REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
ILOCOS NORTE
_____________________
_____________________
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO_________
- versus
For
CORAZON and
BIENVENIDO
Defendants.
x--------------------------------x

UNLAWFUL DETAINER

COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Most Honorable
Court, respectfully alleges:

PARTIES
That the plaintiffs, both of legal age, Filipino citizens and residents of
________________________.
That the defendants are both of legal age, Filipino citizens and residents of
____________________ and with business address at ____________________________
where they may be served with the summons and processes of this
Honorable Court;

CAUSE OF ACTION
1. That the plaintiffs are the owners of a residential lot declared in the name
of MARCOS NAVARRO, having acquired the same through a duly notarized
DEED OF ADJUDICATION WITH SALE executed by the heirs of said MARCOS
NAVARRO in their favour. A copy of the DEED OF ADJUDICATION WITH
SALE is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX A and forms as an
integral part of this complaint;
2. That the residential lot is particularly described as follows;
A residential land with an area of 227.0 square meters designated as
Cadastral Lot No. 4688, situated in _______________________, bounded on the
north by the National Road; on the South by Lot No. 4690, on the East by Diaz
Street and on the west by Lot No. 4687; declared in the name of
__________________ under Tax Declaration No. 08-003-00017.
A copy of the Tax Declaration is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX B
and forms part of this complaint;

3. That the defendants started to occupy Cadastral Lot No. 4688

sometime in March 2003 by virtue of a CONTRACT OF LEASE executed in
their favour. A copy of the Contract of Lease is hereto attached and
marked as Annex C and made an integral part of this complaint;
4. That the Contract of Lease is for a period of seven(7) years commencing
on March 31, 2003 and ending on March 31, 2010;
5. That the CONTRACT OF LEASE was executed in their favour by one
VISITACION BLANCO who claimed to be the administrator of the property
at that time;
6. That after the stipulated seven(7) year Contract of Lease, the heirs of
MARCOS NAVARRO sold the property to the herein Plaintiffs;
7. That during the life of the contract, the herein Defendants constructed a
building in the leased Residential land;
8. That the construction of the building was without the knowledge and
consent of the heirs of the owner MARCOS NAVARRO;
9. That the Contract of Lease was never renewed after its expiration;
10.That the herein Plaintiffs/Owners now want to exercise their right of
possession over the above-described property for their personal use;
11.That the Plaintiffs demanded the herein Defendants to vacate the abovedescribed property for several times but the latter refused to surrender
the possession of the same;
12.That as a matter of fact, the undersigned counsel even requested a
conference with the Defendants regarding the matter at bar which fell on
deaf ears. A copy of the NOTICE OF PRE-LITIGATION CONFERENCE sent by
the undersigned to the herein Defendants is hereto attached and marked
as ANNEX D and forms part of this complaint;
13.That the herein Plaintiffs even referred this matter to the Barangay Lupon
of Barangay 11, Cabangaran, Ilocos Norte but it was just an exercise in
futility, hence, on January 17, 2012 the Office of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa issued a Certificate to File Action a copy which is hereto
attached and marked as ANNEX E and forms part of this complaint;
14.That the Plaintiffs, through counsel, as a last effort to gain possession of
the above-described property which is now unduly withheld by the herein
Defendants made a formal demand unto the defendants to vacate the
premises within ten(10) days from receipt thereof but up to this date, they
refuse to peacefully surrender the possession of the property. A copy of
the Demand Letter to Vacate is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX
F and made an integral part hereof;
15.That the herein Defendants refused and continues to refuse to vacate the
Plaintiffs premises despite the receipt of the Demand Letter to Vacate for
more than fifteen(15) days now;

16.That with the expiration of the contract of lease and without having it
ratified, the continued stay of the Defendants in the Plaintiffs premises
thereof is devoid of any legal authority;
17.That the herein Plaintiffs does not have the slightest intention to
appropriate for themselves the building constructed by the Defendants in
the above-described property and hereby categorically refuse to
reimburse any amount for the same;
18.That the unlawful possession of the property by the Defendants has now
deprived the Plaintiffs to enjoy their right to possess as well as their right
to enjoy the fruits of the property;
19.That due to the actuations of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were forced to
engaged the services of a lawyer in the institution of this complaint and
incurred expenses in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) as acceptance fee and TWO THOUSAND PESOS
(P2,000.00) per court appearance;
20.That to avoid a repetition of similar acts and as a correction for the public
good, the Defendants should be liable to pay Plaintiffs for exemplary
damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00).
21.That with the continued stay of the Defendants on Plaintiffs premises,
Defendants should pay the Plaintiffs pro rata for every day of delay in
vacating the premises computed on the basis of the rentals which is
approximately EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P18,000.00).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after due

notice and hearing, judgment be rendered:
a) For the Defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to
vacate and surrender the possession of the real property (Cadastral
Lot No. 4688) to the Plaintiffs;
b) For the Defendants to remove the improvements constructed within
the property without causing impairment upon the property leased
than is necessary;
c) For the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs the amount of THIRTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as and by way of attorneys fee
and another TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) per court
appearance;
d) For the Defendants to pay ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00) to the Plaintiffs by way of exemplary damages;
e) For the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs pro rata for every day of delay
in vacating the premises computed on the basis of the monthly rentals

earned by the Defendants or as the Honorable Court may deem fit

under the circumstances;
f) For the Defendants to pay the cost of the suit;
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.
Laoag City for ____________, Ilocos Norte. February 24, 2012.

_____________________________
LAW OFFICES
(Counsel for the Plaintiffs)
2/F Insular Life Building
Balintawak Street
2900 Laoag City

______________________________
Roll of Attys No. 53594-04/27/2007
IBP NO. 866059- I.N.-01/02/2012
PTR NO. 0375018-L.C.-01/02/2012
MCLE Compliance No. III-0000797-9/18/2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CITY OF LAOAG

)
) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

We, DR. LOUIE A. GUERRERO and DR. EILEEN L. GUERRERO of Brgy. 18,
Paoay, Ilocos Norte, Philippines after being sworn to in accordance with law,
deposes and says: That we are the complainants in the above-entitled case; that we
have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; that we have read and
knows the contents thereof; that the allegations contained therein are true and of
our own personal knowledge; that we have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues raised in this complaint in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, and to the best of our
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, and if we should learn that a similar
action is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency, we undertake to inform this Honorable Court within five(5) days
from such knowledge.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this
__________________ at Laoag City, Philippines.

DR. LOUIE A. GUERRERO

CTC No. 29657183
Issued on: 01/03/2012
Issued at: Laoag City, Ilocos Norte

DR. EILEEN L. GUERRERO

CTC No. 25172345
Issued on: 01/02/2012
Issued at: Paoay, Ilocos Norte

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this _____________________ at Laoag

City, Ilocos Norte. Affiants exhibited to me their CTC written below their names and
signatures. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the complainants and
that I am satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood the contents of
their complaint.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Republic of the Philippines

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

Paoay-Currimao
Paoay, Ilocos Norte
_____________________
_____________________
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE No. 909-P
For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER
- versus
CORAZON and
BIENVENIDO
Defendants.
x--------------------------------x

ANSWER
(WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COMPULSARY
COUNTERCLAIM)
DEFENDANTS

___________________

and

___________________

through

the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, by way of Answer to the Complaint
filed on February 28, 2012, the summons and a copy of the complaint was served
and received by Defendants on March 9, 2012, most respectfully pray for the
dismissal of the complaint and in support thereof, aver as follows:

Admission and Denials

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is hereby denied, for lack of personal
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
thereof;

2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint which is the description of Lot No. 4688 is

hereby admitted;

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint that Defendants started to occupy Lot No.

4688 in 2003 by virtue of a Contract of Lease is hereby admitted;

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint with respect to the existence of the

Contract of Lease is hereby admitted;

5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint as to the representation of Visitacion

Blanco that she is the administrator of the subject property is likewise admitted;

6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint is hereby denied for lack of personal

knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
thereof;

7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is hereby admitted;

8. Paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Complaint are likewise denied,

the truth being those in the affirmative and special defenses pleaded below;

9. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint is admitted as the subject matter of the

present complaint had been submitted to the Office of the Punong Barangay of Brgy.
4 Nalupta, Batac City, Ilocos Norte, but no settlement had been reached;

10. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint is denied, the truth being those in the
affirmative and special defenses pleaded below;

11. Paragraph 15 and 16 of the Complaint are likewise denied, the truth
being those in the affirmative and special defenses pleaded below;

12. Paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Complaint are likewise
denied, for lack of personal knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity thereof. And by way of

Special and Affirmative Defenses

13. Herein Defendants replead and incorporate the allegations contained in

the preceding paragraphs in so far as they are pertinent;

14. The complaint states no cause of action against herein Defendant, thus
the complaint filed by Plaintiffs should be dismissed outright;

15. To give a brief background of the case, it is noteworthy to state the

following facts:
16. In March 2003, Defendants and one Visitacion Blamco, the legal
administrator and a person who has a right and interest over Lot No. 4688 situated
at Brgy. 11, Cabangaran, Paoay, Ilocos Norte, executed a Contract of LeaAse and
agreed that the former will construct a building for commercial purposes on the said
lot with a lease term of 7 years from March 31, 2003 up to March 31, 2010, with a
monthly rental of P1,000.00. A copy of the duly notarized Contract of Lease is
hereto attached and marked as Annex A and is made an integral part hereof;

17. Simultaneously, Visitacion Blanco, likewise executed an Affidavit of

Consent, allowing Defendants, as lessees, to put up a permanent structure on the
said lot and to possess the same. The said affidavit was executed so that
Defendants can secure a building permit. A copy of the Affidavit of Consent is
hereto attached and marked as Annex B and is made an integral part hereof;

18. To facilitate the construction of a building owned by Defendants, a

Barangay Clearance was issued and Blanco paid the corresponding building permit
and mayors clearance fee for application of building permit as well as occupational
tax. Copies of the certification and official receipts are hereto attached and
marked as Annexes C and D respectively, and are made integral parts hereof;

19. On April 3, 2003, a Certification was issued by the Office of the Mayor of
Paoay, Ilocos Norte, certifying that there was no pending case nor there is any party
who opposed for the construction of the building owned by Defendants in Lot No.
4688, thereby declaring that there is no impediment in the application for a building
permit. A copy of the said Certification is hereto attached and marked as Annex
E and is made an integral part hereof;

20. On May 29, 2003, the Building Permit was issued in the name of
Defendant Bienvenido Icuspit. A copy of the same is hereto attached and marked as
Annex F and are made integral parts hereof;

21. Consequently, the construction of the said building started and was
completed in 2006. The corresponding Certificate of Occupancy was issued by the
Office of the Building Official of Paoay on January 9, 2006, a copy of which is hereto
attached and marked as Annex G and is made an integral part hereof;

22. The building/improvement is presently covered by Tax Declaration No. 08003-00018 in the name of Defendant Corazon Icuspit. A copy of the said Tax
Declaration is hereto attached as Annex H and is made an integral part hereof;

23. Defendants, as lessees, after the execution of the Contract of Lease, paid
their monthly rentals and even made advance payments to Visitacion Blanco. The
rentals for the year 2003 up to 2010 was completely paid by Defendants to
Visitacion Blanco on February 7, 2006. While it is true that the contract of lease was
only for a period of 7 years, or up to March 2010, Visitacion Blanco and Defendant
Corazon Icuspit renewed the lease over the subject property until 2014 during the
effectivity of the 2003 lease contract. In fact Defendants already paid the lease
rental equivalent to four years and eleven months (for the period April 2010 up to
April 2014);

A copy of the proofs evidencing payment of rentals from 2003 up to 2014

are hereto attached and marked as Annex I (series) and are made integral parts
hereof;

24. Under the Contract of Lease, Defendants likewise agreed to pay the real
property taxes of the subject property during the period of the contract of lease.
Defendants paid all the real property taxes of Lot No. 4688 from year 2004 up to
2011. A copy of the Official Receipts are hereto attached and marked as Annexes
J, K, L and M, and are made integral parts hereof;

25. Defendants likewise paid real property taxes of the commercial building
constructed in Lot. No. 4688, copies of official receipts are hereto attached and
marked as Annexes N and O respectively;

26. Sometime in January 2012, Defendants were invited before the Office of
the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Brgy. 11 Cabangaran, Paoay, Ilocos Norte because of
the complaint filed by Plaintiffs. In the said meeting, Plaintiffs informed Defendants

that they bought Lot No. 4688 situated at Brgy. 11 Cabangaran, Paoay, Ilocos Norte
from the Heirs of Marcos Navarro and that they are not interested in the building
owned by the latter. Hence, no settlement had been reached.

Grounds for the Dismissal of the Complaint:

I.
THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OVER THE SUBJECT
LOT BY PLAINTIFFS CANNOT BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THIS
CASE,

SINCE

THE

SELLERS

FROM

WHICH

THE

PLAINTIFFS

ALLEDGELY ACQUIRED LOT NO. 4688 CANNOT CLEARLY ESTABLISH

THEIR

CLAIM

OF

HEIRSHIP,

THERE

BEING

NO

SPECIAL

PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIP PREVIOUSLY

INSTITUTED BY THE LATTER;

II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE SALE OF LOT NO. 4688 WAS
VALID, PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH SINCE THEY
HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STRUCTURE/BUILDING OWNED BY
DEFENDANTS

STANDING/BUILT

ON

THE

SUBJECT

LOT

THEY

ALLEDGELY BOUGHT FROM THE SELLERS.

DISCUSSION
I.
The alleged right of possession of plaintiffs is anchored on their claim of
ownership as buyers from the alleged heirs of Marcos Navarro. However,
the claim of heirship by the sellers cannot be established in this case,
there being no special proceedings for the declaration of heirship
previously instituted by the sellers. And consequently, since plaintiffs only
stepped into the shoes of the alleged sellers, the right of plaintiffs over
the said property is not clear. Hence, the complaint for unlawful detainer
filed against defendants should be dismissed.

27. While it may be argued that ejectment case are confined only to issues of
possession and not ownership, it is axiomatic that such possession must be
anchored on some legal relation to the property which gives the plaintiffs the right
to possession. In the instant case, plaintiffs clearly anchor their alleged right to
possession on their alleged claim of ownership.

28. The complaint is bereft of any showing of ownership of property as

alleged by plaintiffs. In paragraphs 1 and 6 of the complaint, plaintiffs averred that
they acquired the subject property Lot No. 4688 by virtue of a Deed Adjudication
with Sale, allegedly executed by the heirs of Marcos Navarro, the declared owner of
the said property, under a tax declaration. Thus, the claim of possession is anchored
by plaintiffs on their claim of ownership as buyers of the lot in question from the
sellers who are allegedly the Heirs of Marcos Navarro. The claim of ownership of the
sellers, in turn, is anchored on a claim of heirship. It appears however, that there
has been no special proceeding previously instituted by the heirs for the declaration
of heirship and as such, such claim of heirship cannot be established in this civil
case, as held in the case of Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 150206, March 13, 2009, which stated, inter alia, that:

Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal

heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special
proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of
ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence
over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The
Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a
declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a
declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under
Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action
is defined as one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then
decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only
in a special proceeding in as much as the petitioners here are
seeking the establishment of a status or right.
29. From the foregoing, it is clear that although the alleged Heirs of Marcos
Navarro executed a Deed of Adjudication with Sale in favour of the Plaintiffs, the
said deed is a self-serving document. Further, a perusal of the Deed of Adjudication
reveals that it was not really clear how the sellers are related to Marcos Navarro, to
wit:

This Deed of Adjudication with Sale made and executed at Paoay,

Ilocos Norte, Philippines, this August 22, 2011 by Myrna Quintos
Almeda, married, of legal age and a resident of 38 Eisenhower St.
Goldland Plaza 15-B, San Juan, Metro Manila and Delma Quintos
Ignacio, single, of legal age, a resident of 4645 Valenzuela St. Sta.
Mesa, Metro Manila as VENDORS
xxx
xxx
xxx

WITNESSETH
That the herein declarants/VENDORS are the surviving heirs of the
late Marcos Navarro, who died intestate in Paoay, Ilocos Norte
without leaving any will or other forms of disposition;

30. In the case at bar, the alleged sellers, Myrna Quintos Almeda and Delma
Quintos Ignacio, who claimed to be the legal heirs of Marcos Navarro have not
shown any proof or even a semblance of it (as heirs) except the allegations in
the Deed of Adjudication that they are the legal heirs of the aforementioned Marcos
Navarro. And since Plaintiffs who are alleged buyers of Lot No. 4688 and bought the
property from alleged sellers whose heirship has not yet been declared in a special
proceeding, then Plaintiffs ownership in this case is vague and only stepped into
the shoes of the alleged sellers. Then, Plaintiffs who instituted the present complaint
has no standing to file the present case who are not real parties in interest.

31. Further, Plaintiffs should have convinced the alleged heirs of Marcos
Navarro to get in touch with Visitacion Blanco, who is the administrator of the said
property and who informed Defendants that she has a share over the subject lot.
Hence, the heirship of the alleged sellers are doubtful.

32. In this line, the complaint filed should be dismissed.

II.
Assuming arguendo that the sale of Lot No. 4688 was valid, Plaintiffs are
not buyers in good faith since they have knowledge of the
structure/building built on the subject property they allegedly bought
from the sellers but still they bought the said property to the prejudice of
the Defendants.

33. Plaintiffs, at the time they bought the subject property have knowledge of
the existence of the commercial building built on the subject property. The said

commercial building is covered by tax declaration and Defendants complied with all
legal requirements before they built the said property, making them builders in
good faith. Defendants are also considered as builders in good faith because before
they contracted with Visitacion Blanco, the latter represented herself as the sole
and legal administrator of the subject property and presented official receipts that
she is paying real property taxes of the subject property, a copy of which is hereto
attached and marked as Annex O and is made an integral part hereof. Realty tax
payments are not conclusive proof of possession but they are merely good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in his
right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or
constructive possession.

34. When a person builds in good faith on the land of another, Article 448 of
the Civil Code governs. Said article provides,
ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate
as his own works, sowing or planting, after payment of the
indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the
one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one
who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter
cannot be obliged to buy the land if its vakue is considerably more
than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building of trees after proper indemnity. The
parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
35. In Briones v. Macabagdal, G.R. No. 150666, August 3, 2010, the Supreme
Court ruled that:
The above-cited article covers cases in which the builders, sowers
or planters believe themselves to be owners of the land or, at
least, to have a claim of title thereto. The builder in good faith can
compel the landowner to make a choice between appropriating the
building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the builder to
pay the price of the land. The choice belongs to the owner of the
land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession, i.e., that
the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around.
However, even as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to
him, nevertheless, is preclusive. He must choose one.16 He
cannot, for instance, compel the owner of the building to
remove the building from the land without first exercising
their options. It is only if the owner chooses to sell his
land, and the builder or planter fails to purchase it where
its value is not more than the value of the improvements,
that the owner may remove the improvements from the
land. The owner is entitled to such remotion only when,
after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to
pay for the same.17

Compulsory Counterclaim

36. Herein Defendant re-pleads and incorporates by way of reference all the
allegations in the foregoing paragraphs;

37. Because of the unreasonable and unjustified filing by Plaintiffs of the said
case, Defendant was constrained to litigate and incurred expenses in the amount of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) by way of attorneys fees and appearance fee
at One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,500.00) per hearing;

38. In the same vein, because of the acts of harassment committed by

Defendants and filing of the baseless complaint of the Plaintiffs, herein Defendant
experienced serious anxiety, sleepless nights, moral shock and besmirched
reputation, which entitles herein Defendant to which if quantified in monetary
terms, would amount to not less than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00), and Plaintiffs should pay for it and for MORAL DAMAGES.

39. Further, Plaintiffs act of filing a baseless complaint contravenes the most
fundamental tenets of human relations, and so that this spiteful act of Plaintiffs will
not be emulated by others, and to set as an example, exemplary damages should
be paid by Plaintiffs to Defendants in the amount of not less than FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P50,000.00), as and for EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that, after hearing:
1. The instant complaint BE DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.
2. Plaintiffs be ORDERED TO PAY herein Defendants the amount of THIRTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as and by way of ATTORNEYS FEES
plus

ONE

THOUSAND

FIVE

HUNDRED

PESOS

(P1,500.00)

as

appearance fee per hearing.

3. Plaintiffs be ORDERED TO PAY herein Defendants the amout of ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as and by way of MORAL
DAMAGES.

4. Plaintiffs be ORDERED TO PAY herein Defendants the amount of FIFTY

THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as and by way of EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES.
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Batac City, Ilocos Norte for Paoay, Ilocos Norte, March 19, 2012.

________________________________
Counsel for Defendants
Marcos Avenue, Brgy. 10-N Lacub,
Batac City Ilocos Norte
Roll No. 5119 / 05-05-2005
PTR No. 01722636 Batac, Ilocos Norte 01-022012
IBP No. 809725 - Batac, Ilocos Norte 11-29-2011
MCLE Compliance No. III-0016643
TIN 241-922-397

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ILOCOS NORTE

)
) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We, SPOUSES _____________________ and ____________________, of legal age, Filipino
citizens and residents of Brgy. 9, San Pedro, Paoay, Ilocos Norte, hereby depose and
say that:
1. We are the Defendants in the above-entitled case;
2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER, the factual
allegations of which are true and correct to the best of our personal
knowledge and authentic records in our possession;
3. We deny under oath the allegations in the Complaint, the truth being those
mentioned in our Special and Affirmative Defenses in the above Answer
4. We certify and attest that we have not theretofore filed or commenced, and
we have no knowledge of any case, action or proceeding involving the same

issues between the same parties herein as pleaded in our counterclaims, and
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other court,
tribunal or administrative agency;
5. If we should thereafter learn that any such case, action or proceeding has
been initiated, we undertake to inform this Court of such fact within five(5)
days from notice/knowledge thereof.

________________________________
Affiant

________________________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this ________________________, in the

City of Batac, Ilocos Norte, affiants, exhibited to me a competent proof of identity,
copies of which are hereto attached and are made integral parts hereof.

NOTARY PUBLIC