9 METROPOST Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES BRANCH 1
7th
Judicial District Dumaguete City
ALEXANDER WARD MARTIN, Plaintiff -versus-
ESTELITA T. CANO and/or CONCHITA T. PIRMEJO and/or any other occupants of the subject property, Defendants. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - /
ESTELITA T. CANO - 216 7th for: Unlawful Detainer and Damages CIVIL CASE NO. 2020-06
23. This Special Power of Attorney is, likewise, irrevocable due to it being coupled with consideration, and can only be revoked with the consent of both the Principal and the Attorney-in-Fact.” In addition, this Special Power of Attorney confirmed the full force and effectivity of the first Special Power of Attorney mentioned in paragraph14;
24. This Special Power of Attorney was annotated onto all titles covering all lots and improvements mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 13 of this Complaint;
Casa Alicia Subd., Candau-ay Dumaguete City
SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION St., Block 23
Whereas, on Aug. 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the following Complaint: “C O M P L A I N T
25. After the four properties mentioned in paragraph 12 were purchased and the Main House was built on the same land, sometime in 2007 the Plaintiff moved into the same property. This is supported by the same Special Power of Attorney mentioned in paragraph 14 of this Complaint, which gives him the power to “Stay, live, administer, and manage” the properties “without the consent or advise from any person or entity, and to implement those decisions without any interference;
26. The Guest House was constructed sometime in 2013 or 2014 after its purchase;
1. The Plaintiff, Alexander Ward Martin, is of legal age, single, citizen of the United Kingdom, and resident of Achtung Apartments, Apt 2, City High Road, S. Calindagan, Dumaguete City, Province of Negros Oriental. He can be served with notices and other court processes at his given address, or through his undersigned counsel, at the address herein given below;
PLAINTIFF, by Counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully avers, THAT: PARTIES
27. From 2007 to 2018, Plaintiff enjoyed living on the properties. During that time, Owner and her two sisters—the Respondents, would also live on the property at the tolerance and allowance of the Plaintiff;
2. Due to the machinations of the occupants, making it uncertain who is in actual possession of the subject property, Plaintiff has no choice but to name the Defendants in the alternative, as well as to include unknown identities as Defendants. This is maintained by Sec. 13 and 14 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court; 1
3. Defendants in the alternative, are Estelita T. Cano (herein referred to as Estelita) and/or Conchita T. Pirmejo (herein referred to as Conchita), both of legal age, married and widow, respectively; both Filipino, and/or any other persons on the subject property, and can all be served with Summons at 216 7th
4. Then Defendants are persons whom Plaintiff believes are in actual possession of the Property upon the filing of the case. “As a general rule, any person who has participated in the acts complained of is a proper party defendant, provided he remains in possession of the property, because since the proceeding is to recover possession, there is no doubt it is not maintainable against the person not in possession when it has commenced…” 2
reiterated in a 2016 Supreme Court decision where the Court states that “The suit is only filed against the possessor(s) of the property at the commencement of action, and not against one who does not in fact occupy the land. To determine who should be made a party-defendant, we simply look at who committed the acts amounting to forcible entry and remains in possession of the subject property.”3
5. Plaintiff informed the Defendants that he was no longer tolerating their stay on the subject property through a Demand Letter; and filed this action within one year of their failure to comply with his demand to vacate within 15 days. Therefore, this instant action is for ejectment based on unlawful detainer. This is evidenced by the Demand Letter itself, herein attached as “Annex A”;
6. “Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: a. Xxx b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided that when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings, and the questions of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession
7. “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 right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, of the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one 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 [italicized for emphasis]” 5
8. Since the Subject Property is in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, the proper jurisdiction is in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Dumaguete; ALLEGATIONS ESTABLISHING PLAINTIFF’S AUTHORITY
9. That Plaintiff and Crescenciana P. Tamayo (herein referred to as Owner) were in a personal relationship as a couple starting in 2002, and both decided to buy and develop six residential lots;
10. Owner is a Filipino, and naturalized citizen of the United Kingdom, who has been a permanent resident of the United Kingdom for the last 40 years. Owner possesses both Filipino and British passports, and has lived in the City of London since 2002, when Plaintiff started his relationship with her. Owner is fully retired, receiving a British pension, and currently lives in London where typically she lives for seven months a year, while visiting the Philippines for about five months a year.
c. Xxx” 4 JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
St., Block 23, Casa Alicia Subd., Candau-ay, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, which has been, and shall be referred to as Subject Property;
28. Owner, who lived abroad in England would only stay there about five months when she came home to the Philippines; Respondent Estelita would stay there all year round; and Respondent Conchita would stay there full time, while her own family house was being finished. During this time, Plaintiff additionally allowed extended family members and/or helpers to stay on the property. All persons occupying the Subject Property had full access to it;
29. Plaintiff and Owner ended their relationship sometime on April 2017. Starting in January 2018 when Owner was in the Philippines, she would stay either at her family house in Siaton, or in a separate room from the Plaintiff on the Subject Property. Plaintiff continued to tolerate Owner, Respondents, and extended family and/or helpers continual on-and-off stay on the Subject Property;
30. However, sometime in August 2018 due to a protracted and growing dispute between Plaintiff and Owner, Plaintiff thought it best to leave the Subject Property to mitigate the growing tension in the household. The main issue between Plaintiff and Owner involved the future transaction of the Subject Property;
ALLEGATIONS IN REGARDS TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
authority to sell the Main House and lots mentioned in paragraph 12, by including said lots in the second Special Power of Attorney;
FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 06, 2021
the Subject Property after Plaintiff gave a demand to vacate, notifying them that he was no longer tolerating their occupancy on the Subject Property. By not vacating the property, Respondents have caused damage, injury, and impairment to the Plaintiff because he is not able to 1) live on the Subject Property, nor 2) have access and preserve the Subject Property in case of a sale, both of which are sufficiently covered by the Special Power of Attorney documents.
54. The Plaintiff has incurred damages by the actions of the Defendants in the form of: a. Moral Damages: By reason of Defendants’ refusal to simply communicate with Plaintiff, and vacate the Subject Property after proper notice, all of which have more than one places of residence, Plaintiff suffered tremendous worries, several sleepless nights, wounded feelings, which the Defendants should be held liable to pay as moral damages in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.). These inactions of the Defendants are the proximate cause of the mental suffering of the Plaintiff. The right for the prevailing party to be awarded Moral Damages is recognized by Art. 2217 of the Civil Code11 b. Exemplary Damages: As a deterrent to Defendants from
;
c. Legal Expenses: For this judicial recourse, Plaintiff was compelled to engage the services of the undersigned Counsel to protect his interests, and he has agreed to pay the sum of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.) as attorney’s fees, plus TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.) appearance fee for every appearance of Counsel in this case, and the cost of the filing fee of the suit. Expenses for Plaintiff’s Attorney is attached as “Annex H.” In addition, Plaintiff had to incur expenses for the cost of litigating this case. The right for the prevailing party to be awarded Attorney’s Fees is recognized by Art. 2208 of the Civil Code 13
;
31. From August 2018 to March 2020, Plaintiff made over-extended earnest efforts to compromise and settle with Owner. Plaintiff went through three different lawyers to settle but, although he eagerly desired to settle this matter, these multiple attempts had ultimately failed for various reasons;
This is
• The Plaintiff, Alexander Martin, to testify on the allegations made in this Complaint, such as but not limited to: his right to live, manage, and sell the Subject Properties; toleration of the Defendants occupancy on the Subject Properties; ending that tolerance; demanding the Defendants to vacate the Subject Property; denial of entry by Defendants of the Subject Property; and to identify the documents mentioned herein. His Judicial Affidavit is attached to this Complaint;
32. From the time Plaintiff left in 2018, until the date of his demand letter (July 9, 2020), under the Plaintiff’s tolerance, the Defendants and/or persons under their direction, such as extended family members and/or helpers, continued to stay on the property. Owner is residing in London, England as a retiree on the date of filing this Complaint;
33. Because attempts of negotiating had failed, coupled with his old age, Plaintiff now feels there is no choice but to enforce this rights under both Special Power of Attorney documents to “stay, live, administer, and manage” the properties ”without the consent or advise from any person or entity, and to implement those decisions without any interference” as well as to sell the properties;
• Medardo Quebral III, to testify on delivering the demand letter, and witnessing the Plaintiff being denied access to the property. His Judicial Affidavit is attached to this Complaint.
Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional witnesses that may be necessary to rebut any allegations or claims made by the Defendants in their Answer.
• Demand Letter, attached as “Annex A” • Certified True Copies of six Titles mentioned in paragraph 11, attached as “Annex B” through “Annex B-5”
34. Therefore, after the General and Enhanced Community Quarantine, Plaintiff engaged the legal services of the undersigned Counsel to draft a demand letter for the current occupants of the property, who on-and-off have been the Respondents and/or persons under their charge, to vacate the premises. Initially, it was addressed to Estelita T. Cano because she was the last person who he believed was occupying the property while he was away;
35. This demand letter was sent personally to the occupants of the subject property by the undersigned Counsel’s process server, Medardo Quebral III;
36. Said process server attempted to deliver the letter on July 8, 2020, and was greeted by who he believed to be Respondent Conchita T. Pirmejo.
37. Therefore, the demand letter was edited to be addressed to “Estelita T. Cano and any other persons staying on the property”. The demand letter made “a legal demand for [her], or any occupants of the property, to vacate the premises within 15 days…from receipt of this eviction letter…” The demand letter also cited Plaintiff’s toleration of Defendants living on the property. Said demand letter is evidenced by the document itself, herein attached as “Annex A”;
38. Among other things, Plaintiff explained that he has the sole discretion “to stay, live, administer, and manage” and sell the subject property;
39. The next day on July 9, 2020, the same process server went to the property with the edited demand letter, and successfully tendered it to a person occupying the subject property, who claimed to be a certain Clark Tamayo, a nephew of Estelita. He refused to sign but received the letter; and therefore, the process server took his name, made a note, and signed below his annotation;
40. For good measure, the Plaintiff also delivered identical demand letters through registered mail on July 10, 2020 and LBC on July 11, 2020. This is evidenced by Registry Receipt and LBC Receipt, herein attached as “Annex F” and “Annex G”, respectively;
41. On July 31, 2020, more than 15 days from when the demand letter was received, Plaintiff attempted to enter the property accompanied by Mr. Quebral III. They knew that there were persons occupying the Main House because they could hear the sound of either a television or radio.
11. The Plaintiff is the attorney-in-fact of Owner who is the owner of Lot 3, Block 23, Lot 4, Block 23; Lot 18, Block 23; Lot 19, Block 23; Lot 5, Block 23; and Lot 20, Block 23, all located in Casa Alicia Subd. in Candau-ay, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental. This is evidenced by certified true copies of the titles, herein attached as “Annex B” through “Annex B-5”, respectively. These properties are adjoining lots, have improvements on them, and shall be referred to as the Subject Property;
12. On Lot 3, Block 23; Lot 4, Block 23; Lot 18, Block 23; and Lot 19, Block 23 exists the Main House.
13. On Lot 5, Block 23 exists the Main House Garden; On Lot 20, Block 23 exists the Guest House;
14. For the Main House, Plaintiff’s authority as attorney-in-fact was granted through a Special Power of Attorney executed between Owner and Plaintiff on Nov.17, 2007, and notarized on the same day by Atty. Farah Lourdes E. Tropezado under Doc No. 2; Page No. 2; Book No. 1; Series of 2007. This is evidenced by the document itself, herein attached as “Annex C”;
15. Under paragraphs 1, 2, and 4, respectively, of the Special Power of Attorney, the Plaintiff as attorney-in-fact has the right to: a. “Stay, live, administer, and manage [Owner’s] properties, consisting of land, residential house, and improvements thereon; [italicized for emphasis]”
16. Under paragraph 14 of the Special Power of Attorney, the agency is irrevocable due to it being coupled with consideration, “and can only be revoked with the consent of both the Principal and the Attorney-in-Fact.”
17. This Special Power of Attorney was annotated onto the titles mentioned in paragraph 12 of this Complaint;
18. The purpose of the Special Power of Attorney was to ensure the security of a Real Estate Mortgage between Owner and Plaintiff for the total amount of Eleven Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P11,500,000.) as evidenced by the documents themselves—a Real Estate Mortgage executed on April 23, 2007 and notarized on the same day by Atty. Ray J. Moncada, under Doc. No. 406; No. 83; Book No. XX; Series of 2007; and an amended Real Estate Mortgage dated July 17, 2007 and notarized on the same day by Atty. Ray J. Moncada, under Doc. No. 207; Page No. 43; Book No. XXI; Series of 2007, herein attached as “Annex D” and “Annex D-1” respectively;
19. The amounts of the mortgage were used to purchase the properties and make improvements. The mortgages were annotated on the same properties mentioned in paragraph 12 of this Complaint;
20. For the Main House, Garden, the Guest House, and the Lots mentioned in paragraph 13, Plaintiff’s authority as attorney-in-fact was granted through a Special Power Attorney executed between Owner and Plaintiff on March 13, 2015, and notarized on the same day by Atty. Karissa Faye R. Tolentino, under Doc. No. 369; Page No. 73; Book No. 2; Series of 2015. evidenced by the document itself, herein attached as “Annex E”
21. Under paragraphs 1, 4, and 5, respectively, of the above-mentioned Special Power of Attorney, the Plaintiff as attorney-in-fact has the right to: a. Offer in the market, negotiate, and sell the properties, “in case of [Owner’s] death or the end of the personal relationship as a couple between [Owner] and [Plaintiff]” with the pre-emptive right of first refusal in favor of Owner;
22. The aforementioned Special Power of Attorney also expanded Plaintiff’s 1
designation as the case may require…” 2
3
Wadas, G.R. 191132, Jan. 27, 2016 4
5 6
c. “Do and perform any other act/s to make effective the authority hereby given.”
c. “Make decisions regarding the management and administration of the above- mentioned properties without the consent or advise from any person or entity, and to implement those decisions without any interference [italicized and bolded for emphasis].”
b. “Take care of said properties; to make and execute decisions regarding preservation, cultivation, introduction of useful or ornamental and luxurious improvements, plants, trees, vegetation, and fence if desired.”
42. Plaintiff maintains that any persons living on the property since 2007 were under his tolerance due to the fact that it was either his ex-partner or family members of his ex-partner. Moreover, the Special Power of Attorney mentioned in Paragraph 14 gives him the sole and unrestricted right to: a. “Stay, liver, administer, and manager [owner’s] properties, consisting of land, residential house, and improvements thereon [italicized for emphasis]”
43. Moreover, the inability of Plaintiff to live and have access to both the Main House, Main House Garden, and Guest House is defeating the purpose of the irrevocable second SPA mentioned in Paragraph 21, which authorizes the Plaintiff to market and sell all the properties;
44. Therefore, Plaintiff has no other recourse but to file this instant action to preserve his rights to live, manage, administer, and/or to sell the Subject Properties.
CAUSE OF ACTION: ACCION INTERDICTAL-UNLAWFUL DETAINER 45. Plaintiff and Owner entered into an agency, which is a nominate, principal and consensual contract. There was valid consent, a valid object, and valid consideration;
46. Plaintiff has the explicit right to “stay, live, administer, and manage” the properties. Moreover, this right is “…without the consent or advise from any person or entity, and to implement those decisions without any interference”;
47. In addition, Plaintiff has the right to sell the properties, arising from two special Power Attorney documents as mentioned in Paragraphs 14 and 21 of this Complaint. These are his explicit rights through contractual agreement;
c. “Make decisions regarding the management and administration of the above- mentioned properties without the consent or advise from any person or entity, and to implement those decisions without any interference [italicized for emphasis].”
was also movement in the house but no one greeted them when vocal calls were made. There was a lock on the inside of the gates of both the Main and Guest Houses. After five minutes of not being greeted, and not having access to the property, they left the subdivision;
There
informed him that she would not receive the letter because her sister, Respondent Estelita T. Cano, was not there.
She EVIDENCES TO BE PRESENTED
• 2007 Special Power of Attorney, attached as “Annex C” • Real Estate Mortgage agreements, attached as “Annex D” and “Annex D-1”
• Official Receipt of Attorney’s fees, attached as “Annex H”
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, to render judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, DIRECTING the defendants, as follows: 1. To vacate the Subject Property and remove their personal belongings only;
PRAYER WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED
committing the same or any other similar unlawful actions, and to deter other persons who are similarly-minded, Defendants should be held liable for exemplary damages in the sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.). The right for the prevailing party to be awarded Exemplary Damages is recognized by Art. 2229 of the Civil Cose12
; again CAUSE OF ACTION: DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
• 2015 Special Power of Attorney, attached as “Annex E” • Registered Mail Receipt and LBC Receipt of Mailing, attached as “Annex F” and “Annex G’” respectively
Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional documents that may be necessary to rebut any allegations or claims made by the Defendants in their Answer.
2. Jointly and severally, to pay moral damages in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.);
3. Jointly and severally, to pay exemplary damages in the amount of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.);
4. Jointly and severally, to pay attorney’s damages in the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000), and TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.) per appearance of his Counsel;
5. Jointly and severally, to pay the cost of the filing fee for this case, which the Plaintiff was forced to resort to.
the premises. 12, 2020
Plaintiff likewise prays for such other relief as are just and equitable under Municipality of Bacong, Province of Negros Oriental, Philippines, this Aug. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
LAW OFFICE OF ATTORNEY RAMACHO Counsel for the Plaintiff By:
PTR No. 0928871, 12/04/2019 (for 2020) Bacong, Negros Oriental Lifetime IBP No. 1042150, 12/20/2016, Dumaguete City MCLE Compliance No. VI-0009236, valid until April 14, 2022 Address: Km. 6.5, Banilad, Bacong, Negros Oriental
b. “Take care of said properties; to make and execute decisions regarding preservation, cultivation, introduction of useful or ornamental and luxurious improvements, plants, trees, vegetation, and fence if desired.”
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, ALEXANDER WARD MARTIN of legal age, and resident of Achtung Apartments, Apt. 2, City High Road, S. Calindagan, Dumaguete City, Province of Negros Oriental after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that: 1. The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents;
2. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
3. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support; 4. I certify that I have not commenced any other action or court proceedings involving the same issued in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature below, this Aug. 12, 2020 at the municipality of Bacong, Province of Negros Oriental, Philippines.
(Sgd) ALEXANDER WARD MARTIN Plaintiff
of Bacong, Negros Oriental, Philippines, by the above-mentioned COMPLAINANTS who have satisfactorily proven their identity by presenting: NAME
ID
48. Unlawful detainer is the act of unlawfully withholding the possession of the land or building against or from a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the detainer’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.6
49. It is the withholding by a person from another for not more than one year of possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contact, express or implied7
This is
50. Taking possession, managing, and selling the properties are not outside of his scope as an agent, since they have been explicitly stated in the documents. “The agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of agency [italicized for emphasis].”8
51. These powers are coupled with an interest and explicitly state their irrevocable nature, which is why Art. 1927 of the Civil Code9 mentioned in both Special Power of Attorney documents;
was aptly
b. “Execute, sign, deliver, and acknowledge the deeds of sale, documents, deeds, agreements, transferor’s affidavit, application, clearance and request forms and such other instruments as required to complete the property sale…”; and
Section 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court: “Where the Plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative…”; Section 14, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court: “Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or such other
Co Tiac vs. Felipe Natividad and Domingo Lao, G.R. No. L-1457, January 28, 1948 Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. vs. Spouses Ernesto and Elizabeth Sison and Venancio
Section 33 (2) ,Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
7Briccio Tenorio v. Gomba, et al., G.R. L-1237, May 24, 1948 and Margarito Sarona, et al., vs. Article 1881 of the Civil Code
Domingo Dikit vs. Ramon Ycasiano, et al., G.R. L-3621, May 23, 1951
Felipe Villegas and Ramona Carillo, G.R. L-22984, March 27, 1968 8
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, as amended
53. In summary, Plaintiff has irrevocable rights to live on, administer, manage, and sell the Subject Properties, without any interference. Respondents have the obligation to respect those rights having knowledge of the Special Power of Attorney documents. Respondents violated those rights by remaining on
9Article 1928 of the Civil Code: “Any agency cannot be revoked if a bilateral contract depends Sec. 52 of P.D. 1529
upon it, or if it the means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted,…” 10
11
proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.” 12
Art. 2217 of the Civil Code: “Moral Damages including physical suffering, mental anguish, freight, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.” 13
Art. 2229 of the Civil Code: “Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
Art. 2208 of the Civil Code: “In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: 1) When exemplary damages are awarded; 2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest…”
52. Lastly, the Respondents are not ignorant to the existence of these Special Power of Attorney documents and mortgage documents as it was discussed freely among the Plaintiff, Owner, and Respondents when Plaintiff was living on the property. Moreover, at a minimum, the mortgage and Special Power of Attorney, since they were annotated on the titles, give constructive notice to the Respondents and any third perons10
; the properties but to preserve them as well; The purpose of the agency was not only to secure
ALEXANDER WARD MARTIN LTO Driver’s License No. G02-08-008970 as competent proof of his identity, known to me and to me known to be the same persons, personally signed the foregoing Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, acknowledged to me that the same is his free and voluntary act and deed, and avowed under penalty of law to the whole truth of said instrument. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this August 12, 2020, in Bacong, Negros Oriental, Philippines, exhibited to me his proof of identification.
Doc. No. 485; Page No. 98; Book No. VI; Series of 2020
(Sgd) ATTY. NATHAN JOSEPH P. RAMACHO Notary Public until Dec. 31, 2021
and Siaton, all of the Province of Negros Oriental Roll No. 65300/Notarial Serial No. 2020-032 PTR No. 0928871A, 12/04/2019, Bacong, Negros Oriental Lifetime IBP No. 1042150, 12/20/2016, Dumaguete City MCLE Compliance No. VI-0009236, Valid until April 14, 2022 MCLE Compliance No. VI-0009236, valid until April 14, 2022 Address: Km. 6.5, Banilad, Bacong, Negros Oriental
The Complaint has been attached with Annexes “A”, “B – B-4”, “C”, “D – D-1”, “E”, “F”, “G” and “H”. WHEREAS, in the Order dated 27 November 2020, “In view of the foregoing considerations, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Summons by Publication is hereby granted. The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to cause the publication of the Summons for Defendant ESTELITA T. CANO in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks, upon payment of the alias Summons fees and publication cost. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send by registered mail a copy of this Order and the Summons with the Complaint to Defendant Estelita T. Cano at her last known address. Defendant is hereby given a period of 60 days from notice of the Summons within which to file her respective responsive pleading.”
18 December 2020, Dumaguete City, Philippines.
SOCORRO LUZ T. ABELLA Branch Clerk of Court
MetroPost 2021 February 14 • February 21 • February 28
For the city of Dumaguete, and the municipalities of Sibulan, Bacong, Valencia, Dauin, Zamboanguita
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Aug. 12, 2020, in the municipality ACKNOWLEDGMENT
5. Should I hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed, or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report this fact to this Honorable Court within five days from notice of such fact.
(Sgd) Atty. Nathan Joseph P. Ramacho Roll No. 65300
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12
