REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
PASIG CITY BRANCH 154

EDUARDO I. VILLANUEVA M-PSG-22-03274-CR

And FLAVIANA VILLANUEVA, FOR: UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

ANA TAGANILE, ET AL., including all persons claiming

rights under them,

Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO STAY and SET ASIDE WRIT of

EXECUTION
AND
RENDER A NEW DECISION DISMISSING COMPLAINT
for UNLAWFUL DETAINER AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS
_____________________

Defendants Ana Taganile, et al., representing themselves and to

this Honorable court, respectfully file this motion based on the following
relevant and material facts, and legal grounds:

I
The Writ of Execution was Improvidently
Issued, and the Controversy over the Lease
of Lot 1 was never discussed and decided
by this Honorable court

1. The writ of execution dated March 31, 2023 based on the

Decision dated February 27, 2023 was issued by this
Honorable court, upon which the “Demand for
immediate payment and notice to immediately vacate”
dated April 24, 2023 was sent to the defendants
themselves for the defendants’ compliance.

2. Based on the plaintiffs’ complaint filed with this

Honorable court on November 11, 2022, the subject lot
involved in this case and admitted by the plaintiffs is a
portion of Lot 5 as particularly described in OCT No. 011-
2010000009 attached to the plaintiffs’ complaint as
Annex A.
 Page 1

3. While the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a

contract of lease dated May 15, 1996, and a Kasunduan
ng Pag-aayos (Neolita), the defendants were then under
the impression that the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs alleged
(complaint, par. No. 3), were the registered owners of the
Lot 5; under this impression, the defendants entered into
contracts of lease and Kasunduan (Neolita) with the
plaintiffs, attached as plaintiffs’ Annexes A to E.

4. On scrutiny, however, of the aforesaid lease contracts and

the Kasunduan between the plaintiffs and the
defendants, the lot subject of the lease contracts is Lot 1,
and not Lot 5, upon which contracts and Kasunduan, the
plaintiffs’ complaint for unlawful detainer against the
defendants was filed. (Plaintiffs’ Annexes B to E,
Complaint, par. No. 6)

5. Obviously, however, Lot 1 and Lot 5, based on their Lot

designated numbers alone, are manifestly distinct and
different from each other. Neither is Lot 1 within the
particularly described boundaries of Lot 5 in the
plaintiffs’ OCT No. 011-2010000009. (plaintiffs’ Annex
A).

6. Given that the plaintiffs have not shown any legal right or
title over Lot 1 subject of the lease contracts, the
plaintiffs have no right whatsoever to LEASE Lot 1 over
which they have no iota of any legal right or title at all.

7. Evidently, the subject writ of execution, based on the

ownership of Lot 5 by the plaintiffs, was improvidently
issued since the writ of execution was issued as a
consequence of the lease of Lot 5, as the basis, but not of
Lot 1. (International School vs. Ministry of Labor and
Employment, G.R. No. 54243, July 21, 1989, 175 SCRA
507).

8. Further still, the controversy over the lease of Lot 1 was

never discussed and decided by this Honorable court.
(Ibid).
II
Without Compliance with the Condition
Precedent of prior referral to the Barangay
Court
Prescribed by Sec. 6, PD1508, now Sec. 412 of
RA7160 (effective January 1, 1992), the Local
Government Code, this Honorable court has no
jurisdiction to receive and entertain plaintiffs’
 complaint on November 11, 2022, much less to
Decide on the complaint on February 27, 2023.

Page 2

9. The Certificate to File Action (CFA) dated April 26, 2019

was issued to the herein parties by Barangay Rosario,
Pasig City, where the parties reside, and where the
subject Lot is situated. (Complaint, par. No. 10).

10. The plaintiffs, therefore, had only one year from or even
before April 26, 2019 within which to file in court their
action for unlawful detainer. For after one year from
April 26, 2019, the action to be filed would now be an
Accion Publiciana over which the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction.

11. The plaintiffs filed with this Honorable court their

unlawful detainer complaint only on November 11, 2022,
obviously after one year from April 26, 2019.

12. While the plaintiffs sent their last demand letter to pay
accrued rentals and vacate subject Lot 1, dated August
20, 2022 to and received by the defendants on
September 13, 2022, they did so ostensibly to comply
with the legal requirement to file the action for unlawful
detainer within one year from the last demand.
(Complaint, par. No. 9)

13. The one-year period began to run from or before April

26, 2019 when Barangay Rosario issued the CFA to the
herein parties, particularly in favor of the plaintiffs.

14. But the plaintiffs CHOSE TO WAIVE their right to file the
unlawful detainer complaint within one year from the
CFA issuance dated April 26,2019.

15. Instead, later on, plaintiffs sent their last demand letter
dated August 20, 2022, received by the defendant on
September 13, 2022, as stated in par. 12, to the
defendants, and thereafter filed their complaint with the
Honorable court on November 11, 2022, evidenced by
the stamp receipt by this Honorable court.

16. From September 13, 2022 to November 11, 2022,

records disclose that the herein parties did not return to
the Barangay for another conciliation proceedings, no
new CFA having been attached to the complaint covering
the duration between September 13, 2022 and
November 11, 2022.
17. In Vinzons vs. CA, Edoria, G.R. No. 11915, September 30,
1999, the Supreme Court held:

Page 3

“The petition is devoid of merit; we find that the MTC

had improperly assumed jurisdiction over the
ejectment suit.
x x x
Second, the challenged decision correctly dismissed
the case for failure of the plaintiffs, the petitioner
herein, to avail of the barangay conciliation process
under PD1508, preliminary to judicial recourse. The
Court of Appeals had found that ‘there is no clear
showing that it was brought before the Barangay
Lupon or Pangkat of Barangay 5, Daet, Camarines
Norte, where the parties reside and the property
subject of the case is situated, as there is no Barangay
certification to file action attached to the complaint.’ ”

18. Sec. 6 of PD1508 provides:

“No complaint, petition, action or proceeding

involving any matter within the authority of the
Lupon as provided in Sec. 2 shall be filed or
instituted in court or any other government
office for adjudication unless there has been a
confrontation of the parties before the Lupon
chairman or the Pangkat.”

“Referral to the Lupon chairman or the Pangkat shall

be made prior to the filing of the ejectment case under
PD1508. Legal action is barred when there is non-
recourse to the barangay court. The complaint for
unlawful detainer… should have been coursed first to
the barangay court. Petitioners cannot rely on the
barangay conciliation proceedings held in other cases
(in this case, the plaintiffs’ earlier barangay case
where the CFA dated April 26, 2019 was issued), and
consider the same as compliance with the law…. We
reviewed the evidence on record and had found the
improper assumption (of jurisdiction) by the MTC of
the case due to non-recourse to barangay conciliation,
and the lapse of the one-year period for bringing the
case for unlawful detainer.” (Royales vs. Panis, 117
SCRA 470 (1984)

PD 1508 is now incorporated in RA 7160 (the Local

Government Code), effective January 1, 1992. (Leo
 Wee vs. George de Castro, et al., GR No. 176405,
August 20, 2008.

Page 4
CONCLUSION

19. “Rule 9. Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court. Defenses and

objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived. HOWEVER, WHEN IT APPEARS
FROM THE PLEADINGS OR THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD
THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION over the
subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that
THE ACTION IS BARRED by a prior judgement or BY
STATUTE OF LIMITATION, the court shall dismiss the
claim”. (emphasized).

Rule III, Sec. 6, penultimate sentence of Rules On

Expedited Procedures In The First Level Court Effective
April 11, 2022 Provides:

Affirmative defenses not pleaded in the answer shall be

deemed waived, EXCEPT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, AND
PRESCRIPTION. (emphasized).

20. The records of this case indubitably prove that this

Honorable court has no jurisdiction over this plaintiffs’
unlawful detainer suit when there was no prior recourse
to the barangay court by the plaintiffs before filing their
complaint in this Honorable court.

21. The record in this case indubitably also prove that the
plaintiffs’ right of action provided by the barangay CFA
dated April 26, 2019 has long prescribed one year
therefrom.

22. Therefore, the issued writ of execution in this case

should be RECALLED AND QUASHED due to:
a. The court’s lack of jurisdiction over this case.
b. The prescription of the plaintiffs’ right of action to
file this case under the CFA dated April 26. 2019,
one year therefrom having elapsed.
c. Because of the foregoing grounds a and b, the
subject writ of execution was, therefore,
improvidently issued. Further still, the controversy
over the lease of Lot 1, and not Lot 5, was never
discussed and deded by this Honorable court.
 (International School vs.Ministry of Labor and
Employment, G.R. No. 54243, July 21, 1989, 175
SCRA 507)

Page 5

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants

respectfully pray that:

1. The writ of execution dated March 31, 2023,

and the consequent “Demand for Immediate
payment and notice to immediately Vacate”
dated April 24, 2023 be RECALLED and
QUASHED, as held and pronounced in this
court’s

2. New Decision SETTING ASIDE its decision

dated February 27, 2023 and DISMISSING this
case against the defendants.

Defendants further pray for other reliefs just and

equitable.

Pasig, May 29, 2023.

Ana Taganile Herminda E. Sarita

Defendant Defendant

Neolita R. Balaga Norma Enero

Defendant Defendant

All Defendants’ address: 141 Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue,

Rosario, Pasig City.
 Page 6
NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

MTC, Branch 154
Pasig City

Atty. Ricardo A. Castillo

Unit D AUVIR Bldg., Blumentritt St.,
Kapasigan, Pasig City

Greetings:

Please submit and take notice that the foregoing motion to stay and
set aside writ of execution and render a new decision dismissing
complaint for unlawful detainer will be submitted for the consideration
and decision of this Honorable court on June 02, 2023 at 8:30 am sans
further arguments.

Ana Taganile Herminda E. Sarita

Neolita R. Balaga Norma Enero

Copy furnished to:

Atty. Ricardo A. Castillo

Unit D AUVIR Bldg., Blumentritt St.,
Kapasigan, Pasig City

EXPLANATION AS TO MODE OF SERVICE

The foregoing motion is being filed with this Honorable court and
being served to Atty. Ricardo A. Castillo, plaintiffs’ counsel, by
________________________________ due to distance and lack of messengerial
personnel.
 Ana Taganile

Page 7
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
PASIG CITY, METRO MANILA ) S.S.
x------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED DECLARATION

We, Ana Taganile, Herminda E. Sarita, Neolita R. Balaga,

Norma Enero, Filipinos, all of legal age, residing at 141 Dr. Sixto
Antonio Avenue, Rosario, Pasig City, after being duly sworn, depose
and state THAT:

1. We are the defendants in this case.

2. We caused the preparation of the foregoing motion dated

May 29, 2023. We have read and understood the motion,
and its material allegations are true and correct of our own
knowledge and per authentic records.

3. This motion is filed sans any intention to harass, cause

unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the costs of
litigation.

4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or

if specifically, so identified or required, will likewise have
evidentiary support given s reasonable opportunity for
discovery.

May 29, 2023 at Pasig City, Philippines.

Ana Taganile Herminda E. Sarita

Neolita R. Balaga Norma Enero

Affiants

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of May

2023 at Pasig City, Philippines. Affiants exhibited to me their respective:
NAME ID NO. ISSUED AT/ON
1.
2.
3.
4.

Doc. No.: _____________ NOTARY PUBLIC

Page No.: _____________
Book No.: _____________
Series of 2023
Page 8
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
PASIG CITY, METRO MANILA ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ___________________________________, of legal age, Filipino and residing at

141 Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue, Rosario, Pasig City, after being duly
sworn, depose and state THAT:

1. On May ___, 2023 I filed and served copies of the following motion
by _______________ in accordance with Section 3 and 5 in relation to
Section 10 of Rule 13, Rules of Court:

NATURE OF PLEADING/MOTION

“MOTION TO STAY and SET ASIDE WRIT of EXECUTION AND

RENDER A NEW DECISION DISMISSING COMPLAINT for UNLAWFUL
DETAINER AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS”

In the case entitled

EDUARDO I. VILLANUEVA M-PSG-22-03274-CR

And FLAVIANA VILLANUEVA, FOR: UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

ANA TAGANILE, ET AL., including all persons claiming

rights under them,

By depositing the required number of copies in the post office, in

sealed envelopes, plainly addressed to the addressees with postage fully
prepaid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt Nos. hereto attached, and with
instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten
(10) days if undelivered.

The addressees are as follows:

Registry Receipt Nos/Tracking No.

MTC, Branch 154 ______________________________

Pasig City

Atty. Ricardo A. Castillo ______________________________

Unit D AUVIR Bldg., Blumentritt St.,
Kapasigan, Pasig City

Name of server________________________________
Page 9
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of May
2023 at Pasig City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her ID
No._______________ Issued at _____________________ on _________________________
as proof of her identity.

Doc. No.: _____________ NOTARY PUBLIC

Page No.: _____________
Book No.: _____________
Series of 2023
Page 10