REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

City of Manila
Branch 1

KRUL ACOSTA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 98765
-versus- FOR: Unlawful Detainer

MEGAN VITUG,
Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That the plaintiff, KRUL ACOSTA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with residence
and postal address at 123 Benitez Street, Manila;

2. That the defendant, MEGAN VITUG, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with
residence and postal address at 456 Modesto Street, Manila, where they may be served
with summons and other court processes;

3. The plaintiff is the owner of a land over which an apartment had been constructed located
654 San Pedro Street, Manila;

4. By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiff leased unto the defendant the aforesaid
apartment for a consideration of P5,000.00 a month as rental to be paid within the first
ten (10) days of each month starting November 3, 2011;

5. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for several months starting February 19,
2012 up to the present;

6. On May 3, 2012, the plaintiff sent a letter of demand to vacate the apartment which was
received by the defendant as shown in the registry return receipt hereto attached as Annex
A;

7. Despite said letter of demand which was repeated by oral demands, the defendant failed
and still refused to pay the agreed amount of rentals and to vacated the apartment;
 8. By reason of failure of the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the unpaid rentals,
the plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint engaging the services of counsel in the
amount of P10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable

Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant:

1. To vacate the subject premises;

2. To pay the amount of P5,000.00 per month as compensation for the reasonable use of the
subject premises until they finally vacate the said premises;

3. To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

City of Manila, September 24, 2012.

REYES, TOLENTINO AND CRUZ LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 123, Victoria Tower I
Taft Avenue, Manila

By:
Louise Reyes
Roll of Attorney No. 98765
IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila ) S.S.

I, KRUL ACOSTA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and resident of 123 Benitez Street,
Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accord Nance with law do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint and have read the
allegations contained therein;

3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my own knowledge and
authentic records;

4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
 5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
or agency where the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have
been filed;

6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to
comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 24th of September

2012, in the City of Manila.

KRUL ACOSTA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of September, 2012, in the
City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers License No. 12345 issued by the Land
Transportation Office on April 8, 2012 at the City of Manila.

ATTY. NO CASE
Notary Public
My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 2012
Roll of Attorney No. 34567
IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila

Doc. No. ________

Page No. _______
Book No. _______
Series of 2012
 Republic of the Philippines
Municipal Trial Court
Branch 5
Baguio City

Mr. Uzumaki Naruto, plaintiff Civil Case No. 2

Accompanied by his Attorney in fact, for:Unlawful Detainer
Atty. Poging Attorney

-versus-

Mr. Uchiha Sasuke, Defendant

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

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this most
honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

1. The Plaintiff is of legal age, married and a resident of Puguis, La Trinidad Benguet. The
Defendant is likewise of legal age, married and temporary residing at Petersville Subdivision,
Baguio City.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the two-storey house unit located at the Petersville Subdivision,
Baguio City, and having the residential address of PV 123 as evidenced by pertinent documents
like tax declaration and deed of sale. ( EXHIBIT A )
3. The Defendant is the lessee of the house unit that is owned by the Plaintiff as evidenced by the
written contract of lease that both parties signed. (Exhibit B)
4. The Plaintiff and the Defendant came up with a written agreement of Lease on June 26, 2007,
which they both agreed upon and was duly signed by the two parties as shown in their contract of
lease. (Exhibit B)
5. Item No. 16 of the contract which the defendant signed expressly provides that he will only be
occupying the property for one (1) year, after which, he will vacate the house when that term
expires. (Exhibit B)
6. The contract also provides that the defendant should also take care of the property and its
premises with the utmost diligence.
7. On June 28, 2008, the plaintiff, after returning from Japan, was surprised to discover that the
defendant did not vacate the property as he expected. Worse, he installed a sari-sari store in the
original building structure of the house unit.
8. The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant claimed that it was a DEED
OF SALE which they signed and not a CONTRACT OF LEASE and therefore, the defendant
is the new owner of the house unit.
9. On August 20, 2008, after continuous demands, the defendant constantly refuses to vacate the
house unit and even invited relatives to stay with him.
10. The defendant willfully and maliciously violated the agreement which they mutually agreed
upon, and which the defendant signed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
judgement be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement;

a. The defendant shall vacate the house unit owned by the plaintiff.
b. The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 120, 000 for the Attorneys Fees.

Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Baguio City, Philippines, this 28th day of September 2008.

Poging Attorney
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Baguio Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, Baguio City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

 I, Mr. Uzumaki Naruto, of Legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and a resident of Puguis, La
Trinidad Benguet, after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;

1. I am the Complainant in this proceeding.

2. I have read and understood the filed complaint and allegations therein.

Uzumaki Naruto
Complainant

In witness thereof, I, Mr. Poging Attorney, counsel of the plaintiff, have herunto set my hand this
29th of September at Baguio City.

Poging Attorney
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Baguio Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, Baguio City
The usual way a civil case proceeds

[1] The plaintiff files the complaint against the defendant and pays the filing fees with
the clerk of court. The case is raffled off to a specific court branch.

[2] The process server or the court sheriff serves the summons by handing it personally
to the defendant, or if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. In
certain cases, summons may be published in a newspaper. (Please read Rule 14 -
Summon.)

[3] The summons is not served because:

(a) the plaintiff loses interest in pursuing the case by filing a notice of dismissal;

(b) the defendant cannot be located at the address stated in the complaint (the court
may then issue an alias summons).
[4] Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by his receipt of the summons. If it cannot
be served, the court provisionally dismisses the case (that is, without prejudice to its
revival once the defendant is located).

[5] Defendant may file either (a) an answer or (b) a motion to dismiss. This must be
submitted within fifteen days from receipt of the summons. The period to answer
however may be extended by the court upon motion. (Please read Rule 11 - When to
file responsive pleadings.)

[6] If the court denies the motion to dismiss, the defendant must file his answer within
the remaining time (which must not be less than five days from his receipt of the notice
of denial). The practice of some judges is to require the defendant to file an answer and
not a motion to dismiss. In such a case, the defendant must allege the grounds for
dismissal as affirmative defenses in his answer.

Additional things to consider

(a) Before filing an answer, the defendant may file a bill of particulars pointing out
defects in the complaint, the details desired, the vague allegations, etc. (Please read
Rule 12 - Bill of particulars.)

(b) Husband and wife generally shall sue or be sued jointly since both are co-
administrators of the community property or the conjugal partnership property. (Please
read Rule 3 - Parties to civil actions.)

(c) The requirements for a class suit are common or general interest in the subject
matter of the case, and the affected persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to
join them all as parties.

(d) In case of transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the
original party, unless the court directs the transferee to be substituted in the action or
joined with the original party.

(e) The complaint must contain a certification against forum shopping. If there is
none, the court will dismiss the complaint

(f) The venue of personal actions is the court of the place where the plaintiff (or any of
the principal plaintiffs) resides, or where the defendant (or any of the principal
defendants) resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, and those involving title or possession of
real property with an assessed value of Php 50,000. (in Metro Manila) shall be tried in
the MTC wherein the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated.

The rules on venue however shall not apply in cases where a specific rule or law
applies, and when the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action
on the exclusive venue thereof. (Please read Rule 4 - Venue of actions.)

(g) Venue: Where should the case be filed if there are several complainants?

The Supreme Court ruled in Irene Marcos-Araneta, Daniel Rubio, Orlando G. Reslin,
And Jose G. Reslin, Petitioners, vs. Court Of Appeals, Julita C. Benedicto, And
Francisca Benedicto-Paulino, Respondents that the case must be filed in the proper
court of the residence of the principal complainant, as Sec. 2 of Rule 4 provides. The
Court ruled:
Irene was a resident during the period material of Forbes Park, Makati City. She was not
a resident of Brgy. Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte, although jurisprudence[44] has it that one
can have several residences, if such were the established fact. The Court will not
speculate on the reason why petitioner Irene, for all the inconvenience and expenses
she and her adversaries would have to endure by a Batac trial, preferred that her case
be heard and decided by the RTC in Batac. On the heels of the dismissal of the original
complaints on the ground of improper venue, three new personalities were added to the
complaint doubtless to insure, but in vain as it turned out, that the case stays with the
RTC in Batac.
Litigants ought to bank on the righteousness of their causes, the superiority of their
cases, and the persuasiveness of arguments to secure a favorable verdict. It is high
time that courts, judges, and those who come to court for redress keep this ideal in
mind.
(h) Difference between personal action and real action:
In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the
enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages.

Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title to or possession of real
property, or interest therein.

In accordance with the wordings of Sec. 1 of Rule 4, the venue of real actions shall be
the proper court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

The venue of personal actions is the court where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or
in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff. (Irene Marcos-Araneta vs. CA)
(i) Rules on indigent litigants (Spouses Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the
City of Naga, et al. GR No. 150135, October 30, 2006)
Who is an indigent under Section 19 of Rule 141?

(1) The applicants gross income and that of the applicant's immediate family do not
exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and

(2) The applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00).

If the trial court finds that the applicant meets the income and property requirements,
the authority to litigate as indigent litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a
matter of right.

If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Sec. 19
of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the
application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the applicant should not be
denied outright; instead the court should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of
Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for
exemption.