REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

WESTERN VISAYAS REGION
ILOILO CITY
Branch _________

GRAY MOUNTAIN
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. ______________________

For: Unlawful Detainer

BLUE VALENTINE,
SCARLET SNOW, and
RED SPARROW
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------ x

C OMPLAINT

Plaintiff GRAY MOUNTAIN, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. Plaintiff GRAY MOUNTAIN is Filipino, of legal age and with

residence and postal address at Barangay Mohon, Arevalo, Iloilo City
where he may be served with notices and other court processes of this
Honorable Court.

2. Defendants BLUE VALENTINE, SCARLET SNOW and RED

SPARROW are of Filipino, legal age, and in the transactions with plaintiff
have indicated that their residence and designated postal address is at
Barangay Calumpang, Molo, Iloilo City, Philippines, where they may be
served with summons and processes of this Honorable Court.

3. On 1 January 2005, Apple Corporation, a domestic corporation

engaged in real estate business and whose principal office is located at
Iloilo Business Park, Megaworld Boulevard, Mandurriao, Iloilo City,
Philippines, leased Lot No. 1234 and the residential house (hereinafter
referred to as the “leased properties”) located at Zone 1, Barangay
Calahunan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City to defendants for a period of five (5)
years or until 1 January 2010.

1
 Defendants’ 1 January 2005 Contract of Lease (signed on1 January
2005) with plaintiff is attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex
“A.”

4. Under the defendants’ Contract of Lease with Apple

Corporation, defendants were required to pay Php 3 000 monthly rentals
until the said contract expires. The defendants paid in full all monthly
rentals until the expiration of the lease.

5. On 1 February 2008, the leased properties were sold by Apple

Corporation to Orange Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in real
estate business whose principal office is located at Iloilo Business Park,
Megaworld Boulevard, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, Philippines.

Apple Corporation’s Deed of Absolute Sale (signed on 1 February

2008) with Orange Corporation is attached and made an integral part
hereof as Annex “B.”

6. Apple Corporation later sent a letter to defendants for the

purpose of informing the latter that the leased properties were sold to
Orange Corporation.

A copy of Apple Corporation’s letter dated 3 February 2008 to

defendants is attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “C.”

7. After the Contract of Lease (Annex “A”) expired, Orange

Corporation sold the leased properties to plaintiff under a contract
denominated as Deed of Conditional Sale. The defendants remained
occupying the leased premises despite the expiration of the said
Contract of Lease and the transfer of ownership of the leased properties to
the plaintiff. The said Contract of Lease was neither renewed nor
extended. Orange Corporation, thru its counsel, sent a letter demanding the
respondents to vacate from the leased premises.

Copies of the plaintiff’s document denominated as the Deed of

Conditional Sale dated 1 January 2017 and the Orange Corporation’s Demand
letter dated 3 January 2017 are attached and made an integral part hereof as
Annexes “D” and “E”, respectively.

8. As lawful owner and possessor of the leased properties,

plaintiff sent a letter dated 1 January 2018 demanding the defendants
to vacate from the leased premises within three (3) days from receipt of
the same. Another demand letter dated 1 June 2018 was received by the
 defendants, but this time, it contained a warning that should the
defendants fail to do vacate from the leased premises within three days
from receipt of the same, the plaintiff would be constrained to pursue an
appropriate legal action against them. Despite repeated demands, the
defendants, however, refused.

A copy of the plaintiff’s Demand Letters dated 1 January 2018 and 1

June 2018 are attached and made an integral part hereof as Annexes “F”
and “G,” respectively.

9. A barangay conciliation proceeding was initiated by the

parties at Barangay Calahunan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, Philippines before
the Lupong Tagapamayapa on 1 July 2018. Despite efforts to resolve the
conflict between them, the parties failed to settle the dispute amicably.

A copy of Lupong Tagapamayapa’s Certificate to File Action dated 1

July 2018 evidencing the failure of the parties to reach an amicable
settlement is attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “H.”

10. Plaintiff secured a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale and

registered it at the Registry of Deeds on 1 December 2018.

The plaintiff’s Deed of Absolute Sale dated 1 December 2018 is

attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “I.”

11. Plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner and possessor of

the leased properties, as evidenced by the Deed of Conditional Sale 1 and
Deed of Absolute Sale2 executed with Orange Corporation.

12. The defendants’ occupation of the leased premises

despite repeated demands to vacate is unlawful, and thus, would
warrant the filing of the present action of unlawful detainer by the plaintiff
against the defendants. A requisite for a valid cause of action of unlawful
detainer is that the possession was originally lawful, but turned unlawful
only upon the expiration of the right to possess. To show that the
possession was initially lawful, the basis of such lawful possession must
then be established. 3 In the case at bar, the defendants’ possession of the
leased properties were initially lawful by virtue of their Contract of Lease
entered into with Apple Corporation on 1 January 2005. However, when
the said Contract of Lease4 expired five (5) years thereafter or on 1 January
2010, the defendants lost their right of lawful possession of the leased
premises. Under such Contract of Lease 5, the defendants should have, “…
1
See Annex D
2
See Annex I
3
Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual, 128 Phil. 160 (1967)
4
See Annex A, paragraph 2
5
Annex A, paragraphs 14 and 20
 upon the expiration of the lease contract… [defendants would] voluntarily
and peacefully surrender unto the [plaintiff] the possession of the leased
premises.” Despite their express undertaking in the lease contract, the
defendants knowing that the lease contract had expired willfully and in
bad faith continued to occupy the same. For a period of over eight (8)
years, their unlawful possession of the leased premises continued until the
leased properties were sold to Orange Corporation, and subsequently, to
the plaintiff.

13. Plaintiff bought the leased properties from his

predecessor, Orange Corporation, which merely tolerated defendant’s
occupation over the leased premises until Orange Corporation and
later the plaintiff formally demanded the defendants to vacate from
the leased premises. Despite repeated demands6, however, the
defendants refused. Thus, their once lawful possession of the leased
premises became unlawful, and consequently, the plaintiff, who has a
better right of possession than the defendants as the new owner of the
leased properties, has a cause of action for unlawful detainer against the
defendants.

14. Acts of tolerance must be proved showing the overt acts

indicative of [the plaintiff’s] predecessor's tolerance or permission for him
to occupy the disputed property.7 In the present case, the plaintiff has
proven the acts of tolerance of his predecessor, Orange Corporation, by
showing that (1) the defendants had known about the sale of leased
premises by Apple Corporation to Orange Corporation on 1 February
2008,8 and that (2) Orange Corporation itself demanded the defendants to
vacate from the leased premises on 3 January 2017 9 or almost seven (7)
years since the plaintiff’s Contract of Lease with Apple Corporation had
expired (i.e. on 1 January 2010).10 Verily, the defendant’s possession of the
subject property is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-
interest, Orange Corporation.

15. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's

tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily
bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing
which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against
[him].11 Since Orange Corporation merely tolerated the possession of the
defendants over the leased properties for seven (7) years, the former could
have instituted an unlawful detainer case against the defendants upon the
refusal of the latter to vacate from the leased premises. Instead of filing the
same against the defendants, Orange Corporation sold 12 the leased
properties to the plaintiff, and continued to tolerate defendants’
occupation on the leased premises. Once ownership of the leased
6
See Annexes E, F and G
7
Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual, supra, at 163-164.
8
See Annex C
9
See Annex E
10
See Annex A
11
Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual, supra, at 163-164.
12
See Annex D
 properties was transferred to the plaintiff by virtue of the conditional
sale,13 the plaintiff demanded the defendants to vacate from the leased
premises twice: (1) first, on 1 January 2018 14, and (2) the other, on 1 June
201815. Although no written Contract of Lease was executed between the
defendants and the plaintiff, it was as though there was one when the latter
also tolerated the defendants’ occupation on the leased premises in the
meantime or until 1 June 2018, the date of the last demand to vacate.
Anchoring on the above premise, the plaintiff, therefore, has a right to
file an unlawful detainer case against the defendants, since the
defendants were bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, but
despite efforts of the plaintiff to send Demand Letters [to the defendants],
the defendants refused, and remained to unlawfully possess the leased
premises.

16. The action for unlawful detainer must be brought up within

one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the
right to physical possession.16 In this case, the plaintiff has a cause of action
for the present unlawful detainer case against the defendants for a period
of one-year to be reckoned from the date of the last demand. Since the
present action was filed on 1 January 2019 or within the one-year period
from the date of the last demand, i.e. on 1 June 2018, the plaintiff’s action
had not prescribed.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that after due proceedings,
judgment be rendered in its favor directing defendants to vacate from the
leased premises and pay the following amounts:

1. THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS

(Php 324,000.00) for use and occupation of the leased properties for a
period of 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2019;

2. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) by way of

moral damages;

3. FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) plus P4,500 per

court appearance by way of attorney's fees; and

4. Costs of suit.

Plaintiff prays for such other relief which may be just and equitable.

Iloilo City: 1 January 2019.

13
See Annex D
14
See Annex F
15
See Annex G
16
Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes G.R. No. 178096, 23 March 2011, 646 SCRA 328, 334, citing Valdez, Jr. v. CA, 523
Phil. 39, 46 (2006).
 CORTINA & MONTES LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Block 3, Lot 2 Phase 2,
Carmen J. Ledesma Village,
Baragay Tacas, Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines
Tel. No. (02) 817-9222 / Fax No. (02) 887-2936

By:

KIM JOHN V. VILLA

Attorney’s Roll No. 52055
PTR No. 5323550/ 01.04.16/ Iloilo
IBP (Lifetime) No. LRN-010317/Iloilo
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019654/ April 22, 2016

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CTY OF ILOILO ) S.S.

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

I, Mr. Gray Mountain, Filipino, of legal age, and residing at Zone 1,

Barangay Calahunan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, under oath, depose and state:

1. That I am acting for and on behalf of the plaintiff in the above-

entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Complaint;

3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof and that
the allegations therein are true and correct based on my own
personal knowledge and on authentic records;

4. That I have not heretofore commenced or filed any action or

proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or
 agency; that to the best of my own knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in any court, tribunal, or agency; that
should I hereafter learn of any such pending action or
proceeding, I undertake to inform this Honorable Court of such
fact within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1 st day of January

2019, in Block 3, Lot 2, Phase 2, Carmen J. Ledesma Village, Barangay Tacas, Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines.

___________________________
Gray Mountain

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 1 st day of January 2019 Block
3, Lot 2, Phase 2, Carmen J. Ledesma Village, Barangay Tacas, Jaro, Iloilo City,
Philippines, by Gray Mountain who personally appeared before and exhibited to
me his Professional Driver’s License No. F04-10-000662 valid until 01/01/19,
and avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents hereof.

Doc. No. ____; KIM JOHN V. VILLA

Page No.____; Attorney’s Roll No. 52055
Book No. ___; PTR No. 5323550/ 01.04.16/ Iloilo
Series of ____. IBP (Lifetime) No. LRN-010317/Iloilo
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019654/ April 22, 2016