REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

6TH JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN THE CITIES
Branch ____
Hall of Justice, Bacolod City
---o0o---

ANNA LOVE BELLA TENEBRO Civil Case No. ___________

Plaintiff

-versus-

SPS. RAUL & RACHELLE JAVELOSA For:

Defendants Ejectment/Unlawful
Detainer with Damages
x---------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs by counsel states that:

THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff ANNA LOVE BELLA TENEBRO is a Filipino
citizen, of legal age with residence at 22nd Lacson Cor.
Aguinaldo St., Bacolod City, Philippines. For purposes of
this action, she may be conveniently served with the notices,
summons and other issuances of this Honorable Court
pertinent to this case at the office address of her undersigned
counsel as indicated in this pleading.

2. Defendants RAUL JAVELOSA, JR. a.k.a “Kikoy” and

RACHELLE JAVELOSA are also Filipinos, married to each
other, and now occupies a portion of the property of the
plaintiff at 22nd Lacson Cor. Aguinaldo St., Bacolod City
where they may be conveniently served with all the notices,
summons and other issuances of this Honorable Court
pertinent to this case.

Page 1 of 9
3. Plaintiff and Raul Javelosa, Jr. are first cousins by
consanguinity by reason that their respective mothers are
sisters.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A.
OWNERSHIP OF LOT 2-C

4. Originally, Lot 2-C was registered in the name of VICTORIA

VERGAGA, (now FOSTER) who is the mother of the
plaintiff.

5. At present, the subject property is now registered in the

name of the plaintiff, Annex “A”.

6. Being natives of Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, plaintiff’s

family would only visit once in a while the subject property
thus, they hired a caretaker for the house in 2004 by the
name Victoria B. Ernan who also used to be the helper of
defendant Raul Javelosa, Jr. when they were yet renting a
different place. Since her hiring, Victoria has been residing in
the subject house up to the present thus it is not a wonder
why she would have personal knowledge of the nature of
the occupation of Raul in the plaintiff’s property.

7. The life of Victoria Vergara (Foster) was a colorful one so

that by life’s fate, she was able to get a job in Japan in 2009.

8. In the meantime, her sister, the mother of the defendant,

GRACE GOODYEAR also found her luck in marrying a US
citizen. She settled now in Illinois, USA.

9. In the first quarter of 2011, while in Japan, VICTORIA

(FOSTER) secured a personal loan from her sister Grace who
was then in the US in the amount of US $ 6,000. During that
time, the exchange rate of US dollars into Philippine Peso
was around P 38.00 (so the loan makes roughly Php
228,000.00 only).

10. While extending the loan, Grace Goodyear proposed to

Victoria (Foster) the prospect of buying the subject property
of the plaintiff because defendant RAUL JAVELOSA a.k.a

Page 2 of 9
 “Kikoy” would soon graduate from his Culinary course and
that he has nothing to stay permanently for his own family
and start his planned restaurant business.

11.This conversation bolsters the fact and proves that by this

point in time, defendant Kikoy was aware and acknowledged
that the subject property is owned by Victoria (Foster)
otherwise, he will not ask the consent and permission of
Victoria.

12.Victoria (Foster) was open to the proposal and counter

offered that she will only sell it at the prevailing selling rate
in that area of Bacolod City during that time which is 4.5
Million pesos but eventually changed her mind and offered
to her sister the said property for 3.5 Million on account of
their good relationship. At this point, no final agreement
was arrived at by both Grace and Victoria because Victoria
has yet to return to the Philippines to see again the property
before any final sale is made.

13.It was initially proposed however by Victoria that “should”

the transaction proceeds, the $ 6,000 loan will be deducted
from the proceeds of the sale.

B.

TOLERANCE EXISTED FROM THE VERY START OF

THE OCCUPATION

14.Weeks after the conversation between Victoria and Grace, on

April 07, 2011, defendant Kikoy communicated to Victoria
(Foster) through messenger using the account of defendant
Rachelle Javelosa (the wife). In the said conversation, Kikoy
was asking permission from Victoria (Foster) for the free
usage of the garage of the property subject of this case
supposedly for the restaurant business he intends to open
after his graduation. Annexes “B”, “B-1” and “B-2”. Kikoy
was also asking Victoria (Foster) that he will only pay for the
rent should his business prospers and gets stable. No
specific date nor terms and conditions were ever agreed in
relation to the request of Kikoy.

15.Furthermore, in the said recorded conversation, Kikoy

mentioned “JAVY”. This Javy is the son of Victoria (Foster)

Page 3 of 9
 and young brother of the plaintiff who that time was staying
in the said property since he was studying in one of the
Colleges in Bacolod City. Annex “B-1-A”.

16. Since the relationship in the family was very close, Victoria
(Foster) eventually gave permission to the defendant to
occupy the portion of the subject property with the condition
that no improvement shall be introduced first until she
(Victoria) comes home that year (2011) and after the deal
with the defendant’s mother will be finalized including the
preparation of the required papers.

C.

HOW THE LEGAL OCCUPATION OF THE

DEFENDANTS BECAME ILLEGAL

17.While in Japan yet, the caretaker, also named Victoria

informed Victoria (Foster) that Kikoy was already starting to
introduce improvements in the house which prompted
Victoria (Foster) to return to the Philippines in September
2011 to personally see what was going on.

18.In her visit to the house, she was surprised to see that Kikoy
did not follow her instruction but instead saw that there
were introduction of improvements made by Kikoy in the
garage that was turned into a restaurant.

19.Angry, Victoria (Foster) communicated to Grace telling the

latter that she is now withdrawing the offer to sell of the
entire property including the improvements found thereon
and no sale shall ever take place involving the subject
property. She further offered to pay in full her obligation to
Grace in the amount of $ 6,000 but Grace refused because the
latter wanted that the sale proceeds.

20.Also, in the personal encounter of Victoria (Foster) and

Kikoy, the latter refused to vacate the premises upon the
demand and continued to occupy a portion thereof and
conducts his restaurant business even without a business
permit.

21.Plaintiff in several instances likewise demanded Kikoy to

leave the premises peacefully but received only bully and

Page 4 of 9
 threats from her cousin who continues to stay in the
premises until now to her prejudice.

D.

OTHER INCIDENTS SATISFYING THE ELEMENTS FOR

UNLAWFUL DETAINER

22.On September 2017, the entire property was donated by

Victoria (Foster) to plaintiff Ana Love Bella V. Tenebro so
that on September 8, 2017, the plaintiff became the absolute
owner of Lot-2-C covered by TCT No. 092-2017004388.
Attached is the Deed of Donation of the property, Annex
“C”.

23. In January 2018 the plaintiff brought the matter to the Lupon
of Brgy. 4, Bacolod City which has jurisdiction over the
property but no settlement was arrived because defendant
Kikoy refuses to leave the premises so that a Certificate to
File Action was issued by said Barangay dated January 19,
2018, Annex “E”.

24. On February 27, 2018, the hired counsel of the plaintiff sent
a letter of demand to vacate the premises against the
defendant, Annex “D”.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

The Action for Unlawful Detainer is a proper remedy

25.A petition for ejectment particularly an action for unlawful

detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court is deemed
proper as Section 1 thereof provides:

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

Page 5 of 9
 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.

26.In the case of Rodolfo Rudy Canlas, et.al. v. Iluminada

Tubil1, citing Cabrera v. Getaruela2 it was 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 latter’s 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.

27.In this case, it is clearly established that the occupation of the

defendants of a portion of the subject property was legal
from the beginning on account of the consent and tolerance
made by Victoria (Foster) then registered owner and mother
of the plaintiff who is at the same time the aunt of the
defendants. The tolerance and consent sought which was
granted is very clear from the conversation between Victoria
(Foster) and defendant Kikoy. Reference should be made to
Annexes B in series.

1 G.R. No. 184285, 25 September 2009

2 G.R. No. 164213, 21 April 2009

Page 6 of 9
 The occupation only became illegal after demand was made
by Victoria (Foster) on Kikoy to vacate the premises on
account of the spoiled transaction of sale over the property
and the violation of Kikoy of the specific instructions of
Victoria (Foster).

THE TOLERANCE WAS PASSED ON TO THE

PLAINTIFF AS SUBROGEE

28. While originally, the tolerance was given by Victoria

(Foster) being the then owner of the property, the same was
technically transferred to the herein plaintiff as the subrogee
who likewise extended tolerance until final demand to
vacate was made.

This finds support in the case of Lourdes de la Cruz v.

CA3 when it ruled:

“The Reyeses however tolerated the continued

occupancy of the lot by petitioner. Thus, when
the lot was sold to respondent Tan Te, the
rights of the Reyeses, with respect to the lot,
were transferred to their subrogee,
respondent Tan Te, who for a time also
tolerated the stay of petitioner until she
decided to eject the latter by sending several
demands, the last being the January 14, 1997
letter of demand. xxx”

29.It is likewise clear that the tolerance by the plaintiff’s

predecessor-in-interest was made from the very beginning of
the occupation of the defendants.

30.Demands both verbal and in writing were likewise made on

the defendants proof of which is the demand letter sent by
the counsel of the plaintiff. Please refer to Annex C.

31.All told, all the requisites to make a case of unlawful

detainer has been substantially satisfied in this case.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

3 G.R. No. 139442, December 06, 2006

Page 7 of 9
 Plaintiff suffered loss, therefore entitled to claim for
damages.

32.By reason of failure of the defendants to vacate the premises

of Lot 2-C and covered by TCT No. 092-2017004388, the
plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint by engaging
the services of the undersigned counsel in the amount of
Php 100,000.00 and the amount of Php 3,000.00 as
appearance fee per court hearing, Annex “F”.

33.The plaintiff likewise has to pay filing fees, and other docket
fees in filing this case, amount and proof of which will be
incorporated in the position paper to be submitted which is
approximately not less than P 5,000.00.

34.On account of the abusive and threatening behaviour of the

defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages
whereby he should be made to pay the amount of P 50,000
as an example to the public.

35.Defendants shall likewise be made to pay for the rentals of

the portion he is occupying in favour of the plaintiff at the
rate of P 15,000 per month counted from the filing of this
case. The value of the monthly rentals is based on the located
of the property which is just few meters away from Lacson
St., considered as a prime lot and the space occupied by the
defendants.

36.This case was filed within the one-year period from the date
of the last demand to vacate.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Honorable Court renders judgment in favour of the
plaintiff as follows:

1. Ordering the defendants, their heirs and those who are

acting under their instructions to vacate the premises
subject of this case, in particular Lot-2-C covered by TCT
No. 092-2017004388;

Page 8 of 9
 2. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount
of P 100,000 as Attorney’s Fee and P 3,000 per court
hearing and appearances before the PMC/JDR multiplied
by the number of appearances based on record;

3. Ordering the defendants to pay for the expenses incurred

by the plaintiff representing the filing fees, and other
docket fees in filing this case.

4. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount

of P 50,000.00 as exemplary damages on account of the
abusive behaviour of the defendants as an example to the
public.

5. Ordering the defendant to pay for the rentals of the

portion he is occupying in favour of the plaintiff at the
rate of P 15,000 per month counted from the filing of this
case.

Other relief that is just and equitable under the circumstance

is likewise prayed for.

Most respectfully submitted.

16 March 2018, Bacolod City, Philippines.

MALUNES, MAMPANG & MONTORO

LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff
Room 202, Park Lane Building,
Hilado-Tindalo Ave., Bacolod City

BY:

ARIEL I. MALUNES
Roll of Attorney No. 51729
IBP No. 023918, Jan. 10, 2018, Bacolod City
PTR No. . 1205860, 01/16/18- E.B. Magalona, Neg. Occ.
MCLE Compliance No. V- 0011018
Valid until April 14, 2019

Page 9 of 9