REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
BACARRA, ILOCOS NORTE

SPS. ROGER C. VEA AND

CAROLYN R. VEA,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. __________________

-versus-
For: Easement of Right of Way

SPS. ODELIO MACADANGDANG

AND MAGDALENA MACADANGDANG
Defendants.

x-------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs through the undersigned counsel

and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs SPOUSES ROGER C. VEA AND CAROLYN R.

VEA, both of legal age, Filipino Citizens and residents of
Brgy. 15, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, Philippines;
2. Defendants SPOUSES ODELIO MACADANGDANG AND
MAGDALENA MACADANGDANG, are likewise of legal age,
both Filipino Citizens and residents of Brgy. 1, Bacarra,
Ilocos Norte, Philippines, where they may be served with
summons and other processes of the Honorable Court;

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3. That sometime in the year 2009, Guillerma M. Rico, in the
lawful exercise of her right of ownership, offered for sale a
parcel of land owned by her situated at Brgy. San Roque I,
Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, which parcel of land is more
particularly described as follows:

“A parcel of residential land (Lot No. 3849),

situated in San Roque I, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte.
Bounded on the North by Lot 007, on the South
by Lot 023, on the East by Lot 014, and on the
West by Lot 016. Containing an area of Five
HUNDRED SIXTY ONE (561) SQUARE
METERS, and covered by ARP No. 08-010-00502.

4. Anent to the foregoing, and to carry into effect the proposed

sale of the said property, Guillerma M. Rico constituted
Gliceria V. Ramiro as her agent, thereby authorizing the
latter to sell the above-described parcel of land;

5. Relatedly, the proposed offer to sell the said parcel of land

came to the knowledge and attention of the Spouses Roger
C. Vea and Carolyn R. Vea. Desirous of looking for a parcel
of land where they can build their own family home,
Spouses Vea endeavored to inquire about the particulars
 concerning the property being offered for sale by Guillerma
M. Rico;

6. Unfortunately to the Spouses Vea, after having made an

initial inquiry and upon being told of the particulars of the
proposed offer to sell, Spouses Vea were unsuccessful in
consummating the sale of the property reason for which is
the selling price being offered to them for the whole parcel
of land is one which they are not financially capable to meet
and pay with;

7. Steadfast of their dream to build their own family home,

Spouses Vea tried to look for other persons willing to buy
the portions of the said property with the end view of
dividing and selling portions of the same to different persons
instead of it being sold as a whole to a single buyer in order
to bargain a lower selling price for the proposed sale of the
abovementioned property;

8. Amenable with the said arrangement, the seller then

instructed Spouses Vea to look for others who are willing to
purchase portions of the said property;

9. Adhering to the seller’s instruction, Spouses Vea proceeded

to search for other buyers. Luckily for them, they were able
to convince _______________, Spouses Larry Balantac and
Juliana Balantac, Spouses Odelio Macadangdang and
Magdalena Macadangdang to join them in buying the
different portions of the afore-stated property;

10. Thereafter, upon learning the buyer’s willingness to

purchase the portions of the property, the seller through her
agent agreed to sell and convey ownership over a portion of
 ONE HUNDRED FORTY AND 5/xx (104.5) SQUARE METERS
of the subject matter parcel of land in favor to Spouses Vea
and the remaining portions in favor of
_____________________;

(Electronic Copies of the Deed of Sale executed in

favor of Spouses Vea, is hereto attached and
marked as ANNEXES “A”, and made an integral
part of the Complaint.)

11. Very significantly, the said parties agreed to the

following terms of the sale especially with respect to the
portion to be given to the corresponding party-buyer: (a)
the North East portion to ___________; (b) the North West
portion to Spouses Macadangdang; (c) the South East
portion to Spouses Vea and (d) the South West portion to
____________;

12. Equally important in the sale of the portions of the

afore-said property is the arrangement as to the area where
the ingress and egress of the place will be situated.
Relevantly, all of the parties, in a clear and unambiguous
manner, agreed that __________ who is the owner of the
North East Portion of the property and Spouses
Macadangdang as the owner of the North West portion have
to appropriate 1.5 meters each of the portion of their
properties so as to serve as the road right of way of Spouses
Vea and ________ as the owners of South East part and
South West part respectively, which area are the burdened
portions of the subject parcel of land;
13. Honoring the said agreement, ___________ as the
owner of the North East portion of the property, gave 1.5 m
of his lot to serve as the road right of way of Spouses Vea
and _________ as owners of the portion situated at the
back of the subject property;

14. However, much to the surprise of the parties, Spouses

Macadangdang deliberately refused to comply with what is
incumbent upon them in the above-stated agreement and
now turning a blind eye as to the due existence of the same;

15. To the Plaintiff’s full disbelief, the defendant Spouses

Macadangdang instead of honoring the subject agreement
and appropriating 1.5 m portion of their property to be given
as the road right of way, proceeded to construct their family
abode and erected concrete perimeter wall fence over their
property thereby blocking the area supposed to be given as
part of the road right of way;

16. As it stands now, albeit there exist a road right of way

in the disputed area, the same is grossly inefficient as the
Plaintiffs are without adequate outlet to and from the
National Road. The 1.5 meters pathway given by ______ is
not sizeable enough to accommodate a road right of way in
favor of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendant’s
land area is sufficient such that a reduction of 1.5 meters
would hardly be felt by them;

17. Verily, the existing passageway for the Plaintiffs (daang

tao) leading to and from the national road cannot be
considered as adequate outlet for the purposes of
establishing an easement of road right of way because it is
not sufficient to meet the needs of the Plaintiffs as one of
the owners of the burdened portions of the property;
18. Elucidating further, the existing footpath being allowed
the plaintiffs to use is certainly not adequate to cater the
needs of the plaintiffs. It is not amiss to point that in this
present state of time, motor vehicles are of vital necessity
such that the plaintiffs should not be placed in a situation
wherein their own vehicles used by them for their living be
left and parked in the highways, a place where temptation of
theft and damage to property is extremely probable. Thusly,
the plaintiffs have all the right to demand 1.5 m portion
from the defendants intended for the driveway for their
automobile and not mere lane or pathway;

19. With the road right of way rightfully belonging to the

plaintiffs as owners of the burdened portion, it is but just
and equitable under the circumstances that the defendants
be compelled to acknowledge, respect and comply with their
obligation pursuant to the subject agreement they entered
into at the time of the sale of all of the foregoing properties;

20. All told, the location and width of the easement hereto
being rightfully asked by the plaintiffs appears to be legal,
just and reasonable;

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21. Due to Defendants baseless and unwarranted act of not

appropriating the portion of their lot which they are obliged
to do so for the full establishment of the agreed road right of
way and the unlawful withholding of the same, Plaintiffs
Spouses Vea were constrained to institute this suit and were
compelled to engage the services of a counsel in order to
safeguard their rights, thus, Defendants shall be made liable
by way of attorney’s fees;
 22. The Defendants malicious act of depriving Plaintiffs
Spouses Vea of the portion to be given as forming part of
their road right of way had caused them sleepless nights,
serious anxieties, moral shock, and wounded feelings, which
Defendants must be held liable to pay Php. 50,000 by way
of moral damages;

23. Likewise, to set an example or correction for the public

good, the Plaintiffs Spouses Vea should be awarded
exemplary damages in the amount of Php. 50,000;

24. The Plaintiffs Spouses Vea are also entitled to the cost
of suit.

RIGHT TO INJUCTIVE RELIEF

25. As stated above, the defendants are at present doing

construction works over the disputed property as they are
intending to build a ____________ over the premises. The
continuance of the construction works over the premises by
the defendants will definitely work injustice to the Plaintiffs
Spouses Vea’s easement of right of way;

26. Plaintiffs Spouses Vea thus hereby applies for a

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and/or a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) to command the defendants to
restrain and hold in abeyance any construction work
over the disputed parcel of land while the case is
pending;

27. In Los Banos Rural Bank v. Africa1, the Supreme

Court simplified the rule on injunction:

1
GR NO. 143994, 11 July 2002.
 A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve
the status quo ante, upon an applicant’s showing of
two important requisite conditions; namely, (1) the
right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the
acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It
must be proven that the violation sought to be
prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

28. In the same case, the meaning of status quo ante was
clarified:

xxx. Status quo  is defined as the last actual peaceful

uncontested situation that precedes a controversy, and
its preservation is the office of an injunctive writ.

In the instant case, the status quo was the situation of

the parties at the time of the filing of the Amended
Complaint  with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction. It was that point at which petitioner had
already foreclosed the subject property and, hence,
could no longer be enjoined from going on with the
foreclosure. However, the last actual uncontested
status that preceded the controversy was when
the property in dispute was still registered in the
name of Macy Africa, petitioner not having
consolidated in its name the title thereto.  Thus,
the issuance of the writ would no doubt preserve
the  status quo. (Emphasis ours)

29. From this legal yardstick, the instant Complaint fits

perfectly;

30. Plaintiffs Spouses Vea has the right to be protected

from the unwarranted claim of full possessory right through
the on-going construction works initiated by the defendants.
As discussed above, defendants have no absolute right over
the property in suit. The defendants’ act of depriving the
Plaintiffs the right of way belonging to them per law and per
 agreement perpetrate injustice to the prejudice of the herein
Plaintiffs Spouses Vea. Unless restrained, this will definitely
result to irreparable damage and injury to Spouses Vea
before their claim of easement of right of way and the legal
issues discussed above can be thoroughly studied and
adjudicated;

31. Stated otherwise, the denial of Plaintiffs Spouses Vea’s

application for injunctive writ will surely subject them to a
more severe damage when CONTINUANCE OF WORK IS NOT
ENJOINED OR PREVENTED. A denial of this prayer will
likewise render ineffectual the rights of Plaintiffs Spouses
Vea over the portion agreed and intended to be constituted
as their road right of way. Hence, herein Plaintiffs Spouses
Vea humbly and respectfully seeks the aid of this Honorable
Court to dodge up the possible injury should the act not be
enjoined;

32. Also, without defendants being immediately enjoined

from DOING CONSTRUCTION WORKS OVER THE DISPUTED
LOT, there will be no way by which to measure the
irreparable damage the Plaintiffs Spouses Vea will suffer.
The urgency of the situation is thus clear and apparent;

33. Plaintiffs Spouses Vea are willing to post a reasonable

bond as may be warranted hereto;

34. Relatedly, in consideration of all of the foregoing, the

provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law finds no
application in the instant case. Section 412 (b) (3) of
Republic Act No. 7160 provides that:

(b)Where parties may go directly to court – The parties

may go directly to court in the following instances:

Xxxx
 (3) Where actions are coupled with provisional
remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, delivery of personal property, and
support pendete lite.

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

36: The following are the intended witness of herein Plaintiff:

36.1.

For good reasons shown, herein Plaintiffs reserves the

presentation of additional witness/es in the course of the
proceedings.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

37. All the documents attached in the instant complaint and those
attached to the Judicial Affidavits of the Plaintiffs and their
witnesses are the documentary evidence for their cause and will
be utilized to support as well as to prove the veracity of the
Plaintiffs claim of ownership over the disputed property in the
course of the trial.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed before this Honorable Court, after due notice and hearing,
judgment be rendered as follows:

1. Upon receipt and perusal of the Complaint and

before hearing of the main issue/s; issue a status quo
ante order and/or Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction directing and enjoining
private defendants to hold in abeyance, or stop any
construction works over the disputed property;

2. After due notice and hearing; convert the TRO and/or

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to one of permanence;

3. On the main issue/s;

3.1 ORDERING the Defendants Spouses

Macadangdang to allocate 1.5 meters portion of their
property for the full establishment of the road right of
way in favor of the plaintiffs.

4. DIRECTING the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs Spouses

Vea the following:

i. Moral damages in the amount of Php. 50,000;

ii. Exemplary damages in the amount of Php. 50,000;
iii. Attorney’s fees in the amount of Php. 30,000 plus
attorney’s fees of Php. 3,000 per court appearance
and
iv. The cost of suit.

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

Respectfully submitted this October __ 2020 at Bacarra, Ilocos Norte for

Municipality of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte.
 DNQR-LA & ASSOCIATES (SAN NICOLAS)
Counsel for the Complainant
Madamba St. cor. National Highway
Barangay 12, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte
Office Landline No. (077) 670 8306
Website: www.dnqrla-lawfirm.com

By:

MARCELINO M. QUITORAS JR.

Roll No. 50132/May 3, 2005
I.B.P O.R No. 089627/26 Dec. 2019 (For 2020 Dues) /Ilocos Norte Chapter
PTR#13238050/07 January 2020/San Nicolas, I.N

MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000019758/14 April 2022/Manila

Mobile No. (0917) 716 5807/ (0933) 810 5047

MOERA JOY N. GALING-LUNA

Roll No. 63292/May 7, 2014
I.B.P O.R No. 100853/03 January 2020/ Ilocos Norte Chapter
PTR#0056965 Z/02 January 2020/San Nicolas, I.N
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0025958/14 April 2022/Manila
Mobile No. (0917) 790 8161/ (0933) 810 5137
 PAUL JOSEPH L. NEREZ
Roll No. 69148/May 30, 2017
I.B.P O.R No. 100852/03 January 2020/ Ilocos Norte Chapter
PTR#0056964 Z /02 January 2020/San Nicolas, I.N
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0005312/08 December 2017
Mobile No. (0917) 168 8819/ (0949) 991 5347

(Verification and Certification on the next page)