jan. 2, 2014
IBP No. 929226 Dec. 19, 2013
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0022024-9-24-13
SC ROLL NO. 44869

3
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY OF BACOLOD ) S.c.
X----------------------------------------------X

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, the SPS. EDDIE VALLEGA AND RHODA A. VALLEGA, both of legal
ages, Filipinos and residents of Himamaylan City, Neg. Occ., Philippines,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say that:
We are the plaintiffs in the above-captioned case.
We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint.
We have read all the allegations made in the said Complaint and
found them to be true and correct of our own personal knowledge
and belief and based on authentic documents.
That pursuant to the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-
94, we hereby further certify that except for the correlated Civil Case for
Ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 252 MTCC entitled: “Sps. Del Rio vs.
Sps. Vallega” now on appeal before the RTC - Himamaylan City, we have
not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal, quasi-judicial agency to the best of our
knowledge and belief. If we should hereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other Tribunal or Agency, we undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures

this ____ day of _____, 2014 at Bacolod City, Philippines.

EDDIE VALLEGA RHODA VALLEGA

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____day of

________, 2014 at Bacolod City, Philippines the affiant Eddie Vallega
exhibiting to me his Government Issued ID __________________ issued
at ___________________ on _______________ and the affiant Rhoda
Vallega exhibiting to me her Government Issued ID __________________
issued at ___________________ on _______________.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2014.