FORM NO.

1: COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1

PAUL CASUGA,
Plaintiff,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE No. 75643
FOR: Unlawful Detainer

CHRISTY SALONGA,
Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1. That the plaintiff, PAUL CASUGA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with
residence and postal address at 1137 Fulgoso Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila;

2. That the defendant, CHRISTY SALONGA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single,
with residence and postal address at 753 Maliwanag 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 785 Mayhaligue Street, Manila covered by TCT No. 79123;

4. By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiff leased unto the defendant the aforesaid
apartment for a consideration of P6,000.00 a month as rental to be paid within the first
ten (10) days of each month starting December 4, 2020;

5. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for several months starting February 20,
2021 up to the present;

6. On April 4, 2021, 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;
To pay the amount of P6,000.00 per month as compensation for the reasonable use of the
subject premises until they finally vacate the said premises;
To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

City of Manila, September 24, 2012.

RIVERA, DELA CRUZ AND ESCALONA LAW OFFICE

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

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

2
FORM NO. 2: COMPLAINT FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY

Republic of the Philippines

th
5 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Second Judicial region
Naguilian, Isabela

RONALD CASTILLO
Plaintiff Civil Case No. 6666
-vs- Forcible Entry and Damages

Atty. RAMIREZ
Defendant.
x------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFFS by counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully avers that:

1. Plaintiff RONALD CASTILLO, of legal age, Filipino and residents of MArasat Pequno,
San Mateo, Isabela.

2. Defendant Atty. Ramirez, Filipino is a resident of Naguilian, Isabela, where they may be
served summons and other processes.

3. The plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located in San Mateo, Isabela, containing an
area of ONE MILLION(1,000,000.00) SQUARE METERS, more or less which realty is
titled in the name as evidence by Transfer Certificate of title No. T-222222222 of the
Registry of Deeds of Isabela, photocopy of TCT No. T-222222222 is hereto attached and
made an integral part of Annex “A”.

4. Plaintiff, by themselves and through their predecessors in-interest, have been in peaceful
possession of the land continuously and uninterrupted for more than fifty (50) years;

5. On January 28, 2020, defendant together with hired laborers without the knowledge,
consent and authority of the plaintiff, by force, strategy and stealth entered the land
described in paragraph 3, encroached on and took possession of a portion of the land
having an area of 500,000 square meters with the following boundaries: on the Northeast
by the remaining portion; and on the Southwest by a provincial Road.

6. Simultaneous to their unlawful entry, defendant started construction of a residential house

notwithstanding repeated demands for them to stop and to desist from further acts of
dispossession.

7. Plaintiff, by themselves and through their representative, repeatedly demanded of the

defendant to vacate the area occupied by them and to deliver the peaceful possession of
the same to them, but defendants, without any just or legal reason, refused and continue
to refuse to leave the premises and restore peaceful possession to the plaintiffs of the
portion which they unlawfully wrested from the plaintiff.

8. Efforts for a possible settlement and/or reconciliation was exerted by the plaintiff by
seeking the intervention of barangay officials of Barangay Marasat Pequeno, San Mateo,
regrettably all efforts to amicably settle their dispute were in vein. Copy of the
certification issued by Barangay Secretary Cassie Madrigal dated Feb. 9, 2020 is hereto
appended and marked as Annex “B”.

3
 9. As a consequence of the unlawful entry and occupation of their land by the defendant and
their subsequent refusal to vacate the premises, plaintiff were compelled to file this action
and, for this reason have to engage the services of counsel for an agreed professional fee
of P25.00.

10. As further consequence of the defendant refusal to surrender and restore peaceful
possession of the land, plaintiff, suffered mental anguish, emotional disturbance,
embarrassment besmirched reputation which entitles them to recover moral and
exemplary damages amounting to not less than P50, 000.00.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays the Honorable Court to render judgment;

1. Ordering the defendant to vacate the premises of the area occupied by them and to deliver
peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff or their representative

2. Ordering the defendant to remove any and structure which they, in bad faith, have erected
in the area occupied by them or, in default thereof, to order the demolition of their
building or structures which are standing in the land, all at the expense of the defendants.

3. Condemning the defendant to pay to the plaintiff.

a. The sum of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the sum of P5,000 as expense of
litigation;
b. Moral and exemplary damage of not less than P50,000.00; and
c. The costs of this suit:
d. Plaintiff pray for other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable in the
premises.
Ilagan, Isabela, March 4, 2020

JOHN MICHAEL MONTANO

Counsel for the Plaintiff

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Ronald Castillo, of legal age, Filipino and resident of Marasat Pequeno, after being
sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state:

1 .I am the Plaintiff in the above entitled case.

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of this complaint.

3. I have read and understood the contents of this complaint and all the allegation
contained therein are true and correct of our own knowledge and based on authentic
documents.

4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving
the same issues in the above entitled case before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals of Justice or quasi-judicial body, or government agency; and should I learn
of a similar action or proceeding and/or the pendency thereof before any other Court
of Justice, quasi-judicial body or government agency, I do hereby undertake to report
the same within (5) days there from to this Honorable Court.

4
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 16th day of March
2020 at Ilagan, Isabela.

Donald Castillo
Plaintiff

5
FORM NO. 3: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
states that:

1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on January 28, 2021;

2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on November 16, 2020 and
thus has until December 16, 2020 within which to submit an Answer or Responsive Pleading;

3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and prior commitments, the

undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said deadline;
 

4. As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional period of 15 days

from today within which to submit Defendant's Answer or Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this
additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the available witness and study this
case further;

5. This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be given an
additional period of 15 days from today within which to submit an Answer or other Responsive
Pleading.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Vigan, City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines, February 06, 2021.

Lyka Pimentel

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)
(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

Sabrina Tolledo

OPPOSING COUNSEL

6
FORM NO. 4: MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 30
San Fernando City, La
Union

ANGELINA TOMS,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 5420

RICHARD GONZAGA,
Respondent.
x x

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT

COMES NOW Defendant, thru undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully states:

1.That the above entitled case is set for hearing on May 3,2021;

2.That counsel for defendant is afflicted with COVID-19 and is now under the

medical care of Dr. Ramos. A copy of the physician’s certificate under is

hereto attached.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the hearing set on May 3, 2021 be

reset to another day preferably on the first week of June 2021 or at the convenience of this
Honorable Court.

Manila, Philippines, April 30, 2021.

Sgd. ATTY. James Alicias

Counsel for the Defendant
(Notice of Hearing)
(Proof of Service and Explanation)

7
FORM NO. 5: MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
10th Judicial Region
Branch 1
Cagayan de Oro City

WILBERT JUAN, Civil Case No.C8-July-373

Plaintiff,

-versus- For: FORCIBLE ENTRY WITH PRAYER FOR

PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY
INJUNCTION

PAUL SORIANO,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------/

MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF

WRIT OF EXECUTION

COMES NOW Plaintiff, through counsel and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits this Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Execution and in amplification
thereof most respectfully aver:

1. That this is a case for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory/Prohibitory
Injunction, filed by plaintiff with this Honorable Court wherein Judgment DATED
December 1, 2010, was made in favor of plaintiff, the dispositive portion of which
provides:

“WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff

ordering defendant RAUL JABIEN, his heirs, assigns, successors-in-interest,
guests or any occupants on the subject premises with the permission of defendant
to immediately vacate the property subject hereof covered by TCT No. T-25801
and turn-over possession of the same plaintiff.

Defendant is further ordered to (a) pay plaintiff the reasonable monthly

compensation of P5,000.00 starting December 1, 2007 until defendant shall have
actually vacated the same (b) pay attorney’s fees of P10,000.00, and (c) costs of
suit.

Pursuant to Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, execution shall

immediately issue upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the
defendant to stay execution files a supersedeas bond in the sum of One Hundred
Ninety thousand (P190,000.00) Pesos approved by this court and executed in
favour of plaintiff to pay the rents, damages and costs accruing to the time of this
judgment.

SO ORDERED.”

8
 2. That this case was appealed by defendant with the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
Oriental which Denied the Appeal through an Order dated April 19, 2011, the dispositive
portion of which provides:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is ordered DISMISSED as it is hereby

DISMISSED for failure of the defendant-appellant to submit memorandum as
required by law

SO ORDERED.”

3. That the reglementary period to file an appeal or other post-judgment remedies has
already lapsed, thereby rendering judgment final and executory. Hence, it is proper and
prayed that a writ of execution be issued by this Honorable Court to protect the interest of
the plaintiff and prevent unfairness and unjust enrichment on defendant’s part.

PRAYER

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

Court that a Writ of Execution be issued directing the defendants: to vacate the property subject
hereof covered by TCT No. T-25801 and turn-over possession of the same plaintiff; to pay
plaintiff the reasonable monthly compensation of P5,000.00 starting December 1, 2007 until
defendant shall have actually vacated the same; and to pay attorney’s fees of P10,000.00, and
costs of suit.

OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

December 18, 2014, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

GREGORIO MIGUEL H. PALLUGNA

Collaborating Counsel for the Plaintiff
PALLUGNA & PALLUGNA LAW OFFICE
Borromeo Bldg., Tomas Saco St, Cagayan de Oro City
Attorney’s Roll No. 62716
IBP No. 968992 (04/25/14) Mis. Or. Chapter
PTR No. 2577745(05/14/14)
Issued both in Cagayan de Oro City
Commission No. NC-2014-135

NOTICE OF HEARING
(Copy furnished)

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

MTCC Branch 1
Cagayan de Oro City

ATTY. FERMENTO P. DABLO

Counsel for Defendants
#21 V, Neri St., Carmen
9000 Cagayan de Oro City

Greetings!

9
 Please take notice that the undersigned counsel submits the foregoing motion for the
consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on January 16, 2015 at 8:30 o’clock in the
morning. Thank you.

GREGORIO MIGUEL H. PALLUGNA

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
10th Judicial Region
Branch 1
Cagayan de Oro City

WILBERT JUAN, Civil Case No.C8-July-373

Plaintiff,

-versus- For: FORCIBLE ENTRY WITH PRAYER FOR

PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY
INJUNCTION

PAUL SORIANO,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------/

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully

enters his appearance as counsel for the Plaintiff George W. Quimpo in relation to the above-

entitled case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned counsel respectfully prays of this

Honorable Court that this entry of appearance as counsel for the said Plaintiff be noted on record

and prays that he be furnished with all copies of orders and other processes of this Honorable

Office.

OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

December 18, 2014, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

GREGORIO MIGUEL H. PALLUGNA

Collaborating Counsel for the Plaintiff
PALLUGNA & PALLUGNA LAW OFFICE

10
 Borromeo Bldg., Tomas Saco St, Cagayan de Oro City
Attorney’s Roll No. 62716
IBP No. 968992 (04/25/14) Mis. Or. Chapter
PTR No. 2577745(05/14/14)
Issued both in Cagayan de Oro City
Commission No. NC-2014-135

With my conformity:

WILBERT JUAN
Plaintiff

Copy Furnished:

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

MTCC Branch 1
Cagayan de Oro City

ATTY. FERMENTO P. DABLO

Counsel for Defendants
#21 V, Neri St., Carmen
9000 Cagayan de Oro City

11
FORM NO. 9: MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers:

1. That the plaintiff's complaint in paragraph 5 alleges:

From August 3 to December 2019, defendant never paid anything to herein plaintiff.
The check that he issued as partial payment for the first month also bounced. x x x(underscoring
supplied)

2.The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and particularity, specifically it
does not mention the amount of the check therein mentioned, its check number, date, and the
drawee bank;

3.That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is necessary in order to enable
the defendant to prepare its responsive pleading because from the very onset of this controversy,
the main dispute was on what was actually and exactly agreed upon by the parties as the amount
of monthly rentals on the lease of plaintiff's property;

4.However, due to the fact that defendant corporation had to transfer its liaison offices depending
on its project sites, the check stub where the above-mentioned check came from was probably
misplaced and could no longer be found;

5. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars of the said check which

was allegedly issued by the defendants as partial payment for the first month would definitely
simplify the issues in this case, and hopefully not to complicate the negotiations between the
parties for an amicable settlement.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an order be issued by this Honorable
Court requiring the plaintiff to make more definite statement as to the particulars of
the check mentioned in paragraph 5 of his complaint, particularly stating its
amount, check number, date, and the name of the drawee bank.

VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Philippines, January 18, 2020.

JEROME FUENTABELLA

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

EMMA AGONCILLO

OPPOSING COUNSEL

12
FORM NO. 10: MOTION TO DISMISS

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, SHOEMART Inc., through the undersigned counsel, appearing
especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for
the dismissal of the Complaint on the following ground that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS
NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING PARTY.

DISCUSSION
A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service would readily show that the copies of
the Summons dated 07 May 2020 and the Complaint and its corresponding annexes were
allegedly delivered and tendered upon the Movant SHOEMART Inc., through a certain MAINE
MENDOZA alleged to be the authorized personnel of Movant SHOEMART INC., Bacolod City
on 28 August 2020. Copies of the said Summons and Return of Service that form part of the
records on the case are hereto pleaded as integral part of this Motion;
 

Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper service of summons amounting to

lack of jurisdiction over the person of the herein Movant Corporation SHOEMART INC. since
the summons was improperly served upon a person who is not one of those persons named or
enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom service of
summons shall be made;
The material provision on the service of summons provided for in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
"Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity.- When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel" (underscoring ours)
It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons was done on a person who is
not included in the exclusive enumeration provided for under the said Section, as service was
done only on an alleged authorized personnel of the Movant Corporation;
This new revision of the Rules of Court for the service of summon is a clear departure from the
old rule as stated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provided that:

"SECTION 13.Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If the defendant is a

corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service
may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors."

It must be equally noted that the changes in the new rules are substantial and not just general
semantics as the new rules restricted the service of summons on persons clearly enumerated
therein. In effect, the new provision makes it more specific and clear such that in the case of the
word "manager", it was made more precise and changed to "general manager", "secretary" to
"corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent and director;
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic
corporation or partnership is under the new rules, limited and more clearly specified, departure
from which is fatal to the validity of the service of the summons and resulting in the failure of
the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent corporation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint with respect to the Movant
Corporation be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

13
BACOLOD CITY, Philippines, 24th Day of September 2020.

CARLO RIMANDO

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

JOSHUA CONCEPCION

OPPOSING COUNSEL

14
FORM NO. 12: PETITION TO CANCEL STATUTORY LIEN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY } S.S

PETITION TO CANCEL STAUTORY LIEN

JENNIFER S. MERCADO,
Petitioner.
X -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
PETITION

PETITIONER, to this Honorable Office most respectfully states:

1. The petitioner, JENN S. MERCADO, Filipino, single, of legal age, and a resident of
Purok 4, Tablon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines;

2. That petitioner is the owner in few simple of the parcel of land, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-12208, and more particularly described as follow:

a. Portion of Lot: 2527, Cad-298, Laguindingan Cadastre

Location: Kurung, Laguindingan, Island of Mindanao
Boundaries: NE., along line 1-2 by Lot 3521, Cad-296
SE., along line 2-3 by Lot 4524-D, Psd-10-022534
SW., along line 3-4 by Lot 3529-E Psd-10-042538
along line4-5 by Lot 3529-H Psd-10-042538

3. Annotated in the said Title is the two (2) year lien covered by “Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the
Rules of Court “ which was annotated on February 5, 2006. That the liabilities imposed
under Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines which appears on page
1 thereof had long expired without anybody having presented any claim whatsoever
against the said properties; and

4. The two (2) year period under Sec. 4, Rule 74 for the filing of claims against the estate of
the decease already lapsed without any claim having been filed, thus the petitioner desire
to have the said lien or annotation cancelled after payment of the legal fee therefore.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered and by virtue of the provisions of

LRA Circular No. 119, petitioner respectfully prays for the cancellation of the annotation
pertaining to Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court on TCT No. T-12208, without any
judicial pronouncement.

JENNIFER S. MERCADO
Petitioner

VERIFICATION

15
 Petitioner, thru the undersigned, hereby depose and state that:

1.I am the Petitioner and owner of the real property mentioned herein:

2. I have caused the preparation of the same and I have read the contents thereof;

3. I hereby certify that all the allegations therein are true and correct to my own personal
knowledge.

JENNIFER S. MERCADO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 9th day of September 2016, in the City
of Cagayan de Oro City, personally appeared by Jennifer S. Mercado, known to me personally
and who presented her SSS identification card # 123456789 with her picture therein to be the
same person who executed the foregoing affidavit and who acknowledged to me that the same is
his true act and voluntary deed.

Doc. No. 1
Page No. 356
Book No. 78
Series of 2016.

16
FORM NO. 13. MOTION FOR A WRIT OF DEMOLITION

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Second Judicial Region
BRANCH 20
Vigan City, Ilocos Sur

JEMA AYSON,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 23456

- versus -

CHRIS PASCUA, WRIT OF DEMOLITION

Defendants.

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

TO: SHERIFF/DEPUTY SHERIFF:

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2020, this Court rendered decision in the above-entitled case,
the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

WHEREAS, on February 7, 2020, the Court issued a writ of execution in the above-
entitled case.

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2020, plaintiff/s thru counsel filed a motion for the issuance
of writ of demolition on the ground that the property subject of the execution contains
improvements constructed or planted by the defendant;

WHEREAS, after due hearing, the motion for writ of demolition was granted and
defendant was given a reasonable time to remove the improvements pursuant to Section 10(d) of
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;

WHEREAS, defendant failed to remove the improvements within the period fixed by the
Court;

NOW THEREFORE, we command you to demolish the improvements erected by the

defendant on that portion of land belonging to the plaintiff located at Tamag, Vigan City, Ilocos
Sur, Philippines

VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, PHILIPPINES, March 15, 2020.

J u d g e Valdez

17
FORM NO. 14: MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

COMES NOW the Intervenor, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully requests for leave to intervene in the above-captioned case, for the following
reasons:

That the Intervenor is a purchaser of some of the subdivided portions of Lot No. 23456, the

subject matter of the above-captioned case;

That the Intervenor has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of the
complainant, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of the parcel of land, subject matter of the above-captioned case;

That this intervention will not, in the least, unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties in the case;
That the Intervenor's rights can be fully protected in this proceeding rather than by filing a
separate proceeding.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the said INTERVENOR be

allowed to intervene in this action by filing a Complaint in Intervention, a copy of which is
attached to this motion.
VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Philippines, 13th Day of March 2021.

MAX MEDINA

(COUNSEL)

COPY FURNISHED:

TIM SOLANO

(OPPOSING COUNSEL)

18
 FORM NO. 15: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
 METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch LXII (62)
Makati City

STERLING BANK OF ASIA,

                Plaintiff,

                    - versus -                   Civil Case No. 456789

JANELLA MARIE REYES,

                                       Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

          Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully alleges that:

1.    On May 5, 2020, plaintiff sued defendant for a sum of money in the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300, 000.00);

2.    In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and merely stated that he was asking to be given
an extension of time to pay his obligation but that plaintiff instead filed the Complaint; 

3.    Said Answer has not tendered any issue and in fact it can be read therefrom that defendant admitted
the obligation; consequently, a judgment on the pleadings may be rendered. 

         WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court render a judgment on

the pleadings.
  
  Makati City, Philippines. August 5, 2020.

                                                        JAEL CORTEZ
                         Counsel for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

MeTC - Branch 62
Makati City

19
MIKE TAN
Counsel for the Defendant
1234 Zamora Street, Pasay City 

Greetings!
      
Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing Motion to the
Honorable Court on August 27, 2020 at 9:30 in the morning for its favorable consideration and
approval.

 JAEL CORTEZ
                                           
Copy furnished by registered mail:
     
MIKE TAN
Counsel for the Defendant
2233 Zamora Street, Pasay City

EXPLANATION

        Due to lack of messengerial services to effect personal service, a copy of the foregoing
motion was sent to defendant's counsel through registered mail.

                                                                         JAEL CORTEZ

20
FORM NO. 16: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 80
MUNTINLUPA CITY

JETH A. AVILA
Plaintiff,
versus
Civil Case No. 3016
FOR: ENFORCEMENT
OF BARANGAY
SETTLEMENT

RICH ASUNCION,
Defendant.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF Jeth A. Avila, by undersigned counsels and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully states the following:
1. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates herein all the material averments raised in her
verified complaint
2. That both Defendant Rich Asuncion and his counsel failed to appear at the
preliminary conference scheduled on March 16, 2021.
3. The record reveals that both the defendant and his counsel offered no explanation
with respect to their non- appearance. As jurisprudence dictates that the Court
excuses the non-appearance only in cases where there is a justifiable cause offered for
the failure to attend.
4. In short, rules of procedure are essential to the proper, efficient and orderly
dispensation of justice. Such rules are to be applied in a manner that will help secure
and not defeat the end of justice. And as a rightful consequence of respondent’s non-
appearance, he is deemed to have waived his right to present his own evidence.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court GRANT the
instant motion in favour of Plaintiff Jeth A. Avila and that a Writ of Execution be issued in favor
of Plaintiff Jeth A. Avila, directing Defendant Richa Asuncion to immediately vacate 236
Montillano Street, Alabang, Muntinlupa City.
City of Paranaque, May 1,
2021

SUAREZ LAW FIRM

Counsel for Plaintiff

Alabang Hills Village

Muntinlupa City
Tel. No. (03) 246 8333
Suarezfirm@gmail.com

21
COPY FURNISHED:
LAW OFFICE OF JOSELLE REYES
Counsel for Respondent
Unit 7, 1/G Fair Land Properties Inc.,
Nunez Extension, Zamboanga City
FORM NO. 17: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE
9th Judicial Region
DIPOLOG CITY
Branch VI

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff Criminal Case No. 77 -versus-

-for- Murder
RUSSELL V. CAMARILLO,
Accused
x--------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The accused through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

1. That the prosecution in the above entitled case has already rested its
case;

That the defense believes that the evidence of the prosecution against the
accused is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, thus,
the defense prays for leave to file demurrer to evidence in accordance with Section 33,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing consideration and in the highest

interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the aforesaid
motion be granted.

September 16, 2010. Dipolog City, Philippines.

22
FORM NO.18: MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

Motion to Declare Defendant in Default

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states

1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant was served with copy of the
summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on September 08, 2020;

2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant JOSEPHINE GAZMEN has
failed to file his Answer within the reglementary period specified by the Rules of Court
despite the service of the summons and the complaint;

3. As such, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant JOSEPHINE GAZMEN be declared in

default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render
judgment as the complaint may warrant.
 

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant JOSEPHINE GAZMEN be declared in
default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render judgment
as the complaint may warrant.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Philippines, this 25th Day of April 2021.

Faith Lucas

(Counsel for the Plaintiif)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)
(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

Diana Directo

Counsel for the Defendant

23
FORM NO. 19: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL

MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL

Accused, through counsel, by way of a special appearance solely for this purpose, respectfully
alleges:

1. That the accused has been charged with rape and that the bail for his provisional release has
been set at P200, 000.00 for each count of rape;

2. That the accused is a poor fellow of very limited means such that it is impossible for him to
pay the full amount of his bond and is therefore constrained to request for a reduction of the
amount of bail;

3. That it would be advantageous to everyone if he be given temporary liberty thereby allowing

him to continue with his gainful employment;

4. As such, accused appeals to the mercy and compassion of this Honorable Court and
respectfully requests that his bail be reduced to P120, 000.00.

5. That this motion for reduction of bail is being filed without prejudice to any other remedy
which may be available to the accused and that the accused expressly reserves the right to
question the legality of the issuance of the search warrant or his warrantless arrest if the
circumstances would so warrant.

WHEREFORE, accused respectfully prays that his bail be reduced to P120, 000.00.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines, April 28, 2021.

KYFFER MENDOZA

(COUNSEL)

(NOTICE OF HEARING)

(EXPLANATION)

COPY FURNISHED:

JAMES VILLENA

OPPOSING COUNSEL

24
FORM NO.20: MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 
National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City Branch 75

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff Criminal Case No: 789102
-versus- For: THEFT

DANIEL MATSUNAGA,
Accused.
X----------------------X

MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION

ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
state:

1. That this case was filed by the Honorable Asst. State City Prosecutor without the
benefit of the accused answering the charges against him;

2. That while the resolution of the Honorable Asst. City Prosecutor states that the
accused was unable to submit his countervailing evidence despite numerous efforts of
the Office to inform him of the complaint filed against him and the scheduled
preliminary investigation, nevertheless, the accused was not really informed that there
was a case filed against him without his fault. In fact, the information was filed on
July 19, 2014, and that the accused was arrested only this February 7, 2015 when the
accused went to the police station to testify in a stabbing incident, however, when
found out by the policemen the name of the accused, that there was a standing
warrant against him, the policemen instantly arrested the accused.

3. That this motion is anchored on the fact, that accused in this case has a valid defense
ranged against the sole affidavit of the complainant without any corresponding
evidence as to the ownership of the said grinder subject of this case except the
positive assertion of the private complainant;

4. A person cannot be held liable for theft on the property belonging to them. It is the
private complainant who swindled the grandfather (owner of the grinder) of the
accused when the private complainant failed to pay the agreed rental payment of P
300.00 per day. The private complainant merely paid P200.00 for two-day use of the
grinder, which is why they took back the property they owned as the agreement is in a
per day basis, the owner is entitled to the possession of the property every next day
unless the renter extends the same, or unless the renter pays the agreed amount. It is
the private complainant who is obligated to pay the balance of P 400.00 which the
private complainant unlawfully refused to pay.

25
 5. The amount of the grinder as reflected in the receipt is only P 2,800.00 contrary to the
allegation of the false pretender-owner private complainant which is P 6,000.00. The
receipt speaks for itself that herein private complainant’s credibility is already in
doubt.

6. Attached herein are the affidavit of the owner RICHARD GOMEZ and the receipt of
the grinder paid by RETH MADRIGAL which receipt is in his possession since
February 14, 2014 until today.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court,

that the foregoing motion be favorably granted.

Quezon City, Philippines, March 10, 2015

HERMES FLORES
Counsel for the accused
987 The Burrow Ave., Azkaban, Angeles City
IBP NO. 87123-7/19/12-AC
PTR NO. 669913/21/12-AC
Roll No. 99998
MCLE Exempt
(Admitted to the bar: February 14, 2012)

26
FORM NO. 21: MOTION TO QUASH

Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1, Manila

Anna Tugade                      
   Plaintiff,
Crim Case No.23456
For Homicide
-versus-                                
   

Josefa Chan,
                            Defendant.
x------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

       Accused, by his undersigned attorney, respectfully moves to quash the information filed
against him on the ground that:

1. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the same offense charged.

ARGUMENTS

1. For the lack of such prior written authority, the inescapable result is that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the information.

2. It is for the same reason that there is no point in compelling petitioner to undergo trial
under a defective information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information filed against the accused be
dismissed.

        Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

        Manila, 29 November 2021

27
                                    
                                                                                               SOLENN DEUZ
                                                                      Counsel for Accused

(With Notice of Hearing, Proof of Service and Explanation)

FORM NO. 22. ANSWER (FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1

PAUL CASUGA,
Plaintiff,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE No. 75643
FOR: Unlawful Detainer

CHRISTY SALONGA,
Defendant.

ANSWER
DEFENDANT, CHRIST SALONGA, by herself, and to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully alleges that:
1. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint only insofar as
the fact that the name of Paul Casuga is indicated in the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
79123, without prejudice to the Memorandum of Encumbrances indicated therein;

2. Paragraph 4 is admitted as to the consideration of the contract and date of payment.

3. Paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 8 is denied because the defendant has no knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the averments in paragraph 5 to 8 of
the complaint; that the defendant was able to comply with its obligation to pay the
monthly rentals agreed upon within the stipulated day secured with the receipts of rentals.

SPECIAL AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant hereby re-pleads all the foregoing allegations and, by way of special and/or
affirmative defences states that:

4. The defendant have been leasing an apartment located in Mayhaligue Street Manila with
a mothly rental of P6,000.00;

5. That the subject property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 79123 registered
under the name Paul Casuga;

6. That defendant was able to fulfill its monthly obligation which is the payment of monthly
rentals as stipulated in the contract evidenced by the receipt of rentals.

7. That the Plaintiff failed to attached documents to prove that the Defendant in fact did not
pay the monthly rentals.

28
 COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant Christy Salonga alleges;
1. That by virtue of the unwarranted and malicious act initiated by the Plaintiff, Defendants
were forced to engage counsel in the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed and defendant be
awarded in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20, 000.00)
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Atty. James Bond
Quezon Avenue, Manila
IBP No. 927307, Manila 1-2912
PTR No. 3202399, Quezon Avenue Manila, 1-21-13
MCLE Compliance No. 1110016263, 05-31-10

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, Christy Salonga, of legal age, Filipino Citizen and residing at 753 Maliwanag Street, Manila,
Philippines after first having duly sworn to in accordance with law depose and say;
1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;

3. The contents therein are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and based
on authentic documents;

4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same
issue in any tribunal or agency, to the best of our own knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in any other tribunal or agency and should I learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending in Court, I will undertake to report such
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein this Petition and this certification
have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 4 th day of December

2012.

Christy Salonga
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 4 th day of December 2012 in Manila,

Philippines.
Joselle Rivera
Roll of Attorney No. 98765
IBP No. 12345/2-5-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-11/Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 1110016263,05-31-10

29
30