Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.

Oposa Law Office for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth." The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of our environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners. 1 The complaint 2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the Court." The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." 4 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be rendered:
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to (1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country; (2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements.

and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises."
5

The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect." Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial. As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
CAUSE OF ACTION 7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations. 8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests constituting roughly 53% of the country's land mass.

9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained no more than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of the country's land area. 10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary growth forests. 11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors have granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million hectares for commercial logging purposes. A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas covered is hereto attached as Annex "A". 12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour nighttime, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included the Philippines will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing decade, if not earlier. 13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious injury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and to generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults. 14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs especially plaintiff minors and their successors who may never see, use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural resource treasure. This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations. 15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae. 16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with the defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits in the country. A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as Annex "B". 17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to the continuing serious damage and extreme prejudice of plaintiffs. 18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines had been abundantly blessed with.

19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, states that it is the policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other; (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos and; (c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977) 20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional policy of the State to a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution); b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid); c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV, id.); d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.) 21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of humankind the natural law and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation. 22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the instant action to arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and 6 continued rape of Mother Earth.

On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. 7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political question sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.

Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their children, but have also joined the latter in this case. 8 On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners filed a reply thereto. Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to selfpreservation and self-perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a healthful environment. It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question. Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by the State when the public interest so requires. On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should be permitted in the country is a political question which should be properly addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally. As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA remains

effective for a certain period of time usually for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would be violative of the requirements of due process. Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former. This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the petition. After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx

After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint, the Court cannot help but agree with the defendant. For although we believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeking to enforce and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are seeking to prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague assumptions and vague conclusions based on unverified data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its Complaint against the herein defendant. Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before it, being impressed with political color and involving a matter of public policy, may not be taken cognizance of by this Court without doing violence to the sacred principle of "Separation of Powers" of the three (3) co-equal branches of the Government. The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise 11 would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law.

We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions. The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in the preceding section of the same article: Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their

continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question:
MR. VILLACORTA: Does this section mandate the State to provide sanctions against all forms of pollution air, water and noise pollution? MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Madam President. The right to healthful (sic) environment necessarily carries with it the correlative duty of not impairing the same and, therefore, sanctions may be provided for impairment of 12 environmental balance.

The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the country's forests. Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be irreversiby disrupted. Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the following statement of policy:
Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, renewal, and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and equitable access of the different segments of the population to the development and the use of the country's natural resources, not only for the present generation but for future generations as well. It is also

the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value system including social and environmental cost implications relative to their utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources.

This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, 15 specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. (1) The State shall ensure, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources, consistent with the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and the objective of making the exploration, development and utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to the different segments of the present as well as future generations. (2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value system that takes into account social and environmental cost implications relative to the utilization, development and conservation of our natural resources.

The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher authority. Said section provides:
Sec. 2. Mandate. (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of the foregoing policy. (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's natural resources.

Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and wellbeing." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding generations." 17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to the said policy.

Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect and advance the said right. A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or granted. A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the 18 defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in disrepute." After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments under the subheading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties. The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says:
The first part of the authority represents the traditional concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part of the authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review what was before forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government. As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave abuse of discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or contract according to the disposition of the judiciary.

In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted:
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from revolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: . . .

The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the nonimpairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license agreements. For to do otherwise 24 would amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the fundamental law.

We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides:

. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted herein . . .

Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right protested by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
. . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case. A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).

We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26
. . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause [ See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].

Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
27

cannot be invoked. In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and healthful

ecology, promoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp. 28 this Court stated:
The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare.

The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, 30 to wit:
Under our form of government the use of property and the making of contracts are normally matters of private and not of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the public to regulate it in the common interest.

In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state.

31

Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right. WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license agreements. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur. Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions

FELICIANO, J., concurring I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying. The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the concept of "class" here involved membership in this "class" appears to embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the future it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for future determination in an appropriate case. The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping

of organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 all appear to be formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, Section 16 ("the right to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health"). P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific environment management policies" and "environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide range of topics:
(a) air quality management; (b) water quality management; (c) land use management; (d) natural resources management and conservation embracing: (i) fisheries and aquatic resources; (ii) wild life; (iii) forestry and soil conservation; (iv) flood control and natural calamities; (v) energy development; (vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water (vii) mineral resources

Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.

As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here. My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss. It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter. The second is a broader-gauge consideration where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:
Section 1. . . . Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)

When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments the legislative and executive departments must

be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene. My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist. I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.

Separate Opinions

FELICIANO, J., concurring I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by this Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and management of the environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying. The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the concept of "class" here involved membership in this "class" appears to embrace everyone living in the country whether now or in the future it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with

the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left for future determination in an appropriate case. The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in scope and generalized in character than a right to "a balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of emission of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 all appear to be formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, Section 16 ("the right to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right to health"). P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific environment management policies" and "environment quality standards" (fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide range of topics:
(a) air quality management; (b) water quality management; (c) land use management; (d) natural resources management and conservation embracing: (i) fisheries and aquatic resources;

(ii) wild life; (iii) forestry and soil conservation; (iv) flood control and natural calamities; (v) energy development; (vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water (vii) mineral resources

Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code. As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are too large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here. My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more specific legal right a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution that is or may be violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the general policy principles found in the Constitution and the existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss. It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.

The second is a broader-gauge consideration where a specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:
Section 1. . . . Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)

When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and experience and professional qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the policy making departments the legislative and executive departments must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement them before the courts should intervene. My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly assume), what will those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances which exist. I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
#

Footnotes
1 Rollo, 164; 186. 2 Id., 62-65, exclusive of annexes.

3 Under Section 12, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court. 4 Rollo, 67. 5 Id., 74. 6 Rollo, 70-73. 7 Annex "B" of Petitions; Id., 43-44. 8 Paragraph 7, Petition, 6; Rollo, 20. 9 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1986, 1508. 10 Title XIV (Environment and Natural Resources), Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, E.O. No. 292. 11 Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, 43-44. 12 Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 4, 913. 13 For instance, the Preamble and Article XII on the National Economy and Patrimony. 14 The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 15 E.O. No. 292. 16 Section 1. 17 Section 2. 18 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666 [1947]; Community Investment and Finance Corp. vs. Garcia, 88 Phil. 215 [1951]; Remitere vs. Vda. de Yulo, 16 SCRA 251 [1966]; Caseas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462 [1967]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 202 SCRA 680 [1991]; Madrona vs. Rosal, 204 SCRA 1 [1991]. 19 Section 1(q), Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court. 20 Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529 [1968]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayn, supra; Madrona vs. Rosal, supra. 21 39 SCRA 473, 479 [1971]. 22 1991 ed., 226-227. 23 180 SCRA 496, 501-502 [1989]. See also, Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990]; Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844 [1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767 [1991]. 24 Rollo, 44.

25 125 SCRA 302, 325 [1983]. 26 190 SCRA 673, 684 [1990]. 27 Article III, 1987 Constitution. 28 110 Phil. 198, 203 [1960]; footnotes omitted. 29 291 U.S. 502, 523, 78 L. ed. 940, 947-949. 30 22 SCRA 135, 146-147 [1968]. 31 Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 [1950]; Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp. supra.; Phil. American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General, supra.; Alalayan vs. NPC, 24 SCRA 172[1968]; Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54 [1974]; Kabiling vs. National Housing Authority, 156 SCRA 623 [1987].

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

SAMPLES OF BASIC LEGAL FORMS

I.

CAPTIONS

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Blg.129), all courts except the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals were abolished and the following Courts were created: Intermediate Appellate Court; Regional Trial Court created in 13 Judicial Regions including the National Capital Regions and other areas as may be established by law; Municipal Trial Courts in cities and municipalities; and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Under Executive Order No. 3 dated 1986, the Intermediate Appellate Court was renamed the Court of Appeals. The following are representative samples of Caption filed in said courts:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Manila, Branch 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Bangued, Abra (Branch 1)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF METRO MANILA Manila, Branch 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Dagupan City, (Branch 1)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Lingayen, Pangasinan

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FIRST JUDICIAL REGION MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT Sison, Pangasinan

JUAN DELA CRUZ Plaintiff, Civil Case No.________ -versusFor Sum of Money

PEDRO SANTOS Defendant.

X------------------------------------------X

II.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT; JURAT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Simple form)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES} PROVINCE OF MUNICIPALITY } SS }

BEFORE ME, this_____ day of _________, 2001 in the Municipality of _________________, Province of _____________, Philippines, personally appeared _______________________ , with Residence Certificate No. _______ issued at ________, on _______________ , and B.I.R. Tax Account No.________ known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal, the day, year, and place above written.

Notary Public

My Commission expires Dec. 31, 2001 IBP No. ________, 1/2/2001, Pasig City P.T.R. No. ______, 2/2/2001, Pasig City Doc. No. _____; Page No. ____;

Book No. _____ Series of 20___

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSTRUMENT CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE PAGES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) PROVINCE OF ______________ ) MUNICIPALITY OF _____________)

S.S.

BEFORE ME this _____ day of _______________, 2001 in the Municipality of _________________, Province of ____________, Philippines, personally appeared ______________________, with Community Tax Certificate No. _________ issued at ________________ on ________________ and T.I.N. No. ________, known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and he acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed.

This instrument, consisting of _____ pages, including the page on which this acknowledgement is written , he has been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by __________________ and his witness, and sealed with my notarial seal.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, the day, the year, and the place above written.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires Dec. 31, 2001 IBP No. ______, 1/2/2001, Pasig City P.T.R. No. ____, 2/2/2001, Pasig City

Doc. No. _____; Page No. _____; Book No. _____; Series of 20____

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me, in the Municipality of ________, this ____th day of ______, 19 ____ by, _______ with Community Certificate No. _____ issued at _____ on ______, 2001.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Comission expires Dec. 31, 2001 IBP No. ______, 1/2/2001, Pasig City P.T.R. No.____, 2/2/2001, Pasig City

Doc. No._____; Page No._____;

Book No._____; Series of 20____.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING VERIFICATION JUAN DELA CRUZ, subscribing under oath, hereby deposes and states that:

I am the petitioner in the instant case.

I have read the foregoing Petition and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own knowledge and/or based on the records on hand.

I attest to the authenticity of the annexes thereof.

CERTIFICATION I certify that: a. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. b. No such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency.

c. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to notify this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such notice. _______________________ JUAN DELA CRUZ

JURAT

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION (Certification of Non-Forum Shopping incorporated with Verification for a petition for certiorari)

JUAN DELA CRUZ subscribing under oath, hereby deposes and states that: He is a petitioner (or respondent/plaintiff/defendant) in this case. He has read the foregoing petition, and the allegations contained therein are true and correct of his own knowledge and/or based on authentic records. He attests to the authenticity of the annexes thereof. Petitioner has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; No such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; If petitioner should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he hereby undertakes to notify this Honorable Court within 5 days therefrom.

_______________ JUAN DELA CRUZ

Petitioner SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of January 2000 in the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax Certificate No. 12345678 issued on January 3, 2000 in the City of Manila.

_________________ MARIA A. SANTOS Notary Public My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 2001 IBP No. _______, 1/16/2001, Pasig City PTR No. _______, 1/2/2001, Pasig City

Doc. No. ____ Page No. ____ Book No. ____ Series of 20___

Copy Furnished:

1. Perez & Matias Law Offices 49 Dapitan St. , Sampaloc Mla. (addressed to the Counsel of the adverse party)

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

This Certifies that personal service was not resorted to for the reason that due to time, distance and manpower constraints, the same is not practicable. _________________ Counsel

III.

AFFIDAVITS AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

Republic of the Philippines Province Of Municipality of I, ___________________, of legal age, single/married, residing ____________, after being sworn in accordance with law, depose and say: That I am the true owner of _______________, described as follows to wit: (Description of property) That the said automobile had been duly registered in my name in the Land Transportation Office in ___________ for the year (or years) ____________; That the certificate of registration and other pertinent papers of ownership of said automobile were among those burned and destroyed on ____________ when my house and all my personal belongings were completely destroyed by fire; That said papers are now beyond recovery. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ________ day of ________, 20__, in the Municipality of ____________, Province of __________, Philippines. ______________________ (Signature of affiant) JURAT at

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Republic of the Philippines City of Manila AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, ___________________, as messenger of Atty. ______________, with office address at ___________________, after being duly sworn, depose and says: That on ________________,2001 I served a copy of the following pleading/paper by registered mail in accordance with Sec. 10 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Nature of Pleading/Paper ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ in Case No. ____________ entitled _________________________ by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party (or his attorney) at his residence (or office) with postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _______________ attached and with instructions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this_____ day of______, 2001, in the Municipality of__________, Province of_________, Philippines. _______________________ Signature of Affiant

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INJUNCTION REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MANILA ) S.S.

X, of legal age and resident of the City of Manila, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says:

That he is the Plaintiff in the above entitled case and is entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint in whole or in part and such other relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of either for a limited period or perpetually;

That the commission or continuance of the acts complained of during the litigation will work injury to herein plaintiff and that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done the acts tending to render the judgment ineffectual;

And that he is willing and ready to file a bond in the amount which may be fixed by the Court to the effect that he, the plaintiff, will pay the defendant all the damages which the latter may sustain by reason of the injunction if the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

_______________________ Affiant

JURAT

COMPLAINT WITH PRAYER FOR ATTACHMENT (NOTE: First, state the facts showing plaintiffs right to attach defendants properties)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MANILA )S.S.

AFFIDAVIT X, of legal age and a resident of the City of Manila, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says: That he is the Plaintiff in the above entitled case;

That there is sufficient cause of action;

That the defendant has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so with intent to defraud his creditor, the herein plaintiff-affiant;

That he is filing a bond in the amount of P_________________;

That the amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum which the order is prayed for above all legal counterclaims.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

_____________________ Affiant

JURAT

AFFIDAVIT IN PETITION FOR RECEIVERSHIP REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MANILA )S.S.

AFFIDAVIT A, of legal age, married and a resident of the City of Manila, Philippines, after having duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says: That he is the Plaintiff in the above titled case and that he has read the foregoing complaint and that the facts therein stated are true and correct;

That he is the owner of the estate as pro-indiviso owner of the same with the defendant;

That the defendant is in actual physical possession of the property in litigation and as such, he is in control of the produce of the said property pending litigation;

That the produce or income from said property are in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured unless a receiver be appointed to guard and preserve the same, and the defendant is not only hostile to the plaintiff but also shows his demands to exclude said plaintiff from all the products or proceeds coming from the said property;

That the defendant is hopelessly insolvent for he is heavily indebted to various persons;

That he is willing and ready to file a bond in the amount which this Honorable Court may fix in favor of the defendant against whom this receivership is presented to the effect that he, the plaintiff will pay to the said defendant all damages which he will sustain by reason of the appointment of receiver in case the plaintiff shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause, and such other bonds which this Honorable Court may require him to file hereafter, as security for such damages. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

______________________ (Affiant) JURAT

SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY

Republika ng Pilipinas ) Lalawigan ng Rizal ) Bayan ng Cainta )

s. s.

SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY AKO, JUAN DELA CRUZ, 30 taong gulang, binata at naninirahan sa Brgy. San Roque, Cainta Rizal, matapos makapanumpa ng ayon sa batas ay malaya at kusang loob na nagpapahayag ng mga sumusunod: 1. Na ako ang nagmamay-ari na isang Honda Civic na kotse, kulay pula, modelo 1999, na nagtataglay ng makina na may numero bilang 00000. 2. Na noong ika-12 ng Mayo, taong kasalukuyan, nagpunta ako sa SM Megamall sa may EDSA upang bumili ng libro. Iniwan ko ang nasabing sasakyan sa parking lot sa harapan SM ngunit nang ako ay bumalik sa naturang parking lot ay wala na roon ang aking sasakyan.

3. Na matapos ang ilang oras na masusing paghahanap, sa tulong ng mga guwardiya ns SM, ay hindi ko natagpuan ang aking sasakyan. Marahil ito ay na-carnap . 4. Na ginawa ko ang Sinumpaang Salaysay na ito upang aking patunayan ang buong katotohanan ng aking salaysay na nasa itaas at paninidigan ko ito saan man at kanino pa man.

SA KATUNAYAN ay nilagdaan ko ito ngayong ika-15 ng Mayo, 2000, dito sa Cainta Rizal. _______________________ JUAN DELA CRUZ SINUMPAAN AT NILAGDAAN sa harap ko ngayong ika-15 ng Mayo, 2000 dito sa Cainta Rizal. _______________________ MARIA SANTOS Notaryo Publiko Hanggang Disyembre 31,2001 IBP No. _____, 1/2/2001, Pasig City PTR No. ____ 1/15/2001, Pasig City Kasulatan Blg. ____ Pahina Blg. ____ Aklat Blg. ______ Serye ng 20____

IV.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS PROMISSORY NOTE

(Date) P_____________ ____________________, Philippines

________ months (or days) after date, I promise to pay, for value received, to _____________________ or order the sum of _______________________PESOS,

with interest at ______percent per annum after maturity until paid. The makers and indorsers severally waive presentment for payment, protest, and notice of non-payment of this note. _____________________ Maker

BILLS OF EXCHANGE Manila, May ______, 2000

For value received, pay to _________________________ or order the sum of ___________________(P__________) PESOS, Philippine Currency, and charge the same to the account of.

(Signature of Drawer)

TO: (Name of Drawee) Address

CHECK No. __________________

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK Manila, Philippines

Manila, Philippines ____________, 2001

PAY to ______________________________ or order/bearer PESOS ______________________________

_____________________ (Signature)

P __________________________ (Philippine Currency)

V.

CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS

LEGAL (CONVEYANCING) FORMS (Note: if the deed/ contract is unilateral i.e., when the vendee assumes no obligation, thee is no need for the vendee to sign the contract/ deed nor the acknowledgment; however, if vendee is obliged to perform something, he must sign both the deed and the acknowledgment.)

DEED OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, (Full name of vendor), filipino citizen, single/married to ___________________, of legal age with residence and post-office address at _______________________;

For and in consideration of the sum of __________________ PESOS (P_______), Philippine currency, to in hand paid by (Full name of vendee) filipino citizen, of legal age, with residence and post office address at ______________, Do hereby SELL, TRANSFER, AND CONVEY, absolutely and unconditionally, unto the said __________________ his/her heirs and assigns, that certain parcel (or parcels of lands, together with the buildings and improvements thereon), situated in (city or municipality, and province), and more particularly described as follows, to wit:

(Description of property)

of which I am the registered owner in fee simple in accordance with the Land Registration Act, my title thereto being evidenced by Transfer (or Original) Certificate of Title No. ________, issued by the Register of Deeds of ___________. It is hereby mutually agreed that the vendee shall bear all the expenses for the execution and registration of this deed of sale.

IN WITNESSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this deed of sale, this _______day of _________, 20______ at (city or municipality), Philippines.

_____________________ (Vendor)

_________________ (Vendee)

With my marital consent (if married):

________________ (Vendors wife)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

__________________________ (Witness)

_____________________________ (Witness)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

DEED OF SALE UNDER PACTO DE RETRO KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro made and executed by and between:

(full name of vendor), Filipino , of legal age, single (or married to _________________), with residence and post-office address at _______________________, hereinafter called the VENDOR, and

(full name of vendee), Filipino, of legal age, single (or married to _________________), with residence and post-office address at _______________________, hereinafter called the VENDEE.

That the VENDOR is the absolute owner of a certain parcel with all the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in ____________________, and more particularly described as follows, to wit:

(copy description stated in the certificate of title),

his title being evidenced by Transfer (or Original) Certificate of Title (or TCT/OCT) No. ________ issued by the Register of Deeds of ____________________; That the VENDOR, a retro, in executing this conveyance, hereby reserves the right to REPURCHASE and the VENDEE, in accepting the same, hereby obligates himself to RESELL, the property herein conveyed within the period of _______ years from and after the date of this instrument, for the same price of ________________________ PESOS (P________), Philippine currency; Provided, however, that if the VENDOR shall fail to exercise his right to repurchase as herein granted within the period stipulated, then this conveyance shall become absolute and irrevocable, without the necessity of drawing up a new deed of absolute sale, subject to the requirements of the law regarding consolidation of ownership of real property.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands this ______ day of _________________, 2001, in ____________________, Philippines.

____________________________ (Vendor)

__________________________ (Vendee)

With my marital consent (If married):

_____________________________ (Vendors wife)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_____________________________ ____________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

DEED OF SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, ______________, of legal age, single, Filipino, residing and with postal address at ____________________ for and in consideration of the sum of P __________ have transferred and conveyed by way of absolute sale unto ________ Honda CRV car with plate No. ______, Motor No. ________, Chassis No. ______, of which I am the absolute owner, free from all liens and encumbrances.

_______________ Seller

WITNESSES: _____________________

_____________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

CONTRACT OF SALE INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, ______________, of legal age, Filipino, residing and with postal address at ________________ for and in consideration of the sum of P __________ receipt of which is hereby acknowledged have transferred and conveyed by way of absolute sale unto ___________ of legal age, Filipino, residing at and with postal address at ________________ that parcel of land with the improvements thereon whose technical description is as follows: (Copy of description) of which I am the absolute owner, my title thereto being evidenced by TCT No. _______ of the Register of Deeds of _____________ free from all liens and encumbrances.

Seller

In the presence of:_____________________ __________________________

(NOTE: Unilateral no need for the vendee to sign, however, if vendee is obliged to perform something, he must sign.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF MANILA ) S.S.

In the City of Manila, this ____ day of ______,2001, personally appeared before me _____________ with Community Tax Certificate No. ________ on _____19 ____ issued at______ on ______, 20_____, known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument of sale over one parcel of land, which instrument consists of two (2) pages including the page on which this acknowledgment appears and signed on the left margin of each and every page by the party executing this instrument and his witnesses. Said party acknowledges to me that the same is his voluntary act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal at the City of Manila on this _____ day of _____, 20____.

NOTARY PUBLIC My Comission expires Dec. 31, 2001 IBP No. ______, 1/2/2001, Pasig City P.T.R. No.____, 2/2/2001, Pasig City

Doc. No. ______; Page No.______; Book No. ______; Series of 20____ ;

LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY 1. This agreement entered into by and between (state the parties: lessor and lessee) 2. In consideration of the rent and other covenants hereinafter set forth, the LESSOR hereby leases to the LESSEE that the residential house located at ____________ belonging to the LESSOR and covered by TCT No. _____. 3. The term of this lease shall be for a period of _________. 4. Rent shall be paid at the rate of P______ per month within the first five (5) days of each month. 5. Major and minor repairs shall be for the account of the LESSOR. 6. Taxes and assessments shall be for the account of the LESSOR, while expenses for lights, water and other utilities shall be for the account of the LESSEE.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF..

_____________________ (Lessor)

_________________ (Lessee)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

LEASE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That A, of legal age, married and residing in the City of Manila, Philippines, hereby agrees to lease his Honda Civic car model 1999 with Plate No._______, Motor No. _________and Chassisl No._______ to B, of legal age, married and residing in the City of Manila, who hereby accepts to lease above described motor vehicle, subject to the following terms and conditions : (State terms and conditions)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF

__________________ (Lessor )

__________________ (Lessee)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, (full name of mortgagor), Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to ___________________, and with residence and post-office address at ___________________, for and in consideration of a loan in the sum of ___________________ PESOS (P____________), Philippine currency, to me in hand paid by (full name of the mortgagee), Filipino, of legal age, single/married to ___________________, and with residence and post-office address at ___________________, do hereby convey, by way of MORTGAGE unto the said (full name of the mortgagee), his/her heirs and assigns, that certain parcel of land, together with all the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in ____________________, particularly described as follows:

(Description of property)

of which real property I am the registered owner evidenced by Original/Transfer Certificate of Title No._________ of the Land Registry of _____________: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if I the said (full name of mortgagor) shall pay or cause to be paid to said (Full name of mortgagee), his heirs or assigns, the said sum of _________________ PESOS (P____________), within the period of ______________ (____) years from and after the execution of this MORTGAGE together with the interest thereon at the rate of _________ per centum (____%) per annum, this MORTGAGE shall be discharged and of no effect; OTHERWISE, it shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable in the manner provided for by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this _____ day of ______________, 20____, in _______________, Philippines.

________________ ( Mortgagor)

_________________ (Mortgagee)

With my marital consent (if married:)

____________________ (Wife of Mortgagor)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

__________________________

_____________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

CHATTEL MORTGAGE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This CHATTEL MORTGAGE, made and executed by (Full name of mortgagor), Filipino, of legal age, single (or married to mortgagor), with residence and post-office address at ___________________ hereinafter called the MORTGAGOR, in favor of (full name of mortgagee), Filipino, of legal age, single (or married to ______________), with residence and post-office address at ________________ hereinafter called the MORTGAGEE, witnesseth:

That the MORTGAGOR does hereby convey by way of chattel mortgage unto the MORTGAGEE, the following described personal property, situated and ordinarily presently in the possession of the said MORTGAGOR, to wit _____________________

(specify and describe the article or articles mortgaged).

That this CHATTEL MORTAGE is given as security for the payment of the MORTGAGEE, of a certain promissory note, dated _____________ for the sum of ______________ PESOS (P________) with interest thereon at the rate of ___________ per centum (_____%) per annum, according to the terms thereof.

(copy of the promissory note)

That the condition of this CHATTEL MORTGAGE is such that if the said MORTGAGOR, his heirs, executors, or administrators shall well and truly perform the full obligation above stated according to the terms thereof, this CHATTEL MORTGAGE shall be null and void, otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the MORTGAGOR has hereunto set his hand this______ day of ________, 20____, in _______________, Philippines.

__________________ (Mortgagor)

_________________ (Mortgagee)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

__________________________

____________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD FAITH

We, the undersigned MORTGAGOR and MORTGAGEE, severally swear that the foregoing chattel mortgage is made and executed for the purpose of securing the obligation specified therein, and for no other purpose, and that the same is a just and valid obligation, and one not entered into for the purposes of fraud.

__________________________ (Mortgagor)

_____________________________ (Mortgagee)

JURAT

EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This AGREEMENT OF EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY, entered into this ______ day of ______________, 2001 by and between A owner of the dominant estate, of legal age, single (or married to ___________________) and a resident of _________________ and B , owner of the servient estate, also of legal age, single (or married to ____________________), and a resident of ________________________ witnesseth:

That A is the owner of a parcel of agricultural land located in the municipality of ________________, province of ________________, and more particularly described as follows, to wit:

(Description of As property)

which property is covered by T.C.T. No. ________ of the Register of Deeds of ______________, province of _______________, which lot is adjacent to As property, and more particularly described as follows, to wit: (Description of Bs property)

which property is covered by T.C.T. No. _____________ of the Register of Deeds of the province of _____________________. That A in order to have an access to and from, and to cultivate the above mentioned land, and so as to have an outlet to ________________, which is the nearest public road and least burdensome to the servient estate and to third persons, it would be necessary for him to pass through Bs property, and for this purpose, a path or passageway of not less than two (2) meters wide through the whole length of the western side of Bs property is necessary for the use of A and for all his needs in cultivating his estate;

That said path or passageway is particularly described in the attached plan, Annex A,

WHEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of _____________________ PESOS (P_________) the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by B, the latter agrees and permits A to have a permanent easement of right of way over the above mentioned property of said B limited to not more than two (2) meters wide throughout the whole length of the western side of said property and as specifically indicated in the attached plan which is made an integral part of this contract, as Annex A.

It is further agreed that B shall deliver unto A all t he necessary papers, deed, and titles in relation to the servient estate in order to facilitate the registration of the above-mentioned right of way, in accordance with.

This agreement shall be binding between the parties and upon all their heirs, successors, and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement the day and the year first above written, in the municipality of _______________, province of _______________, Philippines.

__________________________

__________________________

(Signature of owner of the dominant estate)

(Signature of owner of servient estate)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

__________________________

___________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

POWER OF ATTORNEY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, ___________________, of legal age, single (or married to ______________), resident of ________________, do hereby name, constitute and appoint ___________________, to be my true and lawful attorney, for me and in my name, place and stead to do and perform the following acts and things, to wit: To ask, demand, sue for, recover or collect any and all sums of money and other things of value of whatever nature or kind as may now be or hereafter become due, owing , payable or belonging to me, and to have, sue, and to take any and all lawful ways and means for the recovery thereof by suit. To make, sign, execute, and deliver contracts, documents, agreements, and other writings of whatever nature.

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said Attorney full power and authority whatsoever requisite or necessary or proper to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, with power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying and confirming that all that my said attorney or his substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done under and by virtue of these presents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _______ day of ________________, 2001, in ________________, Philippines. _______________________ (Principal)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: _________________________ _______________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, _________________________, of legal age, single (or married to _________________), resident of ____________________, do hereby name, constitute and appoint __________________, of legal age, single or married), resident of _______________, to be my true and lawful attorney, for me and in my name, place and stead within the period of_____ months (or years), to SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY, for the price not less than ____________________PESOS (P___________), Philippine Currency, to whosoever may purchase or buy my Honda CRV car with plate No._____________, Motor No._________, and Chasis No._________________, of which I am the absolute owner, free from all liens and encumbrances; and HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney full powers and authority to do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing authority to sell, as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, with full power of substitution or revocation , and hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney or his substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have se my hand this________ day of _____________________, 2001, in_____________________, Philippines.

____________________

Principal

Signed in the presence of:

____________________ ____________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT VI. DONATIONS AND WILLS

DONATION INTER VIVOS/MORTIS CAUSA KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: This Deed of Donation made and executed in the _____________, Philippines, by ____________, of legal age, single/married to ____________ , Filipino citizen and with residence and postal address at _________________, hereinafter called the DONOR. - favor of_______________________,of legal age, single/married to _______________, Filipino citizen and with residence and postal address at _______________, hereinafter called the DONEE.

WITNESSETH:

That the Donor is the absolute owner of that certain real property situated at ____________ and more particularly described as follows: (description of the property) That, for and in consideration of the love and affection of the Donor for the Donee (and for the faithful services the latter has rendered in the past to the former), the said Donor by these presents hereby cedes, transfers, and conveys, by way of donation, unto said Donee the real property above described, together with all the buildings and improvements existing thereon, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.

ACCEPTANCE That the Donee does hereby accepts the foregoing donation of the abovementioned described property for which he/she expresses his/her sincerest appreciation and gratitude for the kindness and liberty shown by the Donor. (NOTE:If inter vivos, state the following) The donor hereby states that , for the purpose of giving effect to the donation, he has reserved for himself in full ownership sufficient property to support him in a manner appropriate to his needs) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands at the place first above written, on this _____ day of _____, 20__. (NOTE: In case of donation mortis causa, an attestation clause is included and is signed by 3 witnesses. State that the donation shall become effective upon the death upon the death of the donor, but in the effect that the donee should die before the donor, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect. In case of donation inter vivos, only 2 witnesses are needed to sign).

WILLS HOLOGRAPHIC WILL (NOTE: This should be handwritten)

15, May 2000

I, ____________________, of _____________________ being of sound mind and disposing mind, do hereby declare this to be my last will and testament which I have written in my own handwriting in English, a language known to me, and I hereby declare that all my properties shall upon my death be distributed to my wife __________________ and to my only child ____________________ share and share alike. Juan Dela Cruz NOTARIAL WILL

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT Of __________________________ (Name of Testator) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: I, _____________________, of legal age, single (or married to_____________), a native of 20___; now actually residing at ____________________, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, and not acting under influence, violence, fraud or intimidation of whatever kind, do by these presents declare this to be my Last Will and Testament which I have caused to be written in English, the language which is known to me. And I hereby declare that: I. The following are my children (Names) with their address I give and bequeath to my children _____________, ________________, And ________________, in equal shares, the following properties, real and personal, whatsoever and wheresoever located:

(Description) II. I designate ________________ the sole executor of this my Last Will and Testament.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ______ day of ___________________, 2001, in ______________, Philippines. ____________________ (Signature of Testator)

ATTESTATION CLAUSE We, the undersigned attesting witnesses, whose residences are stated opposite our respective names, do hereby certify: That the testator, ___________________, has published unto us the foregoing will consisting of _______ pages numbered correlatively in letters on the upper part of each page, as his/her Last Will and Testament and has signed the same and every page thereof, on the margin, in our joint presence and we, in turn, at his/her request have witnessed and signed the same and every page thereof, on the left margin, in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each and all of us. (Signature of at least three witnesses) ______________________ (Witness) ______________________ (Witness) ___________________________ __________________________ (Witness) (Residence) _____________________ (Residence) _____________________ (Residence)

JOINT ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, Notary Public for and in the City/Municipality of _________________, Philippines this ______ day of _________________, 2001, personally appeared:

The testator, with C.T.C. No. _____________ _________________ on _________________, 2001;

issued

at

Witness, with C.T.C. No. _____________ issued at __________________ on ________________, 2001;

Witness, with C.T.C. No. _____________ issued at __________________ on ________________, 2001;

Witness, with C.T.C. No. _____________ issued at __________________ on ________________, 2001;

all known to me to be the same persons who signed the foregoing Will, the first as testator and the last three as instrumental witnesses, and they respectively acknowledge to me that they signed the same as their own free will and deed.

This Will consists of ______ pages, including the page in which this acknowledgment is written, and has been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by the testator and his witnesses, and sealed with my notarial seal.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the day, year and place above written.

NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires Dec. 31, 2001

IBP No. ______, 1/2/2001, Pasig City PTR No. _____, 2/2/2001, Pasig City

Doc. No. ______ Page No. ______ Book No. ______ Series of 2000

VI.

PLEADINGS

Pleadings are filed in four (4) kinds of cases, namely: Civil Actions; Provisional Remedies; Special Civil Actions; and Special Proceedings A. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL PLEADINGS

COMPLAINT BASED ON AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT (One Cause of Action) (Caption)

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

1. That the plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino citizen and resident of No.7 Agoo Street, Quezon City and the defendant is also of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of No. 19 Dagupan Street, Tondo, Manila where he may be served with summons;

2. That on or about January 1, 1983, defendant obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from the plaintiff payable within 90 days from date of receipt at 12% per annum;

3. That said loan, now overdue, is evidenced by a promissory note signed by the defendant, a copy of which is hereto attached as annex A and made part of this complaint;

4. That despite repeated demands, both written and oral, defendant has failed and refused to apply said loan;

5. That due to the unjust and unlawful act of the defendant to comply with the said demands, the plaintiff was compelled to institute this action engaging the services of counsel in the amount of P1,000.00

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P20,000.00 plus interest of 12% from the date of the instrument until full amount is payed and attorneys fees in the amount of P1,000.00 and costs of the suit.

Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

___________________, 1991, Quezon City.

________________________ Attorney for Plaintiff

________________________ Address

P.T.R. No.______ Date & Place of Issue______ IBP O.R. No._____ Date & Place of Issue_____

COMPLAINT (SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION)

Plaintiff Alleges: First Cause of Action

1.

That the plaintiff is a resident of the City of Manila, and that defendant is a resident of 486 Tenesee, Malate, Manila where he may be served with summons; That on the 11th day of June, 1983, defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note, in the following words and figures, to wit: (insert copy of the promissory note or use as Annex)

2.

3.

That defendant has not paid promissory note, nor any part thereof or interest thereon;

As Second Cause of Action:

1.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations of paragraph 1 of the first cause of action; That on the 19th of August 1983, defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff his promissory note in the following words and figures, to wit:

2.

(insert copy of promissory note)

2.

Same as paragraph 3 of the first cause of action)

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against defendant for the sum of (the total amount of the promissory notes) with interest at the rate of six percentum per annum on each of the aforesaid notes, until paid; interest at the legal rate on the interest due from the time of the filing of the complaint and attorneys fees plus costs.

PLAINTIFF, further prays for such other relief as this Honrable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Manila, Philippines, October 10, 1987.

JOSE CRUZ

Attorney for the Plaintiff

311 Regina Building, Manila P.T.R. No.__ & IBP Receipt No. __

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM

JUAN DELA CRUZ Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 12368 -versus-

PEDRO SANTOS Defendant,

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

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIM

NOW COMES the defendant in the above entitled case, and to this Honorable Court most respectfully alleges: 1. 2. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 1,2 and 3 of the complaint; Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 4 of the complaint, the truth being that. ( State here the fact being claimed by the defendant as the true state of facts or the truth being those stated in the special and affirmative defenses herein set forth) Defendant has no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 of the complaint;

3.

By way of special and affirmative defenses, defendant avers:

1. 2.

That the obligation has been paid; That the defendant had purchases said land from plaintiff and paid said promissory notes; That the cause of action has prescribed.

3.

By way of counterclaim, defendant alleges:

1.

That by virtue of this unwarranted and malicious act initiated by the plaintiff, defendant was forced to engage counsel in the sum of P10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed and defendant be awarded the amount of P5,000.00

Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Manila, Philippines, May 27, 2000.

ERNESTO FLORES Attorney for the Defendant

_______________________ Address

P.T.R. No.______ Date & Place of Issue______ IBP O.R. No._____ Date & Place of Issue_____

(Under oath if document is denied.) (Copy furnished with Proof of Service and Explanation)

ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL OF DOCUMENT UNDER OATH

THAT Defendant specifically denies under oath the genuiness and due execution of the instrument a copy of which is attached to Plaintiffs complaint as Annex A, the truth being that his signature thereon is forged and that he did not in fact sign the said instrument. ERNESTO FLORES Attorney for the Defendant _________________________ Address P.T.R. No. ________ Date & Place of Issue________ IBP O.R> No. ______ Date & Pace of Issue________

VERIFICATION (Or Oath of the Defendant)

______________________ Defendant

JURAT

MOTIONS (NOTE: All motions must be addressed to the other/adverse party; it must contain a notice of hearing and proof of service or an explanation why personal service was not resorted to. MOTION TO INTERVENE COMES NOW X, by his under signed counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully prays that he be permitted to intervene in this case as a party plaintiff ( or as a party defendant) on the ground that he has legal interest in the matter under litigation,

and that he may be adversely affected in these proceedings as shown in the attached Complaint-in-Intervention (or answer in intervention).

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that X be allowed to intervene as party plaintiff (or defendant) and the attached complaint be admitted and served on the defendant (or answer be admitted and X be allowed to serve copy of the same to the Plaintiff).

Atty. Y Counsel for X

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)

MOTION TO QUASH COMES NOW X, accused in the above titled case, through his undersigned attorney and respectfully moves to quash the information filed against him on the ground that: 1. Lack of jurisdiction 2. Prescription 3. Facts alleged do not constitute an offense, etc. ARGUMENTS ( here set forth the reasons in support of the motion to quash) WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information filed against the accused be dismissed.

( notice of hearing)

MOTION TO DISMISS

NOW COMES Defendant, by his undersigned attorney, to this Honorable Court and respectfully moves that the complaint be dismissed on the following grounds: ( here mention one or more grounds provided for in Rule 16, Rules of Court) 1. Lack of Jurisdiction; 2. Payment; 3. Novation; 4. Prescription; 5. Lack of capacity.

ARGUMENTS ( here set forth the reasons in support of the grounds mentioned)

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL NOW COMES Defendant (or plaintiff) by his undersigned attorney to this Honorable Court and respectfully moves that the decision of this Honorable Court dated March 1, 1987 and received on March 7, 1988 be set aside and new trial be granted on the following grounds: (here give the grounds provided for in Rule 37, Rules of Court; such as fraud, accident, mistake, or newly discovered evidence or excessive damages awarded) ARGUMENTS (here se forth the reasons in support of the ground/s mentioned)

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the decision of this Honorable Court be set aside and new trial be granted. (With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)

MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITH SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL COMES NOW, JRC, Counsel on record for the defendant and to this Honorable Court respectfully moves to withdraw as counsel of said defendant with the express consent of said defendant as shown in this motion; That in the substitution thereof, Atty. BFG whose services have been engaged by defendant hereby enters his appearance as counsel for defendant; That upon approval of this Honorable Court, all pleadings, notices, and papers in connection with this case be addressed to new counsel BFG with address at No. 7 Sta. Catalina, Sampaloc, Manila. With my consent: ___________________________ BFG New counsel ________________________ Address

P.T.R. No.______ Date & Place of Issue______ IBP O.R. No._____ Date & Place of Issue_____

(copy furnished: adverse counsel) (Proof of Service and Explanation)

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING

COMES NOW Defendant through undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court respectfully states: That the above entitled case is set for hearing on July 7, 1988; That counsel for defendant is afflicted with influenza and is now under the medical care of Dr. PTB. A copy of the physicians certificate under is hereto attached. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the hearing set on July 7, 1988 be reset to another day preferably on the first week of August 1988 or at the convenience of this Honorable Court. Manila, Philippines, July 2, 1988.

Sgd. ALC Counsel for defendant (Notice of Hearing)

(Proof of Service and Explanation)

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS COMES NOW, the Plaintiff through the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully alleged: 1. That in the answer of defendant filed on July 1, 1988 be admitted having signed the promissory note and merely interposed defense that he was asking for time within which to pay the obligation. That said answer does not tender any issue and in fact it can be read therefrom that defendant admitted his obligation.

2.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court render judgement on the pleadings.

Manila, Philippines, July 5, 1988.

XYZ Counsel for Plaintiff

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)

MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT COMES NOW, the Plaintiff through undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully alleged: 1. 2. 3. 4. That judgment was rendered by this Honorable Court in favor of the plaintiff on June 1, 1988. That said judgment was duly received by the defendant on June 5, 1988 as shown in the registry return card; That up to the present, the defendant had not filed any motion for reconsideration or had appealed from said decision, hence the decision has become final and executory.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued by this Honorable Court for a writ of execution of said judgment.

Manila, Philippines. July 5, 1988.

XYZ Counsel for Plaintiff

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)

NOTICE OF HEARING IN EX-PARTE AND NON-LITIGOUS MOTION

The Branch Clerk of court RegionalTrial Court National Capital Judicial Region Branch______, Makati, Metro Manila

GREETINGS:

Considering the urgency and non-litigious nature of the above motion, please submit the same forthwith upon receipt for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court. _______________________ (Counsel for the Defendant)

B. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

PETITION FOR INJUNCTION (NOTE: Must allege acts that should be enjoined and the basis for petitioners claim why they should be enjoined.)

THAT the continuance of the acts aforementioned during the present litigation will not only cause great and irreparable injury but will also work injustice to the plaintiff. PETITION FOR INJUNCTION (Caption and Title)

PETITION Plaintiff, through counsel alleges: 1. (Averment of names and residences) 2. (State in logical order the facts of plaintiffs complaint stating the grounds for the issuance of preliminary injunction) PRAYER

Attorney for Plaintiff Address

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING (NOTE: The form for Affidavit in support of Injunction) JURAT

COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY (Replevin)

(CAPTION AND TITLE) COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel in the above entitled case and to this Honorable Court alleges:

1.

That said plaintiff is the lawful owner of the following described personal property; That on or about the 1st day of March 1988, herein defendant borrowed said property from Plaintiff promising to return the same the next day; That on April 1, 1988, and for 10 days thereafter, the herein Plaintiff demanded for the return of the said property but despite repeated demands, said Defendant refused and still refuses to return the said property claiming that the same belongs to him; That said property has not been taken from the said plaintiff for tax assessment or fine pursuant to law, or seized under an execution, or attachment against the property of the Plaintiff (or if so seized, that it is exempted from such seizure); That the actual value of the said personal property is P10, 000.00; That the herein plaintiff is ready and willing to file a bond, executed to the defendant in double the value of the property stated above, for the return of the property to the Defendant if the return thereof be adjudged, and for the payment to the Defendant of such sum as he may recover from the Plaintiff in the auction.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment: 1. Ordering the sheriff or other officer of the Court forthwith to take such property into his custody and to dispose of it in accordance with the Rules of Court; 2. After trial of the issues, adjudging that the Plaintiff has the right to the possession of said personal property and rendering judgment in the alternative against the Defendant for the delivery thereof to the Plaintiff of the value thereof in case delivery cannot be made; 3. Ordering the defendant to pay the costs of this suit, and for such other equitable relief in the premises.

_________________________ Counsel VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING JURAT

C. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

REQUIREMENTS IN PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION & MANDAMUS (NOTE: In petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, insert allegations that the lower court or tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction, or without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction, attaching as annexes to the first original copy of the petition certified true copies of the orders complained of, and then these three must always state that petitioner has no other plain, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Mandamus requires the allegation that the remedy sought for is immaterial. All three petitions must be verified in accordance with the new SC Circular and with Certification on Non-Forum Shopping).

COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT XYZ Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. _______________ -versusABC Defendant. x---------------------------x COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff in the above entitled case, through counsel, and to this Honorable Court alleges; I That the plaintiff is of legal age and a resident of the City of Manila; that defendant is likewise of legal age, residing at No. 2 Cruz Street, Manila and may be served with summons at said address; II That defendant on January 7, 2001, leased from the plaintiff the premises located at No. 7 Cruz Street, Manila, agreeing to pay monthly rental of P 1, 000.00 III However, defendant failed to pay the aforesaid monthly rentals on their due dates, such that as of the date hereof, his arrearages have accumulated up to P_____________;

IV That on March 7, 2001, demands was made on defendant to pay his rental in arrears and vacate the premises, but despite said demands, written and oral, defendant failed and refused to pay the rentals in arrears and vacate the premises leased by him; V As a result, plaintiff was constrained to institute this case, incurring in the process obligations for litigation expenses and attorneys fess in the amount of _______________ PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant ordering him: 1. 2. To vacate the premises leased by him; To pay the monthly sum of P1, 000.00 beginning with the month of __________, 2001, with interest thereon at the legal rate until fully paid until the defendant vacates said premises; To pay the sum of P_________ as litigation expenses and attorneys fees.

3.

Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs as this Court may deem just and equitable. Manila, Philippines, May 1, 2001. DEFG Attorney for the Plaintiff _________________________________ Address P.T.R. No._______ Date & Place of Issue_____ IBP O.R. No._____ Date & Place of Issue_____ VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

_______________________ Plaintiff

JURAT

COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE COMPLAINT NOW COMES plaintiff to this Honorable Court and for cause of action against the defendant, respectfully alleges: That on March 6, 1988, defendant executed a promissory note (Annex A hereof) in favor of the plaintiff in terms and conditions as follows: (COPY) That to secure the payment of the said promissory note, defendant executed on March 1, 1988 a Deed of Mortgage in favor of plaintiff over a parcel of land whose technical description is as follows: (COPY DESCRIPTION) Copy of said Deed of Mortgage is attached hereto, marked annex B and made as integral part of this complaint; That said mortgage was registered with the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City on March 2, 1988; That payment of said promissory note is long overdue and defendant has failed to pay the same despite repeated demands; WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be issued in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay: 1. 2. The principal sum of P50,000.00 until fully paid; That the aforementioned parcel of land be sold at a public auction should the defendant fail to pay the sums set forth in this complaint and apply the proceeds thereof in accordance with the dispositions of law.

DEFG Attorney for the Plaintiff

________________________________________ Address P.T.R. No._______ Date & Place of Issue_____ IBP O.R. No._____ Date & Place of Issue_____ VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

_______________________ Plaintiff JURAT VERIFICATION

D. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS NOW COMES X, the petitioner, by his undersigned attorney, to this Honorable Court and respectfully represents: That he is the father of Y, who is presently in the custody of Z, maternal grandmother of Y, who (Z) forcibly abducted him (Y) and up to now actually restrains him (Y) of his liberty; That despite demands, Z refuses to turn over the custody of Y to your petitioner; WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued to Z to bring the minor to this Honorable Court at the hour and date to be set by this Honorable Court, and thereafter that the custody of the minor Y be turned over to your petitioner.

_________________________ Counsel VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING (by Petitioner) X, upon being duly sworn deposes and says: That I am the petitioner in the above entitled case, that I have read the contents of the said petition and that said contents are true and correct of my own personal knowledge.

________________________ Petitioner JURAT

PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP NOW COMES X, by his undersigned attorney, to this Honorable Court and respectfully represents: That he is the father of the minor Y; That Y is presently a resident of the City of Manila; That Y is the owner of a parcel of land located in the City of Manila valued at P50,000 and as such minor can make no transactions regarding the same; That the nearest of kin of Y are the following: (here mention the nearest kin and their address) That due to the minority of the said ___________________, it is necessary and convenient that a guardian of his person and property be appointed; That, as above stated, ____________________ is the person having the said minor in his care, and that he possesses all qualifications to whom letters of guardianship should issue. (Furnish a bond of not less than 10% of the value of the property or annual income, if it exceeds P50,000) WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due notice and hearing your petitioner be appointed guardian over the estate of Y.

________________________ Counsel VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

_______________________ Petitioner JURAT

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR (Caption and Title) In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of PETER DOE

SPL. PROC. NO.

JOSE DOE, Petitioner. x-----------------------------------------------------x PETITION PETITIONER, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully alleges: 1. (Averment of names, ages and residences) 2. That on ___________________, PETER DOE died without leaving any will in the City of ______________________ which was his residence at the time of his death. 3. That the names, ages, and residences of the surviving heirs of the aforementioned deceased, are the following to wi: Names Ages Relation Residence

4. That the deceased left the following real and personal properties: Character Location Probable Value

5. That, as far as petitioner knows, the following are the names of the creditors of the decedent, to wit: Names Address Amount of Credit

6. That decedent died a bachelor, leaving no descendants nor ascendants whether legitimate or otherwise, and petitioner, is the only surviving brother of said decedent. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is prayed that, after due notice and hearing letters of administration of the estate of the deceased PETER DOE be issued to petitioner.

Place, Date and Signature _____________________ Counsel _____________________ Address

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

_______________________ Petitioner JURAT

E. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

ESSENTIAL PARTS OF AN INFORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Caption Heading Opening sentence Body alleging acts or omissions constituting a crime Contrary to law Certification of Preliminary Investigation Jurat List of Witnesses Bail Recommended

ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A COMPLAINT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Caption Heading Opening sentence Body alleging facts or omissions constituting a crime Contrary to law Oath of Complaint with his/her signature Certification of Prosecutor Jurat

DIRECT FILING OF COMPLAINT

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Caption Heading Opening sentence Body alleging facts or omissions constituting a crime Signature Jurat

COMPLAINT COMPLAINT FILED BY OFFENDED PARTY BEFORE MUNICIPAL JUDGE ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS (Caption and Title) COMPLAINT The undersigned, _______________, accuses _______________ of the crime of an ACT OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, committed as follows, to wit: That on or about _______________, in the Municipality of ______________, Province of ______________, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused, actuated by lust, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, commit an act of lasciviousness upon the undersigned by then and there embracing and kissing her and touching her breasts and sexual organs, against her will, and by means of force. __________, this __________ day of __________________, 2001.

________________________ Offended Party Subscribed and sworn to before me this______ day of ________________, 2001, by _____________________, offended party.

_________________________ Municipal Judge of __________ WITNESSES: ____________________________ ____________________________

INFORMATION ABDUCTION WITH CONSENT (Caption and Title)

INFORMATION

The undersigned, provincial fiscal, upon sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party, accuses ______________ of the crime of Abduction with Consent, committed as follows:

That on or about ______________ in the Municipality of ____________, province of _____________, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this court, the said accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously removed, took and carried away _________, a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, from her dwelling with her consent and with lewd designs.

Contrary to law: ____, ___________,2000

_______________________ (Provincial Prosecutor)

WITNESSES: ______________________ ______________________

CERTIFICATION NOTE: All informations, for offenses filed by the city or provincial prosecutors must contain a certification under oath by the investigating fiscal that before filing the case he had previously conducted a preliminary investigation wherein the accused was given a chance to appear. Such a certification under oath may be stated substantially as follows:

A preliminary investigation has previously been conducted in this case under my direction, having examined the witnesses in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 5180, as amended by P.D. No. 77, Dec.6, 1972 and P.D. 911, March 23, 1976 and as implemented by Dept. of Justice Circular No. 74, series of 1967 and Circular No. 23, series of 1975. ______________________ Assistant Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of ____________, 2000 in the city/municipality of ___________, Philippines, by _________________, assistant fiscal of _______________.

_______________________ Judge, RTC of ___________

NOTE: The OK or approval by the City or Provincial Prosecutor is also required by law before any information may be filed by any assistant fiscal. SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION/KIDNAPPING (Caption and Title) The undersigned accuses X of the crime of SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION ( or KIDNAPPING), committed as follows:

That about and during the period beginning the _____ day of ________________, 2000, in the municipality of ________________, province of _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said X, suspecting that one Z had knowledge of the elopement of her sister , did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and by force, take said Z, a man 50 years of age, while the latter was walking in ________________, whom said accused detained and kept locked room in his room from _______________ to _______________, 2000, or a period of _______days, under restraint and against the will of the said Z, and said accused did, during said period of detention, maltreat and refuse to release said Z until the sister of the accused was found. Contrary to law. _______________________ Prosecutor MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

PETITION FOR BAIL (Caption and Title) PETITION FOR BAIL COMES NOW the defendant in the above-titled case by his undersigned attorney and respectfully states: 1. That the defendant is in the custody for the alleged commission of a capital offense; 2. That no bail has been recommended for his temporary release, on the assumption that the evidence of guilt is strong; 3. That the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the prosecution, and unless this fact is satisfactorily shown, the defendant may be bailed at the courts discretion. WHEREFORE, upon prior notice and hearing, it is respectfully prayed that the defendant be admitted to bail in such amount as this Honorable Court may fix. _____, _______________, 2000. _______________________ (Attorney for the Defendant) _______________________

(Address)

(With Notice of Hearing and Proof of Service)

NOTICE OF APPEAL (Caption and Title) NOTICE OF APPEAL COMES NOW the defendant (or plaintiff as the case maybe) by the undersigned attorney, and hereby files notice of appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in the above-entitled case, dated ____________ a copy of which was received by him on _______________, and appeals the same to the Court of Appeals. _____, _______________, 2000. _______________________ (Attorney for the Petitioner) _______________________ (Address) SUBPOENA (NOTE : A subpoena shall be signed by the clerk, or by the judge if his court has no clerk, under the seal of the court. It shall state the name of the court and the title of the action or investigation, shall be directed to the person whose attendance is required, and if subpoena duces tecum, it shall also contain a reasonble description of the things demanded which must appear to the court prima facie relevant).

SUBPOENA To: _____________________ _____________________

You are hereby commanded to appear before the Regional Trial Court of _________________, on the _____ day of ________________, 2000, at _________ oclock A. M., then and there to testify in the action of X against Y (here set the number of the case).

Witness the Honorable ______________, judge of said court, this ______ day of _________________, 2000

_______________________ (Clerk)

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (Caption and Title)

To: _____________________ _____________________

You are hereby required to appear before the Regional Trial Court of ________________ on the ______ day of _______________, 2000 at _________ oclock and to bring with you into the court the following (describe book, deed, writing, or other documents), it being necessary to use the same as testimony in the cause there pending, wherein _________________ is the plaintiff and _________________ is defendant.

______________________ Judge X, RTC of _______

ORDER OF ARREST (Caption)

Case No. ____________ REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus} ORDER OF ARREST

___________________________ Accused.

TO ANY OFFICER OF THE LAW:

You are hereby commanded to arrest _________________________ who is said to be at ________________________________ and who stands __________ charged before me of the crime of ___________________, and to bring him before me as soon as possible to be dealt with as the Rules of Court direct. ___________________, Philippines, _____ day of _______________, 2000. _______________________ Judge X, RTC ________

SEARCH WARRANT (Caption)

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff, -versus} Criminal Case No. _______ For ______________________ ________________________ Defendant, X ---------------------------------------------- X (State nature of offense)

SEARCH WARRANT TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

Greetings:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, after examining under oath (name of applicant) and his witness (name of witness) that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that (name of person or persons to be searched) has in his control in premises No. _______ in (name of street), district of _______________.

Subject of the offense Property Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense

Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense

which should be seized and brought to the undersigned.

You are hereby commanded to make immediate search at any time in the day/night of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the following personal property, to wit:

(give complete and detailed description of the ______________________________________________________________________ property to be seized)

and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs. Given under my hand _________________, Philippines. this ______ day of ________________, at

______________________ Judge, RTC of __________

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

(Caption and Title)

MOTION TO DISMISS BY WAY OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Accused JUAN DELA CRUZ, through counsel, and pursuant to leave granted by this Honorable Court in its order dated 20 May 2000, respectfully submits this motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence and alleges that:

The Indictment The Evidence for the Prosecution Arguments (why the case should be dismissed; insufficiency of evidence should be among those enumerated, showing why the same is insufficient)

Prayer

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service, and Explanation)

APPLICATION FOR COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS (Caption and Title)

The Clerk of Regional Trial Court _______________________________

Sir: Please cause a subpoena to be issued to the following persons in order that they may appear to testify in behalf of the defendant in the trial of this case which shall take place before this court on _____________ , at ________ A.M:

____________________________ (Name)

_________________________ (Address)

____________________________ (Name)

_________________________ (Address)

__________, this _________ day of ______________, 2000.

______________________ (Attorney for the Defendant) _______________________ (Address)

PRAYER TO ST. JOSEPH OF CUPERTINO O Great St. Joseph of Cupertino, who when on earth did obtain from God the grace to be asked in the examinations only questions you knew. Obtain for me the same favor in this examinations which I am now preparing for. In return I promise to make you known and cause to be invoked through Christ, our Lord. Amen

THAT IN ALL THINGS GOD MAY BE GLORIFIED!!!

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH ____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES -versus-

FOR: QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS [Sec. 6 (a) and (c) in rel. to Secs. 4(a), 3 and 10 (c) of RA 9208 and to Sec. 5(a) of RA 8369] (Family Courts)

ANTONIO CRUZ y SANTOS (Brgy. Prinza, Teresa, Rizal) JOSE LIM y CINCO (Brgy. Prinza, Teresa, Rizal) CARLOS TIROL y PARDO (No. 4, Bonifacio St., Tondo, Manila) Accused.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x INFORMATION The Undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses ANTONIO CRUZ y SANTOS, JOSE LIM y CINCO and CARLOS TIROL y PARDO of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons penalized under Section 6 (a) and (c) in relation to Sections 4 (a), 3 and 10 (a) and (c) of RA 9208 and in further relation to Section 5 (a) of RA 8369 (Family Courts), committed as follows: That on or about the 3rd of June 2004 in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, the above named accused ANTONIO CRUZ y SANTOS, JOSE LIM y CINCO and CARLOS TIROL y PARDO, in conspiracy with one another, and by means of force, threats and coercion, and for the purpose of exploitation, such as prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation, but under the pretext of domestic employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly RECRUIT ROSA SANTOS, and thereafter did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, TRANSPORT and TRANSFER her to a house belonging to or managed by accused CARLOS TIROL y PARDO located in Tondo, Manila, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. And in pursuit of the aforesaid conspiracy, said accused CARLOS TIROL y PARDO, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly RECEIVE, HARBOR and EMPLOY said ROSA SANTOS as a prostitute in said house, to her damage and prejudice. That the crime was attended by the qualified circumstances of minority, complainant ROSA SANTOS, being 16 years of age, and that the crime was committed by a syndicate of three (3) persons.

CONTRARY TO LAW.