Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
Branch ____
Municipality of _______________, Province of _____

HEIRS OF MARIA MAKILING

Namely JOSE RIZAL, DIEGO
DEL PILAR AND ANDRES
BONIFACIO, CIVIL CASE NO._________
Petitioners, For: Execution of Barangay
Amicable Settlement
-versus-

EMILIO AGUINALDO,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------/

PETITION

PETITIONERS, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully allege: THAT-

1. Petitioners are of legal age, Filipino and residents of

______________. Petitioners may be served with
notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Court
at the office address of the undersigned counsel.

2. Respondent is of legal age, Filipino and a resident of

_______________ where he may be served with notices,
orders and other processes of this Honorable Court.

3. Petitioners are the sole and exclusive heirs of MARIA

MAKILING who died intestate on June 12, 1998. A copy of
the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of the late Maria
Makiling and a Certificate of Death is hereto attached as
Annex “A” and Annex “B”, respectively and made as
integral parts of this Petition.

4. MARIA MAKILING is the registered owner of a parcel of

land known as Lot 1-A of the subdivision plan, Psd-
_________________, being a portion of Lot 1, Psu-
__________________ situated in
1|Page
 ___________________ and more particularly described
in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. ___________ duly
registered in the Registry of Deeds for the Province of
_____, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “C” and
made an integral part of this Petition.

5. The aforementioned property was inherited by Maria

Makiling from her deceased parents.

6. During the lifetime of the parents of Maria Makiling, Emilio

Aguinaldo and his family began occupying said property and
constructed a house therein, not by virtue of any title or
contract, but merely upon the tolerance of then registered
owners.

7. After the death of the parents of Maria Makiling, the latter

caused the transfer of title over the property to her name as
well as the other adjacent lots and subdivided the same with
the intention of selling each lot to its respective occupants.
Meanwhile, Emilio Aguinaldo and his family remained in
possession of the said property without paying any rent and
upon the tolerance of the deceased Maria Makiling.

8. Sometime in 2000, the Petitioners met with the Respondent

at the former’s house in _______________. During such
meeting, the Respondent was given by the Petitioners the
option to purchase the aforesaid property. Otherwise, he,
together with his family, must vacate the premises. The
Respondent did not accept the offer to sell made by the
Petitioners and signified his intention to vacate the property.
Taking into consideration that it was the middle of the
school year, the Respondent requested from the Petitioners
ample time or until the end of the school year to relocate in
order to avoid disrupting the lives of his children.

9. After the lapse of the period requested by the Respondent,

the latter and his family continued to occupy the same.
Consequently, the Petitioners once again requested for a
meeting with the Respondent. When the Respondent failed
to respond to the Petitioners’ request, the latter decided to
pay the Respondent a visit to their house located on the said
property. The Petitioners again expressed their willingness
to sell the property to the Respondent at an agreed price. But
the same was met with hostility by the spouse of herein
Respondent.

2|Page
 10. On May 30, 2001, Petitioners thru the undersigned
counsel sent a letter of demand to the Respondent and his
spouse to vacate the said property. A copy of said demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex “D” and made an integral
portion of this Petition.

11. Because of the failure of the Respondent to heed the demand

of the Petitioners to vacate the said property, the latter filed
a complaint against the former before the Office of the
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay _______________.

12. On December 15, 2001, the Petitioners and the Respondent

entered into an amicable settlement evidenced by a
document denominated as “Kasabotan” in the presence of
the Lupon Chairman and Members stating that the
Respondent shall vacate the subject property on January 31,
2002. A copy of said Kasabotan (Agreement) is hereto
attached as Annex “E”.

13. The Respondent and his family failed to comply with the
aforesaid Agreement and continues to unlawfully withhold
the possession of the subject property from the Petitioners
despite several demands to the damage and prejudice of the
latter.

14. The Agreement dated December 15, 2001 has the force and
effect of a final judgment.

Section 416 of the Local Government Code states:

“Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and

Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement and
arbitration award shall have the force and effect
of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration
of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless
repudiation of the settlement has been made or a
petition to nullify the award has been filed before
the proper city or municipal court.”

A party's failure to repudiate the settlement within the period

of ten (10) days shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
challenge the settlement on the ground that his/her consent
was vitiated by fraud, violence or intimidation.1

1
Michael Sebastian vs. Annabel Lagmay Ng represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Angelita Lagmay, G.R.
No. 164594, April 22, 2015

3|Page
 The Respondent never repudiated said Agreement within the
period prescribed by the law.

15. More than six (6) months have already lapsed since
December 15, 2001 or the date of the settlement.

Section 417 of the Local Government Code provides:

“Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement

or arbitration award may be enforced by execution
by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of
the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the
settlement may be enforced by action in the
appropriate city or municipal court.”

The second mode of enforcement is judicial in nature and

could only be resorted to through the institution of an action
in a regular form before the proper City/Municipal Trial
Court.2 Hence, this Petition.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the above Premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to GRANT this Petition
and order the Respondent to vacate the subject property.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

___________ City for Municipality of ________,

September 19, 2002.

MABINI & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the Petitioners

By:

ATTY. APOLINARIO MABINI

IBP No. ____________
PTR No. ______________
Roll No. _________
MCLE Compliance No.________________

2
Ibid.

4|Page