Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Paraaque City
Branch _____
HEIRS OF THE LATE
ESCOLASTICA
PITPIT,
namely BENITA PITPIT
REYES, ANITA PITPIT
RAFANAN and PETRA
PITPIT CARULLO,
Plaintiffs,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE No. _____

For: Unlawful Detainer

SPOUSES
JOEL
E.
LANDICHO
and
LUCYVIN C. LANDICHO,
and
ALL
OTHERS
CLAIMING
RIGHTS
UNDER
THEM
AND
OVER THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY,
Defendants.
x----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully aver:
Nature of the Action
This is an action for unlawful detainer filed by the
plaintiffs against the defendants for the latters unjustified

refusal to vacate the leased premises despite receipt of the

plaintiffs demand to vacate.
As will be discussed hereunder, the defendants are
currently occupying the subject property by mere tolerance of
the plaintiffs, and were demanded to vacate and peacefully
surrender the same through a demand letter dated 25
January 2016.
Furthermore, plaintiffs seek to recover the back rentals
of the defendants commencing from April 2015 to present.
Due to the wilful and unjustified refusal of the
defendants to vacate the subject property despite repeated
demands, and to turn over the possession of the subject
property to the plaintiffs, damages are also prayed for.
The Parties
1. Plaintiffs, HEIRS OF THE LATE ESCOLASTICA
PITPIT namely BENITA PITPIT REYES (hereinafter, Benita),
ANITA PITPIT RAFANAN (hereinafter, Anita and PETRA
PITPIT CARULLO (hereinafter, Petra), all are of legal age,
former Filipino citizens and now naturalized America citizens
and with postal address at c/o Bayaua Law Office, 3 rd Floor
Gonzalez Building, 1888 Orense Street, Guadalupe Nuevo,
Makati City, where they may be served with notices and other
processes of this Honorable Court.
2. Defendants, SPOUSES JOEL E, LANDICHO and
LUCYVIN C. LANDICHO, are of legal age and with postal
address at Block 36, Lot 22, St. Jude Street, SAV 1, San
Antonio, Paranaque City, where they may be served with
summons and other processes of this Honorable Court.
3. All persons claiming right under defendants and over
the subject property are herein impleaded as defendants.

Legal Basis to Support the Validity of the Verification and

Certification Against Forum Shopping even if signed by
only one of the Plaintiffs
4.
All the plaintiffs are presently residing in Los
Angeles, California.
5.
For the purpose of this action, one of the plaintiffs,
namely Benita, as heir and co-owner of the subject
property shall represent the Heirs of Escolastica Pitpit.
6.
The Honorable Supreme Court, in the case of Heirs
of Lazaro Gallardo v. Porferio Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April
10, 2013, held that the Verification and Certification Against
Forum Shopping is valid even if only signed by one of the
plaintiffs, the signatory being the a co-heir and co-owner of
the property subject of that case, and further discussed, to
wit:
The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum
shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case
and the signature of only one of them is insufficient.
However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on
forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate
the orderly administration of justice and thus should not
be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to
subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The
rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with
respect to the contents of the certification. This is
because the requirement of strict compliance with the
provisions regarding the certification of non-forum
shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in
that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with
or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, under
justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule
requiring the submission of such certification considering
that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
In HLC Construction and Development Corporation
v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association, it
was held that the signature of only one of the
petitioners in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complied with rules because

all the petitioners share a common interest and

invoke a common cause of action or defense.
The same leniency was applied by the Court in
Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, because the lone petitioner
who executed the certification of non-forum shopping
was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners
with whom he shares a common interest. x x x
xxx
In the instant case, petitioners share a common
interest and defense inasmuch as they collectively claim a
right not to be dispossessed of the subject lot by virtue of
their and their deceased parents construction of a family
home and occupation thereof for more than 10 years. The
commonality of their stance to defend their alleged right
over the controverted lot thus gave petitioners x x x
authority to inform the Court of Appeals in behalf of the
other petitioners that they have not commenced any
action or claim involving the same issues in another
court or tribunal, and that there is no other pending
action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the
same issues.
Here, all the petitioners are immediate relatives who
share a common interest in the land sought to be
reconveyed and a common cause of action raising the
same arguments in support thereof. There was sufficient
basis, therefore, for Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for
and in behalf of his co-petitioners when he certified that
they had not filed any action or claim in another court or
tribunal involving the same issue. Thus, the
Verification/Certification that Hernandez, Jr. executed
constitutes substantial compliance under the Rules.
Similarly, in Traveo v. Bobongon Banana Growers
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, the Court held that:
The certification against forum shopping must be
signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, the signature of
only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

The same position was taken in Medado v. Heirs of

the Late Antonio Consing, where the Court held that
"where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who
share a common interest in the property subject of
the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners
executed the verification or certification of non
forum shopping will not deter the court from
proceeding with the action."
The same situation obtains in this case. Petitioners
are all heirs of the deceased Lazaro. As such, they
undoubtedly share a common interest in the land, as
well as common claims and defenses, as against
respondents.
(Emphasis and underscoring ours)

7. Considering that all the plaintiffs are heirs and in

effect co-owners of the subject property, the instant complaint
may proceed even if the Verification and Certification Against
Forum Shopping, hereinafter attached as an integral part of
this Complaint, was only signed by Benita Pitpit Reyes.
Statement of Material Facts
8. Escolastica Pitpit (hereinafter, Escolastica) is the
registered owner of a house and lot located at San Antonio,
Paranaque City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(281969) 110895 (hereinafter, the subject property), which is
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.
More particularly, the subject property is located at Block 36,
Lot 22, St. Jude Street, SAV 1, San Antonio, Paranaque City.
A copy of TCT No. (281969) 110895 is hereto attached as
ANNEX A.
9.
The subject property is also covered by Tax
Declaration No. E-009-152 in the name of Escolastoca, a copy
of which is hereto attached as ANNEX B.
10. On 18 February 2013, Escolatica died without issue
and/ or compulsory heirs. Thus, she was survived by her
5

sisters, herein plaintiffs, as her heirs. A copy of the Certificate

of Death of Escolastica is herein attached as ANNEX C.
11.
Since the plaintiffs were residents of the United
States, they have decided to sell the subject property. Thus,
plaintiffs Anita and Petra delegated to plaintiff Benita the task
of looking for potential buyers of the subject property.
12. While she was in the Philippines, plaintiff Benita
tried to find a buyer for the subject property. In the course of
her search sometime in 2015, she met herein defendant
spouses, who volunteered to assist plaintiff Benita in finding a
buyer for the subject property.
13. Considering that plaintiff Benitas stay in the
Philippines is only for a limited number of days, she
constituted herein defendant spouses to find a buyer for the
subject property.
14. Through the representations, which later on
appeared false, of the defendants that it would be easier to
find a buyer if the title to the subject property, plaintiff Benita
was enticed to entrust to the defendants the owners duplicate
copy of the title to facilitate the speedy disposal of the subject
property.
15.
Furthermore, the defendants persuaded plaintiff
Benita to let them stay in the subject property so that the
same will be preserved, and that the personal properties of
plaintiff Benita such as Antiques shall be protected and taken
cared of.
16. Plaintiff Benita, thus, allowed the defendants to stay
in the subject property, by mere tolerance, and with the
agreement that defendants will vacate the subject property
when requested to.

17. Sometime in January 2016, it has come to the

knowledge
of
the
plaintiffs
that
defendants
were
surreptitiously fabricating documents to facilitate the transfer
of the subject property to their names. Thus, the plaintiffs,
with the assistance of a counsel, sent the defendants a
demand letter demanding them to vacate the subject property
and to peacefully surrender the same to the plaintiffs. A copy
of the Demand letter dated 25 January 2016 is hereto
attached as ANNEX D.
18. Notwithstanding the receipt of the demand to vacate,
the defendants refused and continuously refuse to vacate the
subject premises.
19. From the date of final demand up to date, the
defendants possession over the subject property ceased to be
lawful.
20. While the instant case is not covered by the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law considering that the parties
reside in different cities/ municipalities/ countries, the
plaintiffs, through plaintiff Benita, still explored the possibility
of amicably settling the instant controversy, and thus referred
the matter to Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa og Barangay
San Antonio, Paranaque City.
21. The Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa set the
controversy for hearings. In the said Barangay hearings, the
defendants failed to appear. Thus, on 22 April 2016, the
Barangay hearing was terminated and a Certificate to File
Action in Court, hereto attached as ANNEX E, was duly
issued by the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa.
22. Up to date, the defendants refuse to return the
subject property to the plaintiffs.
23. Hence, this instant Complaint, which is filed within
a period of one (1) year from date of last demand.

Causes of Action
24.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provide:

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings and when.

Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section,
a person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
against whom the possession of any land or building
is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue
of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one
(1) year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession, bring an action in the
proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or
persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
possession, or any person or persons claiming under
them, for the restitution of such possession, together
with damages and costs.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

25. In the case of Amanda C. Zacarias v. Victoria

Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, 24 September 2014, the Honorable
Supreme Court held that:
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for
unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
(1) Initially, possession of property by the defendant
was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) Eventually, such possession became illegal upon
notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the
latters right of possession;
(3) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession
of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof; and

(4) Within one year from the last demand on

defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted
the complaint for ejectment.

28. While the defendants initial stay in the subject

property was lawful by reason of the tolerance of the plaintiffs,
their possession over the subject property because unlawful
the moment the plaintiffs demanded them to vacate the
subject property.
29. The unjustified refusal of the defendants to vacate
the subject property despite repeated demands to vacate is a
violation of the right of the plaintiffs to use and occupy the
subject property, which has caused damage and prejudice to
the plaintiffs
30. The plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable rentals to be
computed from date the tolerance ceased until the time the
defendants surrender the subject property.
31. The wanton and unjustified refusal of the
defendants to vacate the subject property, to include the bad
faith of the defendants in attempting to transfer the ownership
of the subject property to their names without the knowledge
and consent of the plaintiffs, have caused the plaintiffs to
experience mental anguish, sleepless nights, serious anxiety
and other similar injury, thus entitling her to the amount of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00) from each of the
defendants, as and by way of moral damages;
32. So that others may be minded not to do the same
illegal and unlawful acts of the defendants, defendants should
be made individually liable to the plaintiffs the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00), as and by way of exemplary
damages;
33. By reason of the defendants unjustified refusal to
vacate the subject property, the plaintiffs were compelled to
engage the services of a counsel, for which services it has
agreed to pay the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
9

(PhP50,000.00) as Attorneys Fees plus Four Thousand Pesos

(PhP4,000.00) per court appearance.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed unto this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered
ordering the defendants:
a.

To vacate the subject property located at Block

36, Lot 22, St. Jude Street, SAV 1, San Antonio,
Paranaque City;

b.

To pay the plaintiffs reasonable rentals from the

time final demand was made until the defendants
have vacated the subject property;

c.

To the plaintiffs the sum of Fifty Hundred

Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00) each, as and by
way of moral damages;

d.

To pay the plaintiffs the sum of Twenty Thousand

Pesos (PhP20,000.00) each, as and by way of
exemplary damages;

e.

To pay the plaintiffs the sum of Fifty Thousand

Pesos (PhP50,000.00) each, as and by way of
Attorneys Fees plus Four Thousand Pesos
(PhP3,000.00) per court appearance; and

f.

To pay the cost of suit.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are

also prayed for.
Makati City for Paraaque City. 10 June 2016.

BAYAUA LAW OFFICE

10

3rd Floor, Gonzalez Bldg., 1888 Orense Street,

Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City
Tel Nos. (02) 750-4439/ (02) 881-7629
Email: bayaualawoffice@gmail.com
By:

ATTY. JORICO FAVOR BAYAUA

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
IBP Lifetime Member O.R. No. 09572, 01-13-11, Pasig City
PTR No. 5330802, 01-08-16, Makati City
Roll No. 47842
MCLE Compliance No. V- 0009973, _________
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING
I, BENITA PITPIT REYES, of legal age, former Filipino citizen
and now a naturalized American Citizen and with postal address at
c/o Bayaua Law Office, 3rd Floor Gonzalez Building, 1888 Orense
Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law do hereby depose and states:
I am the one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case. The
other plaintiffs are my co-heirs and/ or co-owners of the property
subject of the instant Complaint.
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint
having supplied all material allegations contained therein and
hereby attest that they are true and correct to the best of my own
personal knowledge or based on authentic records;
There is no other action or proceeding involving the same
issues raised in this case has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof,
Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts or other tribunal
or agency.
I hereby undertake and bind myself to inform this Honorable
Court of any similar case filed or pending in any court or quasijudicial agency that may come to my knowledge.

11

Affiant further sayeth naught.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this
____ ___________ 2016, in ____________ City.

BENITA PITPIT REYES

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________ at ___________
City, Philippines.
is personally known to the notary public
was identified by notary public through Competent Evidence of Identity as
defined by Rules of Notarial Practice of 2004 thru the presentation of the ff:
Drivers License No._________
Passport No.____________
PRC No.__________________
TIN No. ________________
SSS ID No._______________
Company ID No._______
GSIS ID No.______________
CTC No.________________
Postal ID No._____________
Issued on _______________
OTHER/S
Issued in _______________
Doc. No.
_____;
Page No.
_____;
Book No.
_____;
Series of 2016.

12