1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch ________
Las Piñas City

MARLYN A. CARPIO, Civil Case No. _______________

Plaintiff, For: Unlawful Detainer

-versus-

JOCELYN MIQUIABAS
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, MARLYN A. CARPIO, through the undersigned

counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers and
states, that:

THE PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff, Marlyn A. Carpio, is of legal age, a Filipino citizen,

and a resident of 198 Sta. Rosa Street, Barangay Fatima-4, Area-E,
City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, where she may be served
with orders, decisions, and other judicial processes issued by this
Honorable Court;

2. The Defendant, Jocelyn Miquiabas, is likewise of legal age, a

Filipino citizen, and a resident of Blk. 11, Lot 4, Phase 2, Dahlia
Street, TS Cruz Subdivision, Las Piñas City, Metro Manila, where
she may be served with orders, decisions, and other judicial
processes issued by this Honorable Court;

CAUSE OF ACTION

3. On February 26, 2014, the plaintiff, Marlyn A. Carpio, and the

defendant, Jocelyn Miquiabas, executed a “Kasunduan sa Pag-
papatira sa Bahay” (Contract of Lease) over the house of the
plaintiff, including its premises, located at Blk. 11, Lot 4, Phase 2,
Dahlia Street, TS Cruz Subdivision, Las Piñas City, Metro Manila,
 2

where the defendant was allowed by the plaintiff to stay and live
in the said house and its premises for a period of six (6) months. A
faithful reproduction of the said “Kasunduan” dated February
26, 2014 is hereto attached as Annex “A” to form an integral
part hereof;

4. In the said “Kasunduan”, the defendant undertook to pay the just

and reasonable rental fee anent the lease of the house and its
premises, including the utility bills, particularly the necessary
electric and water bills thereof. Moreover, the parties agreed that
the defendant would pay the plaintiff P2,500.00 per month;

5. However, despite the expiration of the said “Kasunduan” in

August of 2014, the defendant, Jocelyn Miquiabas, failed to vacate
the house and its premises. The defendant likewise failed to pay
all the rentals for the entire six-month duration of the lease
agreement, for a total of P15,000.00;

6. Not being remiss with her duties as a lessor, the plaintiff has made
several demands for the defendant to vacate the leased house and
its premises, and to pay the outstanding rentals, but the defendant
adamantly refused and failed to comply;

7. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff has referred the matter to the

Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos in Las Piñas City
on October 5, 2015 in order for the defendant to comply with her
obligations and for the defendant to vacate the house and its
premises. A faithful reproduction of the Complaint filed by the
plaintiff with the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza
Dos in Las Piñas City dated October 5, 2015 is hereto attached
as Annex “B” to form an integral part hereof;

8. On October 12, 2015, the hearing for the settlement of the

defendant’s obligations was held. The plaintiff was present but the
defendant failed to appear before the Lupon Tagapamayapa of
Barangay Almanza Dos in Las Piñas City, hence the hearing was
reset to October 15, 2015. A faithful reproduction of the Report
of the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos in Las
Piñas City on October 12, 2015 is hereto attached as Annex “C”
to form an integral part hereof;

9. On October 15, 2015, another hearing for the settlement of the

defendant’s obligations was held. The plaintiff was likewise
present in the said hearing but the defendant failed to appear yet
 3

again before the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos

in Las Piñas City, hence the hearing was reset to October 22, 2015.
A faithful reproduction of the Report of the Lupon
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos in Las Piñas City on
October 15, 2015 is hereto attached as Annex “D” to form an
integral part hereof;

10. On October 22, 2015, a third hearing for the settlement of the
defendant’s obligations was held. In the said hearing, the parties
came to an agreement whereby the defendant was given until
December 15, 2015 to vacate the house and its premises, and to
pay the outstanding rentals. A faithful reproduction of the
Report of the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos
in Las Piñas City on October 22, 2015 is hereto attached as
Annex “E” to form an integral part hereof;

11. However, despite such agreement of the parties, the defendant

reneged on her duties and refused to vacate the house and its
premises, and also failed to pay her outstanding rentals;

12. Because of this, the plaintiff was constrained to report with the
Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos in Las Piñas City
the fact that the defendant failed to faithfully abide by and comply
with their agreement. A faithful reproduction of the report of
the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos in Las
Piñas City stating the fact of the defendant’s non-compliance
with the agreement is hereto attached as Annex “F” to form an
integral part hereof;

13. Subsequently, due to the defendant’s non-compliance with the

agreement, a “Katibayan Upang Makadulog sa Hukuman”
(Certification to File Action) dated January 7, 2016 was issued by
the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Almanza Dos in Las Piñas
City authorizing the plaintiff to file the necessary action to protect
her rights. A faithful reproduction of the “Katibayan Upang
Makadulog sa Hukuman” (Certification to File Action) is hereto
attached as Annex “G” to form an integral part hereof;

14. Afterwards, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, sent a

demand letter to pay and vacate dated January 14, 2016, through
registered mail and personal service, unto the defendant for the
latter to vacate the house and its premises, and for the defendant
to pay her outstanding rentals. A faithful reproduction of the
Demand Letter to Pay and Vacate dated January 14, 2016 and
 4

the Registry Receipt for the mailing thereof are hereto

attached as Annexes “H” and “I” respectively to form integral
parts hereof;

15. Nevertheless, despite such demand, the defendant still refuses to

this day to vacate the subject house and its premises, making her
possession of the subject property unlawful, and still refuses to
pay her outstanding rentals;

TIMELINESS OF THIS ACTION

16. In the pertinent case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Sunvar

Realty Development Corporation1, the Supreme Court elucidated
on the period for filing an unlawful detainer case, to wit:

In Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes, the Court

recently defined the nature and scope of an
unlawful detainer suit, as follows:

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover

possession of real property from one who
illegally withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold
possession under any contract, express or
implied. The possession by the defendant in
unlawful detainer is originally legal but became
illegal due to the expiration or termination of
the right to possess. The proceeding is summary
in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the
proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The
action must be brought up within one year
from the date of last demand, and the issue
in the case must be the right to physical
possession. (Emphasis supplied.)

Hence, a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause

of action for unlawful detainer if it states the
following elements:

1. Initially, the possession of the property by the

defendant was by contract with or by tolerance
of the plaintiff.

1 G.R. No. 194880, June 20, 2012

 5

2. Eventually, the possession became illegal

upon the plaintiffs notice to the defendant of the
termination of the latter’s right of possession.

3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in

possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the latter’s enjoyment.

4. Within one year from the making of the

last demand on the defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the
Complaint for ejectment. (emphasis supplied)

17. Considering that the final demand for the defendant to vacate the
subject house and its premises, and for the defendant to pay her
outstanding rentals, was made on January 14, 2016, the plaintiff
has one year from such date, or until January 14, 2017, to file the
instant case;

18. The plaintiff has thus timely filed and commenced this action for
unlawful detainer within the prescriptive period;

DAMAGES

19. In order for the plaintiff to protect her rights and interests, she
engaged the legal services of the undersigned counsel and has
bound herself to pay the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P25,000.00) as attorney’s fees plus THREE THOUSAND
PESOS (P3,000.00) per court appearance;

20. Moreover, Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 17. Judgment. — If after trial court finds

that the allegations of the complaint are true, it
shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff
for the restitution of the premises, the sum
justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of
the premises, attorney's fees and costs. If a
counterclaim is established, the court shall
render judgment for the sum found in arrears
from either party and award costs as justice
requires. (emphasis supplied)
 6

21. Further, in the case of Floraida Terana vs. Hon. Antonio de

Sagun, et al.2, the Supreme Court pronounced the following:

The rationale for limiting the kind of damages

recoverable in an unlawful detainer case was
explained in Araos v. Court of Appeals, wherein
the Court held that:

The rule is settled that in forcible entry or

unlawful detainer cases, the only damage
that can be recovered is the fair rental value
or the reasonable compensation for the use
and occupation of the leased property. xxx
xxx (emphasis supplied)

22. As such, for the defendant’s failure and refusal to vacate the
subject property despite repeated demands, the plaintiff is
entitled to the reasonable compensation due as arrears of rent or
as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
premises as damages in the amount of P2,500.00 per month from
the time the defendant’s possession became unlawful until the
final disposition of this case or until the defendant vacates the
subject property.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered in
favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant:

1. To vacate the subject house and its premises;

2. To pay unto the plaintiff the unpaid outstanding rentals in the

amount of P15,000.00;

3. To pay unto the plaintiff the reasonable compensation due as

arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the premises as damages in the amount of
P2,500.00 per month from the time the defendant’s possession
became unlawful until the final disposition of this case or until the
defendant vacates the subject property.

4. To pay the amount of P25,000.00 for the attorney’s fees plus

P3,000.00 per appearance; and

2 G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009

 7

5. To pay the costs of the suit.

Other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable under the
premises are likewise hereby prayed for.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Angeles City for Manila, February 22, 2016.

RIVERA, PERICO AND RIVERA-TAMAYO

LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Respondent
3937 Loredo Building,
McArthur Highway, Balibago, Angeles City
Tel. No. 892-2564

By:

WILLIE B. RIVERA
PTR No. AC- 0720038/1-4-2016/A.C.
IBP LIFETIME OR NO. 00672/9-24-96/PC
Attorney’s Roll No. 38597
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0017524

Complaint/unlawful detainer/Edmond