Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Sample

Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Sample REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT City of Manila Branch 1 KRUL ACOSTA, Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 98765 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 Driver’s 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 Accompanied by his Attorney –in – fact, Atty. Poging Attorney

Civil Case No. 2 for:Unlawful Detainer

-versusMr. 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 Attorney’s 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 coadministrators 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 applicant’s 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.”