Republic of the Philippines

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
-o0o-

MARIANO P. FLORES,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 6346

For: Action for Forcible Entry

-versus-

JAIME DELIZO,
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------x

2nd AMENDED C O M P L A I N T
PLAINTIFF, by himself, to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
states, that:

1. Plaintiff Mariano P. Flores1 (Mariano, for brevity) is of legal age,

single, Filipino citizen and a resident of 1418 Penafrancia Street, Barangay
682, Zone 74, Paco, Manila, where he may be served with summons and
other processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Defendant JAIME DELIZO (Jaime, for brevity) is the son of late

Estelita Delizo of legal age, with address at Zone 1, Brgy. Labit Proper,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan where he may be served with notices and orders
of this Honorable Office;

3. Paulino Toralba, during his lifetime, lived in Barangay Labit Proper

Urdaneta, City, Pangasinan with her wife Eustaquia Toralba and their four
(4) children, namely: Gertrudes, Maximo, Prisca and Demetrio all surnamed
Toralba;

4. Sometime during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines,

Paulino was kidnapped and then killed by the Japanese military;

1 The original copy of plaintiff’s Unified Multi-Purpose ID with ID no. CRN-0111-0346084 is hereto attached as ANNEX “A” .
 5. During his lifetime, Paulino acquired several properties located at
Labit Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan particularly described as follows:

RESIDENTIAL LOT:
Owner’s Name: TORALBA, PAULINO
Owner’s Address: LABIT PROPER
Adj. Market Val.: Php 190,080.00
Assess Level: 20%
Assessed Value: Php 38,020.00

BOUNDARIES:

North: PAULINO TORALBA

East: JUAN ANDRADA
South: CIRILO ANDRADA
West: MARTIN FONTANILLA2

AGRICULTURE LOT:
Owner’s Name: TORALBA, PAULINO
Owner’s Address: LABIT PROPER
Adj. Market Val.: Php 5739.03
Assess Level: 40%
Total Assessed Value: Php 2,300.00

BOUNDARIES:

North: S LORENZO
East: M FONTANILLA
South: P TORALBA
West: M FONTANILLA3

6. Plaintiff Mariano P. Flores paid the taxes of the aforementioned

lots. Copies of Tax Clearances issued by Office of the City Treasurer of
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan are hereto attached as ANNEX “D” and ANNEX
“E” respectively;

7. Herein Plaintiff Mariano P. Flores is one of the great-grandson of

Paulino being a direct descendant and grandson of Gertrudes. While
defendant Jaime Delizo is one of the great-grandson of Paulino being a
direct descendant and grandson of Demetrio;

2 Copy of Tax Declaration for residential lot issued by Assessor’s Office of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is hereto attached as ANNEX “B” .

3 Copy of Tax Declaration for agricultural lot issued by Assessor’s Office of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan which is the subject matter of this

instant case is hereto attached as ANNEX “C”.

 8. After the death of Paulino, his wife Eustaquia took over the
possession and cultivation of the above-stated properties left behind by his
husband Paulino. Her occupation was open and continuous up until her
demise;

9. When Eustaquia died, her children with Paulino, namely

Gertrudes, Maximo, Prisca, and Demetrio verbally agreed that they will
divide the properties of Paulino Toralba in the following manner: the
residential and agricultural lots located in Zone 3 Brgy. Labit
Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan will be owned by Prisca
and Gertrudes (ANNEX “A” and ANNEX “B” hereof) while the
property located in Zone 1 of the same barangay will be owned by the late
Maximo and Demetrio Toralba;

10. The property of late Paulino Toralba located at Zone 1 Labit

Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is now registered under the name of his
son Maximo Toralba due to the negligence or omission of Demetrio
Toralba to assert his right within a reasonable time over the said lot;

11. As for the property located at Zone 3 Labit Proper, Urdaneta

City, Pangasinan, since Prisca died intestate and never married nor
had any legal heir, after her death, said property was possessed,
occupied and cultivated by plaintiff’s grandmother Gertrudes without
any objection from her brothers Maximo and Demetrio Toralba the
latter honoring their agreement as to the distribution of the properties
left by their parents;

12. Subsequently, after plaintiff’s grandmother died, the subject

property was possessed by late Josefa Flores-dela Cruz, Fedencia Andrada,
and occupied and possessed by late Agustin Flores who were the siblings
of plaintiff’s father and children of Gertrudes. Their occupation lasted
up until sometime in 1994 when plaintiff’s father
Herminigildo Toralba Flores, built a house in the part of the
residential lot located in Zone 3 Brgy. Labit Property,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and it was Herminigildo who was
the one who farmed the afore-stated agriculture lot which is
the subject property of the above-entitled case and looked after
the administration of the stated lots. And in 1995, plaintiff Mariano
followed his father to live there and to study in Labit Proper,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan4;

4 Copy of Punong Barangay of Barangay Labit Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Hon. Godofredo F. Dulay is hereto attached as ANNEX “F”.
 13. The occupation and possession of Herminigildo and the plaintiff
were open and continuous without any controversy or adverse claim from
third parties.

14. On November 20, 2007, Herminigildo died in Ospital Ng Makati

due to Chronic Kidney Disease that is why the administration and
possession of residential lot located at Zone 3, Barangay Labit Proper,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and the subject property of this case was
transferred to Herminigildo’s third (3rd) son Reynaldo Flores;

15. After the death of Reynaldo in September 2013, the

administration and possession of residential lot located at Zone 3,
Barangay Labit Proper, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and the subject
property of this case was transferred to herein plaintiff;

16. For more than fifty (50) years, plaintiff and plaintiff’s
predecessor in interest’s occupation over the subject property of this case
were undisturbed until on April 9, 2020 when despite that the whole
Luzon is under Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home
quarantine shall be followed, defendant Jaime with his cohorts entered
the above-mentioned agriculture lot without plaintiff’s consent and
without undergoing judicial process armed with bolo and “panabas” and
then proceeded to cut down different trees planted by his late parents
Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and
cleaned the area;

17. To prove that Estelita Delizo and defendant Jaime Delizo with
their cohorts entered the subject property without undergoing judicial
process, the undersigned plaintiff requested a certification 5, stating that
there is no civil case filed against Mariano Perez Flores, Heirs of
Herminigildo Toralba Flores or Heirs of Gertrudes Toral ba Flores before
the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities and Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta
City, Pangasinan;

18. To protect plaintiff’s right over the subject property, plaintiff

filed a case against Estelita and Jaime Delizo before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan for Usurpation of Property as
defined and penalized under Article 312of the Revised Penal Code of
the Philippines for usurping his rights over the subject property of the
above-entitled case, Qualified Theft as defined and punished under
Articles 309 and 310 the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines for
cutting different trees without permit from DENR and Unjust Vexation as
defined and penalized under Article 287 the Revised Penal Code of

5 Copies of Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities and Regional Trial Court certifications are hereto attached as ANNEXES “G” and “H” respectively .
the Philippines for annoying herein plaintiff with Crim. Case No. I-INV-
20F-00275 TO I-INV-20F-00277;

19. Plaintiff Mariano also filed a complaint for Perjury against late
Estelita with NPS Docket No. I-II-INV-20J-00531, Elpidio L. Andrada &
Canedido Baltazar with NPS Docket No. I-II-INV-20J-00532-533;

20. When plaintiff Mariano received a copy of defendant and his late
mother’s Joint Counter-Affidavit in Crim. Case No. I-INV-20F-00275 TO I-
INV-20F-00277, the latter attached documents including the certificate of
title in the name of Estelita Delizo under Original Title under Kaloob na
Patente Blg. 0155461964930 and official receipt of their tax payments, a
copy of said counter-affidavit which the defendants sent to me; copy of
said original title, and a copy of said official receipts are attached as
ANNEX “I”, “I1, I2,and I3;

21. The perusal of the above-mentioned counter-affidavit reveals

that the defendants did not deny that for more than fifty (50)
years, plaintiff’s occupation over the subject property of the
above-entitled case was undisturbed until on April 9, 2020
despite that the whole Luzon is under Enhanced Community
Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be followed,
defendants Jaime and Estelita Delizo and their cohorts
entered the subject property of this case without plaintiff’s
consent and without undergoing judicial process 6 armed with
bolo and “panabas” and then proceeded to cut down different
trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and
Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and
cleaned the area. They just justified their illegal actions by arguing that
they are just exercising their rights over the subject property as an owner
of the subject property of this case considering that the lot in dispute is
registered under the name of defendant Estelita Delizo;

22. The current assessed value of the afore-stated property is six

thousand nine hundred thirty five pesos and ninety six centavos
(6,935.96);

23. Upon verification of the status of the subject property, plaintiff

through his nephew Crisanto dela Cruz was able to secure copies of the
6
Copies of certifications issued by Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan and Regional Trial Court Office of the Clerk of Court, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan are previously marked as Annexes “G” and “H” respectively.
application for Free Patent and it’s supporting documents submitted by
late Estelita;

24. A careful evaluation of Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by

late Demetrio Toralba reveals that he is claiming that he is the sole
owner of the above-mentioned residential (location of herein plaintiff’s
house) and agricultural (subject property of this instant case) lots
located at Zone 3, Barangay Labit Proper, Urdaneta City that is why he
claimed that the total area of his properties which he inherited to his
late father Paulino Toralba is TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN (2,417) SQUARE METERS;

25. Moreover, upon perusal of the documents submitted by the

defendants before the DENR, the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Deed
of Sale executed by the late Demetrio Toralba appears to be falsified. It
states in paragraph one (1) that:

“I am the only heir of the late Paulino Toralba who

died on August 31, 1936 in Labit Proper, Urdaneta
City, Pangasinan” (underscoring supplied)

A copy of the Affidavit of Self-adjudication with Deed of Sale is

hereto attached as ANNEX “J” hereof;

23. The late Demetrio Toralba was not the only heir at the time he
executed the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Deed of Sale. In fact, the
nearest surviving heirs he could have had are Fedencia Flores-Andrada,
daughter of Gertrudes, and a certain Mameng Toralba, daughter of Maximo
Toralba. Despite such knowledge that there were other surviving heirs of
his late siblings, he still executed Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Deed
of Sale which was the basis of defendant Estelita to apply for a title over
the subject property;

24. The late Demetrio Toralba has no absolute authority to sell the
subject property as he was not the only heir, consequently, he had no right
to transfer ownership of the subject property to defendant Estelita 7

25. Worse, defendant Estelita even alleged in her supporting

documents for her application for Free Patent that she was the only
claimant and possessor of the subject property when in truth and in fact, it
was the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-interest who is in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the property from the
time they inherited it from the late Paulino Toralba;
7
Avelina Abarientos Rebusquillo [substituted by her heirs, except Emelinda R. Gualvez] and Salvador A.
Orosco vs. Sps. Domingo and Emelinda Rebusquillo Gualvez and the City Assessor of Legazpi City, GR No.
204029, June 4, 2014.
 Copies of Estelita’s application for Free Patent and affidavit are
hereto attached as ANNEX “K” and “L” hereof;

26. Furthermore, a careful evaluation of the Joint Affidavit In

Support of Free Patent Application of defendant Estelita Delizo submitted
by Elpidio L. Andrada and Canedido Baltazar is untrue and falsified. Elpidio
L. Andrada and Canedido Baltazar states in paragraph 3 that:

“That the said applicant has continuously occupied

and cultivated the land by himself and/or processor in
interest since July 04, 1945, or prior thereto and it is free
claims and conflicts.”

Copy of Elpidio L Andrada and Canedido Baltazar’s Joint

Affidavit In Support of Free Patent Application is hereto attached as
ANNEX “M”;

26. As stated above, it was the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-

interest who is in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of
the property from the time they inherited it from the late Paulino Toralba
and a careful evaluation of Certification To File Action prepared by Elpidio
in his capacity as Lupon Secretary reveals that the subject property of this
case is not free from claims and conflicts;

Copy of said certification is hereto attached as ANNEX “N” and

the title of the case and the cause of action are highlighted and
marked as ANNEX “N-1 and ANNEX “-2” respectively;

28. It is also worthy to mention that in the counter-affidavit that

Elpidio Andrada submitted in the complaint for Perjury that herein
plaintiff filed against him, he claimed that: late Demetrio Toralba
built a house with strong materials located at the subject
property. He even attached a picture of it . However, a sheer
examination of the subject property of this case, there is no
house constructed therein. Copy of said video is hereto attached
as ANNEX “O”;

29. To question the validity of defendant’s late mother free patent,

and to recover the ownership of the lot in dispute, herein plaintiff will file
Annulment of Documents and Title, Reconveyance, and Damages;

A copy of said Complaint-Affidavit is hereto attached as

ANNEX “P”;
 27. Plaintiff exerted earnest efforts to amicably settle the matter
with the defendants being relatives before filing of the instant case, but the
same failed. Nonetheless, considering that they are residents of different
municipalities, the matter was no longer referred to barangay conciliation
and mediation;

28. In the case of Regalado vs. De La Pena (G.R. No. 202448, December
13, 2017, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that:
“In our jurisdiction, there are three kinds of action
for recovery of possession of real property: 1)
ejectment (either for unlawful detainer or forcible
entry) in case the dispossession has lasted for not
more than a year; 2) accion publiciona or a plenary
action for recovery of real right of possession when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year;
and, 3) accion reinvindicatoria or an action for
recovery of ownership.”
25. “The Rules are clear that if the entry into the property is
illegal, the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible
entry and this action must be brought within one (1) year from the
illegal entry. xxx” 8
26. “xxx for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must
allege and prove: (1) prior physical possession of the property; and
(2) unlawful deprivation of it by the defendant through force,
intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth.” 9
27. In the case at bar, for more than fifty (50) years, plaintiff and
plaintiff’s predecessor in interest’s occupation over the subject property
of this case was undisturbed until on April 9, 2020 when despite that
the whole Luzon is under Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein
strict home quarantine shall be followed, defendant Jaime and his late
mother Estelita with their cohorts entered the above-mentioned
agriculture lot without plaintiff’s consent and without undergoing
judicial process10 armed with bolo and “panabas” and then proceeded
to cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores
and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the
area;

8
Teresita Bugayong-Santiago, Earl Eugene Santiago, Edward Santiago, and
Edgardo Santiago, Jr. vs. Teofilo Bugayong, G.R. No. 220389, December 6,
2017.
9
Nenita Quality Foods Corp. vs. Crisostomo Galabo, Adelaida Galabo, and
Zenaida Galabo-Almacbar, G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013.
10
Please see footnote 5.
 28. In explaining what amounted to force, the Honorable Supreme
Court ruled that:
“Unlawfully entering the subject property and
excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that
is necessary. In order to constitute force, the
trespasser does not have to institute a state of
war. No other proof is necessary. 11”
29. The Honorable Supreme Court further explained what
constitutes force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth in David v.
Cordova12 -
“The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth" include every situation or condition
under which one person can wrongfully enter upon
real property and exclude another, who has had
prior possession therefrom. If a trespasser enters
upon land in open daylight, under the very eyes of
the person already clothed with lawful possession,
but without the consent of the latter, and there
plants himself and excludes such prior possessor
from the property, the action of forcibly entry and
detainer can unquestionably be maintained, even
though no force is used by the trespasser other than
such as is necessarily implied from the mere acts of
planting himself on the ground and excluding the
other party.”
30. As stated above, on April 9, 2020 when despite that the whole
Luzon is under Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home
quarantine shall be followed, defendant Jaime and Estelita with their
cohorts entered the subject property of this case without plaintiff’s
consent and without undergoing judicial process armed with bolo and
“panabas” and then proceeded to cut down different trees planted by his
late parents Dedinia P. Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit
from Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
burned it and cleaned the area;
31. Considering the above-stated arguments, it is very clear that
plaintiff Mariano P. Flores was in prior possession of the disputed
property and defendant Jaime Delizo deprived him of his possession by
force;
32. Further, it is humbly submitted that issuance of title does not
vest ownership of a parcel of land but only shows or evidences who the
11
Georgia T. Estel vs. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr.,
G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012.
12
G.R. NO. 152992 July 28, 2005.
owner/s of the land is/are. In the case of Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Heirs
of Vicente Ermac (G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003), the Supreme Court
pronounced the following:

“Ownership should not be confused with a certificate

of title. Registering land under the Torrens System
does not create or vest title, because registration is
not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of
title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over
the particular property described therein.”
33. “Furthermore it must be stressed that the fact that the
petitioner possesses a Torrens Title does not automatically give her
unbridled authority to immediately wrest possession. It goes without
saying that even the owner of the property cannot wrest possession
from its current possessor. This was precisely the Court's ruling in Spouses
Munoz v. CA, 66 viz.:
If the private respondent is indeed the owner of the
premises and that possession thereof was deprived from
him for more than twelve years, he should present his
claim before the Regional Trial Court in an accion
publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria and not before
the Municipal Trial Court in a summary proceeding of
unlawful detainer or forcible entry. For even if he is the
owner, possession of the property cannot be wrested
from another who had been in possession thereof for
more than twelve (12) years through a summary action
for ejectment.
Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim
ownership based on the muniments of title it presented,
such evidence does not responsibly address the issue of
prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.
It must be stated that regardless of actual condition
of the title to the property, the party in peaceable
quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong
hand, violence or terror.  Thus, a party who can prove
prior possession can recover such possession even
against the owner himself. xxx”
34. To prove the foregoing allegations, the following witnesses whose
respective Judicial Affidavits are hereto attached and presented:

1) Mariano Flores;
2) Fedencia Flores-Andrada; and
3) Trinidad Fontanilla.
 35. The Judicial Affidavit of Mariano Flores was amended;

36. The original/certified true copy of the above-mentioned

documents were already attached on plaintiff’s Complaint-Affidavit;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that after due notice and hearing, Judgment be rendered as follows,
to wit:

a. After trial, judgment be rendered ordering the following, to wit:

a.1. DECLARING plaintiff Mariano Perez. Flores is the lawful

possessor of the subject property;

a.2. DECLARING that Jaime Delizo deprived plaintiff Mariano Perez

Flores of his possession in the subject property;

a.3.ORDERING defendant Jaime Delizo and other person/s

claiming under the right of Estelita Delizo to RETURN the
possession of the subject property of this instant case to plaintiff
Mariano P. Flores;

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Done this 15tth day of April 2020 in City of Manila for Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan.

MARIANO P. FLORES
marianofloresparalegal@gmail.com
09676720630/09288154395

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

City of Manila )S.S
x-----------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MARIANO P. FLORES, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident 1418 Penafrancia

Street, Barangay 682, Zone 74, Paco, Manila, under oath hereby depose and say that:

1. I am the plaintiff in the above-mentioned amended complaint;

2. I have cause the preparation and filing of the 2nd amended complaint after reading the
contents thereof which are true and correct of my personal knowledge and based on
authentic documents;
3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation;
4. The factual allegation in the amended complaint have evidentiary support or
specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery;
5. I filed a Petition for Review before the Department of Justice to question the
dismissal of my complaint for usurpation of property, unjust vexation, and qualified
theft against Estelita and Jaime Delizo before the City Prosecutor of Urdaneta City;
6. That I have not commenced any other petition, proceedings or action of similar nature
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; that
to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency; that if I hereafter learn that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts of
tribunal or agency, I undertake myself to report the same within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein the pleading is filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____ day of

_________________________ in _________________________________.

MARIANO P. FLORES
Affiant
ID no. __________________________

JURAT AND OATH

BEFORE ME this ____________________ in ____________________________ to appeared

MARIANO FLORES, with his ID _________ and he presented to me the foregoing
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, and he is personally known to me
and identified by his competent identity showing his photograph and signature, and he
signed the foregoing document in my presence, and under oath, avows under the penalty
of law to the whole truth of the same.

NOTARY PUBLIC