Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch ___
Quezon City

BENJAMIN B. BOTTON
Plaintiff,

-vs.- Civil Case No.________

For: Recovery of Possession
(Accion Publiciana)
JO MARIA B. BOTTONES
Defendants,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through counsel states that:

1. Plaintiff Benjamin B. Botton, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of Unit A1,
Jade Residences, C. Benitez St., Brgy. San Martin De Porres, Quezon City, where he may be
served with notices and other court processes, in addition to or in lieu of his counsel’s address;
2. Defendant Jo Maria B. Bottones, of legal age, single and a resident of Samar St., Brgy.
San Vicente, Diliman, Quezon City is the plaintiff’s niece;
3. Plaintiff is one of the surviving heirs of the late Pen C. Botton who died last March 1,
2000 in Quezon City as evidence by her Death Certificate, a copy of which is hereto attached as
Annex “A”;
4. Her estate not having been settled up to this time, and she remains to be registered owner
of a residential property measuring five hundred (500) square meters located at Samar St., Brgy.
San Vicente, Diliman, Quezon City covered by TCT NO. N-(12345) (hereinafter referred to as
“Property”) hereto attached and marked as Annex “B”;
5. By virtue of a deed of sale (a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “C”) over an
undivided portion of the Property consisting of two hundred fifty (250) square meters sometime in
July 1990 purportedly between Penniless B. Bottoness, as seller, and his brother, Benjamin B.
Botton, as buyer, the latter took over possession of said undivided portion. Thereby, making him
as the sole owner of the paraphernal property.
6. The present assessed value of the subject parcel of land is Pesos: Three Million (P
3,000,000.00) as can be gleaned from the present tax declaration of the same under Tax
Declaration No. 2K9-002930; (hereto attached as Annex “D” is copy of said tax declaration for
reference)
7. Sometime in August 2000, upon the request of his sister Penniless B. Bottoness and the
Plaintiff had no immediate need of the subject parcel of land, the defendant, Jo Maria B.
Bottoness was allowed to occupy and construct a house made of light materials in a portion of the
property and temporarily used it as her residence for free with the condition that the latter shall
vacate the property after demand is made upon them by Plaintiff while he was still working in
Montreal, Canada as nurse.
 8. Sometime in year 2018, Plaintiff demanded from the Defendant to vacate the said
subject property since the former wanted to erect a residential building but the latter refused and
still continue to occupy the said property;
9. On March 10, 2018, Plaintiff thru his counsel demanded the Defendant to cease and
desist from further occupying the subject property as herein Defendant continued to occupy such
property. The demand letter was delivered to thru the Office of Brgy. San Vicente, Quezon City;
(A copy of the demand letter is hereto attached for reference and marked as Annex E);
10. On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff instituted a case for unlawful detainer against herein
Defendant which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1234. The case was dismissed by the Court in
favor of the Defendant for failure of the Plaintiff to bring the action before the Lupon
Tagapamayapa for conciliation proceedings;
11. Plaintiff was constrained to send a demand letter by way of registered mail, but it was
returned unserved for “Party Out No One to Received.” Another demand letter was again sent by
way of registered mail but it was likewise returned for the same reason;
12. Despite numerous demands for her to vacate the said property, Defendant has remained
in illegal possession of the said property up to the present and still retain such possession;
13. Defendant has been in possession over the parcel of land without any legal right.
Likewise, Defendant is enjoying the possession over the same to the prejudice of the registered
owner of the parcel of land, considering that Plaintiff needs to use the subject property;
14. Accordingly, it has been held that, possession or detainer becomes illegal from the time
that there is a demand to vacate (Vda. Prieto v. Reyes, 14 SCRA 430);
15. Due to unjust refusal of the Defendant to vacate and return the said land to the Plaintiff,
the latter was considered to endorse the said matter to his legal counsel for the filling of an
appropriate action in court and incurred attorney’s fees in the amount of Php 50,000.00 and the
amount of Php 3,000 per court hearing;
16. This action is being filed within a period of two (2) years from the demand on Defendant
to vacate the said property.

PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION
Plaintiff re-pleads all the foregoing allegations by way of reference in so far as they are for the
issuance of preliminary injunction.

1. That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and the whole or part of such relief consist
in ordering the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff possession of the land subject of this case
which is described under paragraph 4 of the complaint;

2. That the continued possession or continuance of the unlawful acts complained of during the
ligitgation would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff who is wrongfully prevented in
entering and taking possession of his land and considering that the defendant has already
constructed a structure on the land.
3. That the plaintiff is able and willing to put up an injunction bond in the sum fixed by this
Honorable Court, executed in favor of the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff will pay all
damages which defendant may suffer as a result of the injunction if the Court should finally
decide that the plaintiff is not entitled thereto.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
pending final judgment, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ordering the defendant to
vacate and deliver to the plaintiff the land described under paragraph 4 of the complaint and after
due hearing making the injunction permanent and further after due notice and hearing, judgment
be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, as follows:

1. Ordering the defendant to demolish and/or remove at her expense whatever structure she
caused to be constructed on the subject land which is described under paragraph 4 of this
complaint.

2. Ordering the defendant and those residing under the subject land to vacate and to deliver
possession thereon to the plaintiff;

3. To pay the plainttiff the sum of P5, 000 a month until such time that the subject land is
delivered to the plaintiff.