Complaint in InterventionEDITED

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11TH Judicial Region
Branch ____
Mati City, Davao Oriental
EMILITA SARENAS, IN HER BEHALF

AND IN THE BEHALVES OF MANUEL
M. YAP et al
Intervenor, CIVIL CASE No. 128-

9456
For:
INTERVENTION
VS.
MUNICIPALITY OF LUPON
PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL
Represented by ERLINDA D. LIM,
Municipal Mayor
Plaintif
-x------------------------------------------- x
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
INTERVENOR, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully states and prays that:
1. Emilita Sarenas, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married

to_________, a Filipino citizen and a resident of _______,
_________, Philippines.
2. Herein Intervenor Emelita Sarenas (Ms. Sarenas for brevity)

has acquired rights over the subject property herein
expropriated. The antecedents of this instant motion stems
from the following factual milieu:
The Municipality of Lupon needed a functional and

presentable Overland Transport Terminal of Lupon to answer
the needs of the growing needs of the riding public; That the
said property is situated along the National Highway and its
strategic location is ideally suited for an Overland Transport
Terminal of the Municipality of Lupon. The subject property is
hereby owned by Heirs of Virigilio Licuanan and Victor
Licuanan et. Al. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
1 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

No. T-324031 containing an area of 29, 172 Square meters
as registered. That, pursuant to Municipal Ordinance No.
2017-11 authorized the Municipal Mayor Erlinda Lim to
initiate expropriation proceedings to acquire the said
property and appropriate the fund therefor. The ordinance
stated that the property owners were notified of the
municipality’s intent to purchase the aforementioned
property for public use more specifically to be used as the
place where the propose Overland Terminal of Lupon be
established but the herein defendants rejected the ofer.
3. That this complaint is filed to intervene as the person who

will stand to be injured in the present expropriation
proceeding filed herein by the Local Government.
4. That a case before the Supreme Court is still pending as of

this time involving the same subject property with conflicting
claims as against the herein defendant Heirs of Licuanan and
Heirs of Pantalan Moro docketed as Case No.__________ and a
case of Heirs of Fransisco Yap v Heirs of Licuanan docketed
as Case No. ________.
5. That I am one to be benefitted of any legal outcome pending

the final resolution of the case, as I am one of the Heirs of
Yap which the herein Pantalan Moro et. Al sold portion of the
two properties herein subject of expropriation in a Deed of
Sale dated October 29, 19892
6. According to the Rules, that upon timely application, any

person who has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, may intervene in the action or proceeding, a court may
grant leave to non-parties to join the plaintif in claiming
what is sought by the complaint; to unite with the defendant
in resisting the plaintif's claims; or to demand anything
adverse to both parties. The Rule is explicit;
Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal

interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either
of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as
to be adversely afected by a distribution or other disposition
of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the
action. The court shall consider whether or not the

intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the
intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate
proceeding.
7. That said property in question, was acquired by the

Intervenor, Sarenas through his predecessor Heirs of Yap
from Heirs of Pantalan Moro et.Al on October 29, 1989 in
consideration of ______________as stated in the Deed of Sale
registered under the name of ___________________, recorded in
the Registry of Deeds in the Province of__________________. 3
(???)
In Alfelor v. Halasan, the Court held that:
Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed

when a person has (1) a legal interest in the
matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of
the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties;
(4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely
afected by a distribution or disposition of
property in the custody of the court or an officer
thereof.
Jurisprudence describes intervention as “a

remedy by which a third party, not originally
impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant
therein to enable him, her or it to protect or
preserve a right or interest which may be
afected by such proceedings.” “The right to
intervene is not an absolute right; it may only be
permitted by the court when the movant
establishes facts which satisfy the requirements
of the law authorizing it.”
8. The herein movant, Emelita Sarenas hinges its right

to intervene in the herein proceeding under Section
9, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
which authorizes the court adjudicating the
expropriation case to hear and decide conflicting
claims regarding the ownership of the properties
involved while the compensation for the
expropriated property is in the meantime deposited
with the court.
Section 9 provides:

Sec. 9. Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims. If the
ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or
there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the
court may order any sum or sums awarded as
compensation for the property to be paid to the
court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the
same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the
judgment shall require the payment of the sum or
sums awarded to either the defendant or the court
before the plaintif can enter upon the property, or
retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has
already been made.
9. That this intervention will not in any way enlarge the

issues in this case as intervenor do not seek to
expand or complicate the issues. Instead, the
intervenor only seek to participate in the proceeding
for the sole purpose of ensuring her rights of the
portion of the subject property in the just
compensation to be paid by the defendant, Heirs of
Licuanan from the expropriators Municipality of
Lupon.
10. That the Intervenor, Sarenas was deeply

afected of the expropriation proceeding initiated by
the herein Municipality of Lupon of the questioned
property, which is the subject matter in this case,
that caused her to initiate legal remedy for the relief
and recovery of damages inflicted to her person, and
bring the matter to this honorable court in a way of
intervention. For the foregoing reasons, Intervenor
Emelita Sarenas respectfully request that the Court
grant her application for leave to file a Complaint in
Intervention.
WHERFORE, it is prayed:
1. That the litigants in the Special Civil Action docketed as No.

415-18 for Expropriation of Real Property be ordered by this
Honorable Court to have the proceeds of the expropriation
deposited with this branch in the meantime, pending
adjudication of the issues of ownership of the expropriated
lands.

2. That if voluntary turn-over of the property or waiver of the
claim by both plaintif and defendants is not possible, order be
made against the litigants to pay for the damages and other
litigation expenses plus attorney’s fees in favor of the
Intervenor.
3. Further it is prayed that Intervenor be granted such relief

found to be consistent with law and equity.
Signed this ______ day of March 2018 in Davao City, Philippines.
EMELITA SARENAS
Intervenor
Assisting Counsel:
ATTORNEY DANIEL CAMPOAMOR
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Complaint in InterventionEDITED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint in InterventionEDITED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint in InterventionEDITED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

EMILITA SARENAS, IN HER BEHALF

Intervenor, CIVIL CASE No. 128-

INTERVENOR, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court

1. Emilita Sarenas, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married

2. Herein Intervenor Emelita Sarenas (Ms. Sarenas for brevity)

The Municipality of Lupon needed a functional and

1 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

3. That this complaint is filed to intervene as the person who

4. That a case before the Supreme Court is still pending as of

5. That I am one to be benefitted of any legal outcome pending

6. According to the Rules, that upon timely application, any

Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal

2 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

7. That said property in question, was acquired by the

In Alfelor v. Halasan, the Court held that:

Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed

Jurisprudence describes intervention as “a

8. The herein movant, Emelita Sarenas hinges its right

3 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

9. That this intervention will not in any way enlarge the

10. That the Intervenor, Sarenas was deeply

1. That the litigants in the Special Civil Action docketed as No.

4 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

3. Further it is prayed that Intervenor be granted such relief

Signed this ______ day of March 2018 in Davao City, Philippines.

ATTORNEY DANIEL CAMPOAMOR

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

5 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION

You might also like