Republic of the Philippines

ND
2 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
7th Judicial Region
Tubigon-Clarin
Tubigon, Bohol

SPOUSES _____________,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. __________
-versus- For:
FORCIBLE ENTRY
______________,
Defendants.
X------------------------/

COMPLAINT

COME NOW PLAINTIFFS, by the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully state that:

1. Plaintiffs are Filipinos, of legal age, married to each other and

residents of Pooc Occidental, Tubigon, Bohol, Philippines, where they may
be served with summons and other court processes;

2. Defendants are also Filipinos, of legal age, married to each other and
residents of Pooc Occidental, Tubigon, Bohol, Philippines, where they may
be served with summons and other court processes;

3. Plaintiffs are the owners of a parcel of land referred to as Assessor’s

Lot No. 3 situated in Pooc Occidental, Tubigon, Bohol, with an area of
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE (355) SQUARE METERS and covered by
Tax Declaration No. 2008-44-0026-00259 which is bounded on the Northeast
by the lot owned by Eutiquio Salajero, on the Southeast by Carretera, on the
Southwest and South by that of Antonio Corbita and on the West and
Northwest by that of Graciana Vedra. Copy of Tax Declaration No. 2008-44-
0026-00259 is attached as Annex “A”;

4. The foregoing parcel of land is ONE-HALF (1/2) of that parcel of

land which used to be declared in the name of BENEDICTO CORTES, as
owner, per Tax Declaration No. 44C26-55, copy of which is attached as
Annex “B”.

The whole parcel of land consisted of 500 square meters cocal and 210
square meters residential or a total land area of SEVEN HUNDRED TEN
(710) SQUARE METERS.

Said BENEDICTO CORTES had only two (2) children, namely:

MARIA CORTES DE SALAJERO and CONEGONDO CORTES.
1|Page
 MARIA CORTES DE SALAJERO was survived by her only son,
EUTIQUIO SALAJERO. On The other hand, CONEGONDO CORTES was
survived by his two (2) sons, namely: TITO CORTES and GREGORIO
CORTES;

5. On January 26, 1989, GREGORIO CORTES executed the Affidavit

of Self-Adjudication with Sale referred to as Doc. No. 429, Page No. 87, Book
No. XVII, Series of 1989, of the notarial register of Notary Public, Atty.
Nicasio R. Balaga, copy of which is attached as Annex “C”.

GREGORIO CORTES adjudicated for himself ONE-FOURTH (1/4)

of the foregoing parcel of land of BENEDICTO CORTES and sold it to
MARIANO LUMAYNO, absolutely and unconditionally;

6. On the other hand, TITO CORTES executed the Absolute Sale of ¼

Portion of Land dated February 22, 1989 referred to as Doc. No. 521, Page
No. 66, Book No. XII, Series of 1989, of the notarial register of Notary Public,
Romeo B. Cruz, selling his ONE-FOURTH (1/4) share in the land of
BENEDICTO CORTES and sold it to SPOUSES MARIANO and FELISA
LUMAYNO. Copy of which is attached as Annex “D”.

TITO CORTES indicated therein that he inherited ONE-FOURTH

(1/4) of the said parcel of land with a total area of SEVEN HUNDRED TEN
(710) SQUARE METERS from his father, CONIGUNDO CORTES, who in
turn inherited ONE-HALF of the said parcel of land from his father,
BENEDICTO CORTES;

7. Plaintiffs acquired from SPOUSES MARIANO LUMAYNO and

FELISA LUMAYNO the total ONE-HALF (1/2) shares of the parcel of land
of TITO CORTES and GREGORIO CORTES per Absolute Sale of One-Half
of A Parcel of Land dated April 11, 1989 referred to as Doc. No. 533, Page
No. 68, Series of 1989 of the notarial register of notary public, Romeo B.
Cruz. Copy of which is attached as Annex “E”.

In the said Absolute Sale of One-Half of A Parcel of Land, it was clearly

stated that what Plaintiffs bought was a total of ONE-HALF (1/2) of the parcel
of land with a total land area of SEVEN HUNDRED TEN (710) SQUARE
METERS (500 square meters of which was cocal and the other 210 square
meters was residential);

8. The foregoing adjudication of the respective shares of TITO

CORTES and GREGORIO CORTES were confirmed by the Heirs of
BENEDICTO CORTES, namely: EUTIQUIO SALAJERO, TITO CORTES
and GREGORIO CORTES when they executed the Extra-Judicial Partition of
Real Estate dated April 4, 1991 referred to as Doc. No. 686, Page No. 90,
Book No. XII, Series of 1991 of the notarial register of Notary Public, Romeo
B. Cruz. Copy of which is attached as Annex “F”;
2|Page
 9. Since 1989, Plaintiffs had been in actual possession of the parcel of
land which they acquired from SPOUSES MARIANO and FELISA
LUMAYNO, exclusively, continuously and in the concept of owner
corresponding to THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE (355) SQUARE
METERS.

They built their house and commercial building thereat sometime in

1989 and have continuously occupied the same up to the present. Copy of Tax
Declaration No. ________________ is hereto attached as Annex “G”;

10. Defendants, on the other hand, bought the other ONE-HALF of the
parcel of land earlier declared in the name of BENEDICTO CORTES from
EUTIQUIO SALAJERO per Deed of Absolute Sale of Residential Land dated
February 19, 1991 referred to as Doc. No. 8, Page No. 99, Book No. XVII,
Series of 1991 of the notarial register of Notary Public, Atty. Venancio J.
Amila. Copy of which is attached as Annex “H”;

11. Defendants, likewise, secured the corresponding tax declaration in

their names for the parcel of land that they bought from EUTIQUIO
SALAJERO, copy of which is attached as Annex “I”.

They have started occupying said parcel of land only sometime in 1991
which is a much later date to that of the Plaintiffs;

12. It was sometime in June 1993 when Plaintiffs and Defendants

caused the survey of their respective lots by Geodetic Engineer SAMMY P.
ARGAMOSA. Their respective lots were properly delineated. Copy of the
Sketch Plan as prepared for both Plaintiffs and Defendants is attached as
Annex “J”;

13. Immediately after the said survey, Plaintiffs and Defendants caused
the construction of the fence delineating their respective properties. The
construction of the bodega of the Plaintiffs soon followed.

There was no protestation on the part of Defendants on the construction

of the bodega which simply followed the survey conducted at the instance of
both parties by Geodetic Engineer SAMMY P. ARGAMOSA.

The bodega was inside the compound of the Plaintiffs. They occupied
the same since it was constructed in June 1993;

14. It was most unfortunate that sometime in the first week of February
2013, Defendants caused the total demolition of the bodega of Plaintiffs
without the knowledge and consent of the latter. Immediately thereafter they
constructed the wall of a fence apportioning the bodega as part of the property
of the Defendants.

3|Page
 The demolition was done from the side of the property of Defendants.
Everything happened so fast. Defendants hired a lot of workers at that time.
By the time, Plaintiffs came to know of the said demolition, it was already
finished and they were already sealing it off from the rest of the property of
Plaintiffs.

Pictures showing the portion which used to be bodega of the Plaintiffs

but which was illegally demolished at the instance of Defendants and the fence
that they caused to be illegally constructed on the property of Plaintiffs are
attached as Annexes “K”, “K-1”, “K-2” and “K-3”;

15. The bodega had always been a part of the property of the Plaintiffs.
A picture showing the bodega during a Christmas party tendered by Plaintiffs
for their workers is attached as Annex “L”.

After its demolition what is left is only hardly a meter in width of the
former structure. Copy of the picture is attached a Annexes “M” and “M-1”;

16. Plaintiffs commissioned Geodetic Engineer JOSEPH M.

CEPEDOZA to conduct a survey on the extent of the illegal occupation of
Defendants of a portion of the property of Plaintiffs which has long been
established to be that of the latter. Copy of the Survey Sketch Plan showing
that what was illegally wrestled from the Plaintiffs’ possession is a total of
FORTY-FIVE (45) SQUARE METERS is attached as Annex “N”;

17. Plaintiffs confronted Defendants about the illegal demolition of

their bodega and their unlawful occupation of said portion. They demanded
that Defendants restore the bodega of Plaintiffs and that they should respect
the result of the survey which they both caused to be done by Geodetic Engr.
SAMMY P. ARGAMOSA. This was to no avail. Instead, Defendants
challenged Plaintiffs to file cases against them in court and in the proper
administrative bodies;

18. Defendant ROSARIO ISRAEL was the Punong Barangay of Pooc

Occidental, Tubigon, Bohol, at that time. Plaintiffs initiated the filing of the
complaint against Defendants in the barangay level; however, the same was
not acted upon.

It was only during a barangay meeting that Plaintiffs were able to attend
that the matter was finally taken up and the corresponding Certification to File
Action was issued only on May 21, 2013. Copy of which is attached as Annex
“O”;

19. Plaintiffs have been forcibly and unlawfully deprived of their

possession of their bodega by the Defendants for which the latter should be
ordered to restore the bodega to its state prior to its demolition and to reinstate
Plaintiffs to their peaceful and lawful possession;

4|Page
 And by way of proving, further, the claim for DAMAGES, the
foregoing are repleaded and Plaintiffs, further, aver that:
20. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs suffer mental anguish, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social
humiliation for which Defendants should be made to pay, jointly and
severally, moral damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00);
21. By way of example or correction for the public good, considering
that the actuations of Defendants are inexcusable, they should be made to pay,
jointly and severally, exemplary damages in the amount of THIRTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00); and,
22. In being compelled to litigate, Plaintiffs were obliged to hire the
services of a lawyer who is entitled to attorney’s fee in the amount of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), excluding appearance fee and
other litigation expenses;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Plaintiffs, through
counsel, pray to this Honorable Court the issuance of an Order:
a. Declaring the demolition of the bodega of Plaintiffs at the instance
of Defendants unlawful;
b. Requiring Defendants to demolish the fence they caused to be
constructed depriving Plaintiffs of their lawful possession of a
portion of their property;
c. Requiring Defendants to restore the bodega of the Plaintiffs to its
state prior to its demolition;
d. Reinstating Plaintiffs of their lawful possession of the restored
bodega;
e. Directing Defendants to pay, jointly and severally, Plaintiffs the
following:
i. Moral damages of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00);
ii. Exemplary damages of THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS
(P30,000.00); and,
iii. Attorney’s fee of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00) and other litigation expenses;
Other relief and remedies consistent with law and equity are, likewise,
prayed for.

City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, January 6, 2014.

MIA MANUELITA C. MASCARIÑAS-GREEN

5|Page
 Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Centro, Dampas District
City of Tagbilaran
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0001593-02-22-2011
PTR No. 0105047-01-02-14-Tagbilaran
IBP Lifetime No. 03965
Roll No. 39654
TIN 118-664-915

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF TAGBILARAN ) S.S.
x-----------------------/

We, SPOUSES ISIDRO and TITA CAGA, both Filipinos, of legal age,
and married to each other and residents of Pooc Occidental, Tubigon, Bohol,
Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby,
depose and say: That we are the PLAINTIFFS in the above-entitled case;
That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; That we have
read and know the contents thereof; That the allegations therein are true of our
own knowledge or based on authentic records; That we have not theretofore
commenced any action involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; That to the best of our
knowledge, there is no pending action involving the same issue in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; and,
That if We should learn that a case is filed or is pending involving the same
issue before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or
agency, We undertake to inform this Honorable Court of the same fact within
five (5) days from notice thereof.

City of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Philippines, January 6, 2014

ISIDRO CAGA TITA CAGA

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of January,

2014, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, affiants exhibiting to me their
government-issued identification cards which bear their pictures and
signatures, as follows:
ISIDRO CAGA Social Security System ID No. 08-0535813-5
TITA CAGA Social Security System ID No. 06-0799097-9
6|Page
7|Page