REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Valenzuela City
Branch ______
SPOUSES GREGORIO and
TIFFANY DUANO,
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO.______

For: Recovery of Possession
with Damages

KMI Kapisanan Ng Mamamayang Ipit,

AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
CLAIMING POSSESSION UNDER
IT,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFS SPOUSES GREGORIO AND TIFFANY
DUANO (Plaintiffs Spouses for brevity), by counsel and unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully state, that:
1. Plaintiffs Spouses are both Filipinos, married, of legal
ages and with residence and postal address at No. 423
Yakal Street, Midtown Executive Homes, United
Nations Avenue, City of Manila, where they may be
served with notices and other processes of the Court;
2. Defendant KMI Kapisanan ng Mamayang Ipit Inc.
(defendant association for brevity), is a domestic
association, duly organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the Philippines with principal
1

office at East Service Road, Lawang Bato, Valenzuela

City (Subject Property for brevity), where it may be
served with summons, notices and other processes of
the Court;
3. Plaintiff Spouses are the legal and absolute owners of
the aforesaid subject property, consisting of a total
area of 3, 426.60 square meters, more or less, covered
and described in Transfer Certificate of Title No.
V-961841, having purchased the same from
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company on April 13,
2012, as evidenced by a duly executed and notarized
Deed of Absolute Sale2. The assessed value of the
property is TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY
NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS
(P 2,569,000.00), copy of the Certified True Copy of
Tax Declaration is hereto attached.
4. Recognizing further Plaintiff Spouses ownership with
concomitant right of possession over the Subject
Property, Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company issued
a Turn-Over letter dated April 16, 20123 in the
formers favor over the said Subject Property;
5. In April 2012, or immediately after the transfer of the
Subject Property to plaintiffs Spouses, the latter
discovered, upon ocular inspection thereon, that the
same was being occupied by the herein named
defendant association and is using the same as their
principal office. In fact, members of the defendant
association have built houses on the subject property
and are using the same as their residence. At that
instance, Plaintiff Spouses informed said defendants
that they are the new owners of the Subject Property;

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEXES A to A-1

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEXES B, B-1, B-2

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEX C

2

6. On 26 September 2012 Plaintiffs Spouses apprised

said defendants that they will have to repossess the
Subject Property as they are in dire need to utilize the
same for the benefit of their family, thus they
demanded defendant to turn-over possession of the
same. Defendant, however, chose to ignore Plaintiffs
Spouses;
7. Thus, on 26 September 2012, Plaintiffs Spouses
initiated a complaint against said defendants before
Purok 1, Zone 3, Barangay 12, Lawang Bato,
Valenzuela City. There being no amicable settlement
having been arrived at during the Barangay
conciliation despite series of hearings thereon, a
Pagpapatunay Upang Makapagsampa Ng Usapin4
was issued on 06 November 2012;
8. Plaintiffs Spouses also sent Defendant a Letter dated
01 December 20125, addressed to its President Irene
Manalangkay and to the members of the Defendant
which was duly received on 11 December 20126
formally demanding them in writing to vacate the
Subject Property. Despite due receipt of said Notice the
Defendant unlawfully refused and still continuously
refuse to immediately vacate and peacefully turn-over
possession of the Subject Property to Plaintiffs
Spouses, to the latters continuing detriment and
prejudice;
9. The controversy reached the City Government of
Valenzuela and prevailed upon the parties to further
explore the possibility of an amicable settlement on the
matter. Exploratory discussions have had between the
parties upon the intervention of the City Government
of Valenzuela, through the Office of the City Mayor, but
4

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEX D

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEX E.

Copies of the Registry Receipt dated 03 December 2012 and the front
and dorsal portions of the Registry Return Card are hereto attached as
ANNEX F and ANNEXES G to G-1, respectively
6

which discussions,
settlement;

ultimately

resulted

to

failed

10. Consequently, District 1, Zone 3, Barangay 12,

Lawang Bato, Valenzuela, issued a Certification7,
attesting to the failed settlement between the parties,
the interventions of the City Government of Valenzuela
for the parties to amicably settle the controversy and
the renewal and reconfirmation of the authority to file
action in court;
11. Hence, this Complaint;
CAUSES OF ACTION
A. ACCION PUBLICIANA

13.
In the case of Vda. De Aguilar vs. Spouses Alfaro8,
the Supreme Court discussed the nature and purpose of
accion publiciana, thus: Also known as accion plenaria
de possession, accion publiciana is an ordinary civil
proceeding to determine the better right of possession
of realty independently of title. It refers to an
ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year
from the accrual of the cause of action or from the
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
14. Accion Publiciana is the plenary action to
recover the right of possession which should be brought
when the dispossession lasted for more than one year. It
is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better
right of possession of realty independently of title. In
other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint
more than one year had elapsed since defendant had
turned plaintiff out of possession or defendants
7

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEX E

G.R. No. 164402 July 5, 2010

possession had become illegal, the action will be, not

one of forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion
publiciana.9
1. Defendants
possession
by way of tolerance
terminated
when
Plaintiffs
Spouses
apprised them of the
latters need to repossess
the Subject Property and
demanded
that
they
should accordingly turnover possession thereof
to Plaintiffs Spouses:
14. Defendants possession of the Subject Property was
initially tolerated by Plaintiffs Spouses, when, upon the
latters inspection thereof in April 2012, immediately after
its transfer of ownership to them by Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Company, the Plaintiffs Spouses discovered that the
same was being occupied by the herein defendant
association and its members, as in fact, they have built
structures and improvements thereon, and accordingly,
introduced themselves as new owners thereof;
15. At that instance and for several months thereafter, said
defendant enjoyed possession over the subject property by
mere tolerance;

16.
However, such possession by way of tolerance
terminated when on 26 September 2012, Plaintiffs Spouses
apprised them of their dire need to repossess the Subject
Property and demanded that they should accordingly
peacefully turn-over possession thereof to Plaintiff Spouses;

Civil Procedure (A Restatement for the Bar) Riano, p. 720. Citing the case of Valdez
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132424, May 2, 2006.

17.

In point is Roxas v. Court of Appeals, et.al. 10, viz:

It bears stressing that possession by
tolerance is lawful but such possession
becomes unlawful when the possessor by
tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand
made by the owner.

18.
Plaintiffs Spouses, being the true and absolute
owners of the Subject Property, are clothed with rights to
demand defendant to vacate the same;
19.
Thus, said defendants possession by tolerance
ceased to be as such and lawful when it unreasonably
refused to vacate the same despite Plaintiffs Spouses
demand in 26 September 2012 for it to immediately turnover possession thereof to them;
2. Notice
is
given
to
defendants to surrender
possession
of
the
Subject Property:
20.
Plaintiffs Spouses sent defendant a Letter dated 01
December 201211, which it duly received on 11 December
2012,12 thru its President Irene Manalangkay demanding
them to vacate the Subject Property;
21.
Instead of heeding this lawful demand, and even
after failed settlement during the mandatory Barangay
conciliation proceedings and in the conferences at the City
Government of Valenzuela, through the Office of the Mayor,
defendant held on to the Subject Property. Hence, Plaintiffs
Spouses were constrained to send another formal Notice of
Final Demand to Vacate dated 05 September 2013.13
10

11

G.R. No. 138955, October 29, 2002

Copy is hereto attached as ANNEX E

12

Defendant duly received its respective copy of said Notice on

07 September 2013 thru its President Irene Manalangkay;
22.
Despite repeated demands, however, defendant
continued in their unlawful and unjustified deprivation of
Plaintiffs Spouses possession of the Subject Property to the
latters continuing damage and detriment;
3. Dispossession has
lasted for more than
one (1) year from the
accrual of the cause
of action or from the
unlawful withholding
of realty.
23.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to
recover the right of possession when dispossession has
lasted for more than one year.14
24.
In the case of Vda. De Aguilar vs. Alfaro15, it was
held that:
Also known as accion plenaria de
possession, Accion Publiciana is an
ordinary civil proceeding to determine
the better right of possession of realty
independently of title. It refers to an
ejectment suit filed after the expiration
of one year from the accrual of the
cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the
realty.

13

14

Heirs of Fernando Vinzons vs. Court of Appeals, et.al G.R. No. 111915, September
30, 1999
15

G.R. Mo. 164402, July 5, 2010.

25.
Applying
the
foregoing
jurisprudential
pronouncements in this case, the defendants possession of
the subject property became unlawful when they received
from Plaintiffs Spouses their formal letter of last demand to
vacate the Subject Property and pay reasonable rental fees
on 07 September 2013 and still refused and continues to
refuse up until the filing of this complaint, to vacate the
Subject Property and turn it over peacefully to the Plaintiffs
Spouses.
26.
Prescinding from above, the above-named defendant
and all other persons claiming possession under it, should
be ordered to peacefully, voluntarily and immediately
VACATE the Subject Property and TURN-OVER the
possession thereof to Plaintiffs Spouses;
B. RENTAL FEES, INTERESTS, ATTORNEYS FEES AND
COSTS OF SUIT
27.
Due to defendants obstinate and unlawful refusal to
vacate the Subject Property, Plaintiffs Spouses have
suffered and shall continue to suffer actual losses resulting
from undue deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the
economic viability of the property;
28.
As such, the above-named defendant and all other
persons claiming possession under it should be ordered to
pay Plaintiff Spouses monthly rental fee in the amount of
Three Thousand Pesos (Php 3,000.00) with interest at the
prevailing legal rate, for the reasonable use of said property,
to be computed from April 2012, until the above-named
defendant and all persons claiming possession under them,
peacefully vacate the Subject Property;
29.
Since Plaintiffs Spouses were compelled to engage
the services of a counsel to protect their interests and
enforce their rights over the Subject Property, defendants
should be adjudged to pay Plaintiffs Spouses attorneys fees
in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
8

(Php 20,000.00), appearance fee in the amount of THREE

THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,000.00) per hearing, plus costs
of suit and litigation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment
be rendered in favor of Plaintiffs Spouses, as follows:
1. Ordering defendant and all persons claiming
possession under it, to peacefully, voluntarily and
immediately VACATE the Subject Property and TURNOVER possession thereof to Plaintiffs Spouses;
2. Ordering EACH defendant to pay Plaintiffs Spouses
monthly rental fee in the amount of Three Thousand
Pesos (Php 3,000.00), with interest at the prevailing
legal rate, from April 2012, until the above-named
defendant and all persons claiming possession under
them to peacefully vacate the Subject Property;
3. Ordering defendants to pay Plaintiffs Spouses the
amount
of
TWENTY
THOUSAND
PESOS
(Php 20,000.00) as attorneys fees and THREE
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,000.00), as appearance
fee per hearing;
4. Ordering defendants to pay Plaintiffs Spouses cost of
suit and other litigation expenses.
Other reliefs as are just and equitable under the
premises are equally prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
____ day of ______ 2014, Valenzuela City, Philippines.
CALOCHAN & ASSOCIATES
(Counsel for the Spouses Plaintiffs)
No.35 MacArthur Highway,
Marulas, Valenzuela City

By:
ALFREDO B. CALOCHAN
PTR No. VC 2744138; 17 Jan 14; Valenzuela City
IBP 949747; 02 Jan14; Manila III
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0011388
Roll No. 11746

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF ____________________ ) S.S.
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM HOPPING
WE, SPOUSES GREGORIO and TIFFANY DUANO, Filipinos,
of legal age, with address located at No. 423 Yakal Street, Midtown
Executive Homes, United Nations Avenue, City of Manila, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and
state, that:
1. We are the Complainants in the above captioned case;
2 We have caused the filing and preparation of the foregoing
Complaint which we have fully read and understood;
3. We hereby affirm that the factual allegations contained in the
foregoing Complaint are true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic documents and records;
4. That we have not commenced heretofore any other action or
proceeding, or filed any claim involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, or in any
court, tribunal or agency. To the best of our knowledge, no such other
action, proceeding, or claim is pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, or any division thereof, or in any court, tribunal, or
agency;
5. If we should hereafter learn that a similar action, proceeding
or claim has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, or any division thereof, or in any court, tribunal, or
agency, I undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court of the
fact within five [5] days from notice thereof.
Affiant further sayeth naught.
10

DONE THIS ____ day of___________________, in

_________________, Philippines.
GREGORIO DUANO
Affiant

TIFFANY DUANO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ______ day of

______ , by affiants, who are both personally known to the
undersigned and exhibited to me their competent proofs of identity
written below their respective names.

11