REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

National Capital Region
Branch 18, Manila

ESTATE OF ELPEDIA GAILO GAITAN

Represented by its Court-Appointed
Administrator, LORENA C. GALLARDO
Plaintiff,

-versus- Case No. 123456789

For : Unlawful Detainer

EDISON E. GANDO
Defendant
x----------------------------x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ESTATE OF ELPEDIA GAILO GAITAN,

Represented by its Court-Appointed Administrator, LORENA C.
GALLARDO, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. Plaintiff is the Estate of Elpedia Gailo Gaitan as Represented by

its current Court-Appointed Administrator, Lorena C. Gallardo.

She may be served with notices of this Honorable Court

through undersigned counsel at the Castillano Law Offices, G/F

Rufino Bldg., 117 Magallanes Street, Intramuros, Manila. (A

1
 copy of the Letter of Administration is hereby attached as

“Annex A”);

2. Defendant Edison E. of Gando is the LESSEE of Unit A of

Elpedia Gaitan Buidling located at 456 Magallanes Street,

Intramuros,

3. Manila. He may be served with notices of this Honorable Court

and the other documents arising from this proceeding at 123

Culdesac Road, Paranaque City;

4. The plaintiff if the owner of the Elpedia Gaitan building, which

is a commercial building that has units being rented out to

benefit the Estate. The Estate is represented by its

administrator, Lorena C. Gallardo;

5. By virtue of a contract of lease, then Administrator of the

Estate, Agnes Yanger, leased unto the Defendant the aforesaid

commercial unit for a consideration of Thirty Thousand Pesos

(Php30,000.00) a month as rental to be paid within the first day

of each month starting April 1, 2016;

2
6. The plaintiff found that the Defendant has committed the

following acts in contravention of the provisions of the contract

of lease (Contract of Lease is hereby attached “Annex B”);

a. The Defendant has turned the second floor of the leased unit

into a residential quarters of his employee and his family,

which is a clear violation of paragraph 3 of the contract;

b. Storage of more than the allowable amount of Gasul

products inside the commercial unit.These Gasul

products were placed right next to the Twin Pandesal

Oven which the Defendant installed in the same unit,

with no permanent fire wall in between. Such act clearly

posed a great danger to all occupants

of highly commercialized building. (Photos are hereby

attached as “Annex C, C-1 & C-2)

6. The Defendant had irreparably breached the provisions of

the lease contract, specifically on the following:

a) “3. The LESSEE hereby agrees and warrants that the

leased premises shall be used EXCLUSIVELY

for commercial purposes only.”

3
 b) “3.2. The LESSEE is prohibited to use the property in

immoral, illicit and criminal activities. The LESSEE

shall be exclusively responsible with compliance of all

laws, ordinances, regulations, government authorities

as regards the use, occupancy, safety, and sanitation

of the leased premises and violation of any of the

same shall be at the exclusive risk, expenses and

responsibility of the LESSEE. Failure to comply with

the government regulations shall be an additional

ground for the termination of this contract”.

7. Consequently, Provision #15 of the Contract of Lease

provides, mere notice to vacate
is sufficient and due notice to Lessee, to wit:

“15. SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE TO VACATE:

Deposit in the lease premises of a notice of vacate
shall constitute due and sufficient notice to the
LESSEE. Upon termination of the lease OR EARLIER
THEREOF AS ABOVE PROVIDED, the LESSEE
hereby authorizes in advance the LESSOR to enter upon
the leased premises, remove all items that may be found
therein and deposit the same in a safe place, and the
LESSEE further agrees to pay all costs for the transfer
and storage thereof.”

4
8. On June 9, 2018, the plaintiff sent a notice of termination of
contract and notice to vacate the said unit which was personally
received by Ralph Baisa as shown in the receiving copy hereto
attached as “Annex D”;

9. Despite said letter of demand which was repeatedby oral

demands, the defendant failed and still refused to vacate the
premises;

10. That on August 28, 2018, Petitioner filed a case before the
barangay in order to settle the issue amicably. However, after
several hearings no conciliation has been reached. Thus, a
Certificate to file Action was issued by Barangay 655 of
Intramuros. A copy of the said certificate is hereby attached as
“Annex E”;

11. By reason of the failure of the defendant to vacate the

premises the plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint
engaging the services of counsel in the amount of One Hundred
Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php150,000.00)

WHEREFORE, premised considered, it is respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be
rendered ordering the defendant:

5
 1. To vacate the subject premises;

2. To pay the amount of Php30,000.00 per month plus Value

Added

3. Tax (VAT) compensation for the reasonable use of the

subject premises until Defendant finally vacate the said
premises;

4. To pay plaintiff the cost of the suit;

5. To pay attorney’s fees in the amount of One Hundred Fifty

Thousand Pesos (Php150,000.00).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Manila, September 15, 2018

CASTILLANO LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Plaintiff
G/F Rufino Bldg.
117 Magallanes Street
Intramuros, Manila 1002

By:

ATTY. ETHAN GALLIANO

Roll of Attorneys No, 456700
PTR No. 98765,1-9-18, Manila
IPB LRN 87645, Manila
MCLE Comp.No.54376,03-19-18