REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

ELLIE DENZ, represented by

Attorney in Fact ROLANDO
FARINAS, Plaintiff,

Versus Civil Case No.

______________

FOR:

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
with claim for Damages

JONATHAN VERZOZA, EDILBERTO

GALLEON DUMELOD, and PILAR
MARAMBA GUMASING,
Defendants
X------------------------X

COMPLIANT
With all due respect to the Honorable Court.

Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned Counsel,

alleges:

1.) That the Plaintiff ELLIE DENZ is of legal age,

widower, Filipino citizen and a resident of Barangay Poblacion
South, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, and herein duly represented by
Attorney in Fact ROLANDO FARINAS, of legal age, Filipino,
married and a resident of Poblacion North, Solano, Nueva
Vizcaya, while Defendants JONATHAN VERZOSA,
EDILBERTO GALLEON DUMELOD, and PILAR MARAMBA
GUMASING are of legal ages, Filipinos, residents of Abacan
Street, Poblacion South, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya where they
may be served with summons and other Court processes, a
copy of the Special Power of Attorney of the Attorney in Fact
is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part
hereof;

2.) That the Plaintiff is a co-owner of a certain parcel

of land, including its improvement, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-134628 issued by the Registry of
Deeds of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, a xerox copy of the
Title is hereto attached as Annex “B” and made an integral
part hereof; that the assessed value of the afore-mentioned
parcel of land and improvements is fifty eight thousand eight
hundred seventy pesos (58,870.00) and twenty four thousand
three hundred ninety (24, 390.00) as per the tax declarations
of property issued by the Assessor’s Office, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya, a xerox copies of the tax declarations are hereto
attached as Annexes “C” and “D”, made an integral parts
hereof;

3.) That the defendants occupies the property in

dispute by mere tolerance because the predecessor in interest
of the plaintiff allowed them; that even after the death of the
predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, the defendants were
allowed to stay on the property in dispute by tolerance;

4.) That on November 15, 2018, Plaintiff wrote and

demanded the Defendants to vacate the premises because the
former needs the property in dispute for the construction of a
commercial building but the latter refused and failed to vacate
the premises, xerox copies of the demand letters are hereto
attached as Annexes “E”, “F”, and “G” and made integral
parts hereof;

5.) That prior to December 25, 2018, the herein

attorney in fact went to personally reiterate the demand to
vacate made by the Plaintiff through counsel but was instead
met with a defiant and recalcitrant defendants who verbally
threatened that they will introduce and construct new
improvements reasoning they were then allowed before by the
predecessor in interest of the plaintiff; that further, the
defendants continue to use the property in dispute for
commercial purposes without the consent/against the wishes
of the Plaintiff and without paying any agreed rental; that
furthermore, Attorney in Fact saw other people in the
premises under the control of the Defendants also staying in
the property in dispute and when the latter were confronted
who were these persons, they adamant refused to tell their
names;

6.) That because the defendants continue to use the

property for commercial purposes without plaintiffs consent
and paying any single centavo as rental, their threat to
introduce improvements and their allowance for other people
to stay in the property in dispute under their control, the
Plaintiff prays for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the
defendants from further continuing with the afore-mentioned
acts; that further, the continuance of such acts would cause
great and irreparable injury and would work injustice to
applicant Plaintiff; that furthermore, the actuations of the
defendants as alleged in paragraph 5 hereof is in violation of
the rights of Plaintiff applicant and would render the instant
Complaint moot and academic/ineffectual; that the Plaintiff
applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought and is ready and
willing to post an injunctive bond in an amount set by the
Honorable Court to be just and equitable;

7.) That in view of the obstinate refusal of the

Defendants and their assigns to leave and vacate the property,
the plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of a Law
firm and paid the amount of thirty thousand pesos as
attorney’s fees and agreed to pay the amount of one thousand
pesos per court appearance;

8.) That further, the Plaintiffs likewise suffered actual

damages in the amount of thirty thousand pesos per month
representing the lost income that the Plaintiff would have
received had the defendant vacated the portion is dispute
peacefully considering location of the property in dispute and
the fact that that there are prospective lessees who are ready
and willing to pay the afore-mentioned rental;

9.) That furthermore, on account of the Defendants’

refusal to vacate, the Plaintiff suffered wounded feelings,
sleepless nights and untold serious anxiety entitling her to the
amount of fifty thousand pesos as moral damages and twenty
five thousand pesos as exemplary damages to deter the public
from exemplifying the actuations of the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to:

1.) Order the Defendants and their assigns/all persons under

their control claiming possession to vacate the property in
dispute;
2.) Order the Defendant to pay the amount of thirty
thousand pesos as attorney’s fees and to pay the amount of
one thousand pesos per court appearance;
3.) Order the Defendant to pay actual damages in the amount
of thirty thousand pesos per month representing the lost
income that the Plaintiffs would have received;
4.) Order the Defendant to pay the amount of fifty thousand
pesos as moral damages and twenty five thousand pesos as
exemplary damages; and to
5.) Order the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya this 30th day of March,

2010.

BAQUIRAN BAGASAO VALDEZ LAW OFFICE

# National Road, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

ATTY. JOEL L. BAQUIRAN

IBP NO.
PTR NO.
Both issued at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. (Place my specifics using the
details upto 2018)

VERIFICATION

JURAT

This is the final draft to be filed. Pls coordinate accordingly.