REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
San Fernando City, La Union
BRANCH__

CATHERINE Y. NISCE, CIVIL CASE NO._______

Plaintiff,
FOR
- versus – DAMAGES

NERISSA SAMPANG,
Defendant.

X----------------------X

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully avers that:

1. Plaintiff is CATHERINE Y. NISCE, of legal age, Filipino, married and a

resident of ________________, San Fernando City, La Union, while
Defendant is NERISSA M. SAMPANG is of legal age, Filipina, single,
common-law wife of deceased Australian GRAEME SMITH (GRAEME) and
a resident of Urbiztondo, San Juan, La union, where they may be served
with summons and other court processes;

2. Plaintiff is filing this case as the assignee of JOY V. ISHII (JOY) over the e
property and rights subject of this case. A copy of the Assignment of
Rights and the Supplemental Agreement are hereto attached as
Annexes "A" and "B";

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. AMOR L. ESTRELLA (AMOR) is the registered owner of a parcel of land

located at Urbiztondo, San Juan, La Union and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 2274 issued on 09 January 2004 by the Register of
Deeds of the Province of La Union, which is more particularly described
as follows:

"A parcel of land (Lot 12524-B, Psd-01-054832, being a

portion of Lot 12524, Cad 739-D, San Juan Cadastre,
LRC Rec. No. N-61305 (NALTDRA) situated in Barangay
Urbiztondo, Rurban Code No. 0133, Municipality of San
Juan, Province of La Union, Island of Luzon. XXXXXX X X
containing an area of FOUR HUNDRED NINE (409)
SQUARE METERS, more or less.”

1
 A copy of said TCT No. 2274 is hereto attached as Annex "C" and
made integral part hereof.

4. On 26 January 2002, AMOR executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)

in favor of GRAEME, her common-law husband, with full powers "to
administer, manage, subdivide, sell, transfer, lease, mortgage and enter
into any contract or agreements for her and in her name with any person
or entity including to bring suit, defend and enter into any compromises
in her name and stead" in relation to larger parcel of land with a total
area of 2,559 square meters, more or less, covered by Original Certificate
of Title No. T-705 which was subsequently subdivided into several titles.
Attached as Annex “D” is the said SPA;

5. On 25 May 2004, pursuant to said power and authority from AMOR,

GRAEME executed a Deed of Absolute Sale wherein a portion of the land
with an area of Four Hundred Nine (409) Square meters described above
and covered by T.C.T. No. T-2274 was sold to plaintiff JOY for a total
consideration of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P1,431,500.00), subject to the following
important and relevant terms and conditions:

d) The installations of utilities shall be limited to the

eastern boundary of the property only, built
underground only, and providing all other interior lot
owners access to the underground utility services for
maintenance and or using or tapping additional
services; and

"That as further consideration of this sale, the

VENDOR hereby agrees and binds herself to grant the
VENDEE, his heirs, assigns, executors, administrators,
tenants, servants, visitors, in common with all others
having like the right, at all times hereafter, with or
without automobiles other vehicles; or on foot, for the
purpose of entrance or exit, to form the property sold,
to the national highway, THE RIGHT TO PASS THROUGH
that strip of land, with three (3) meters wide, extending
upon and along the South boundaries of Lots 12324-A-D
of the subdivision Plan of Lot 12524,Cad 739-D, San
Juan Cadastre, Psd-01054832 and continuing along the
South Boundaries of Lots-12524-A-D of Subdivision Plan
of Lot 12524, Cad 739-D San Juan, Cadastre, Psd-01-
054832 and continuing along the South boundary of Lot
E to the Salvage Zone and Beach, surveyed for Amor
Estrella, provided that vehicles of any kind shall not be
allowed, limited however to the persons above named."

The other relevant term and condition is also important to this case,
as follows:

2
 "It is hereby agreed and understood by and between the
parties hereof that, should either party fail to fulfill and
comply with any or all of the terms, conditions,
covenants and stipulations herein specifically made and
provided, SAID PARTY SHALL PAY TO THE OTHER
PARTY, AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES THE SUM OF
P500.000,00 PESOS, Philippine Currency.

A copy of said Deed of Absolute Sale is marked as Annex "E" and

made integral part hereof which was dated notarized by Atty. AURORA P.
SANGLAY who later on, became the legal counsel of herein defendant
NERISSA SAMPANG in Civil Case No. 7100 for Specific Performance by JOY
against AMOR and GRAEME. Said Defendant NERISSA SAMPAN is the
second common-law wife of GRAEME.

Clearly, there was a consummated contract of sale between the JOY

and AMOR through GRAEME.

6. Thereafter, buyer JOY started the construction of a residential apartment

on the land in question and when the construction was about to be
completed, there arose the need for accessibility to the rear portion and
also to the highway by way of right of way. Unfortunately, upon several
requests by JOY to GRAEME for a right of way, the same were denied and
ignored, thus, on 15 July 2005, JOY filed said Civil Case No. 7100 which
was heard and decided by RTC-Branch 27 of San Fernando City, La Union.
Initially, Atty. AURORA SANGLAY was the counsel on record for the
defendants AMOR and GRAEME and in fact, the said Defendants AMOR
and GRAEME’s Answer dated 15 December 2005 was filed through the
assistance of said Counsel. Attached as Annex “F” and Annex “G” are
the complaint and answer;

7. On, 06 November 2007, JOY and AMOR entered into a compromise

Agreement which is attached as Annex “H” and was filed in court on 17
January 2008 and was approved by then Acting Hon. Judge Robert T.
Cawed of the Regional Trial Court of La Union Branch 27 on 04 April 2008.
In effect, the said Compromise Agreement, thus, became the decision
over the said case. The said Order is hereto attached as Annex “I” The
relevant and pertinent portions of the compromise agreement are as
follows:

1. That defendant Estrella shall provide the ROAD RIGHT OF

WAY with the dimensions as demanded by plaintiff in her
complaint and in accordance with the provisions of the Deed
of Sale dated May 25, 2005;

2. That aside from free accessibility and use by plaintiff of

said right of way from the beach to the highway and vice-
versa, the safety of plaintiff as a resident in the compound is
equally important and for this purpose, the use of the
existing gates of the right of way fronting the beach and
3
 high- way shall therefore be controlled by herein parties to
avoid uncontrolled use by the public/strangers; For this
purpose, regulations will be promulgated by herein parties.

XXX

4. That defendant Estrella agrees to pay to plaintiff

by way of damages the total amount of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) and
plaintiff in turn agrees to forego/waive any an all-
other claim she may have against defendant Estrella
as contained in her complaint. It is understood
however that the said amount of P500,000.00 which
defendant Estrella commits to pay to the plaintiff
shall be DEDUCTED from the proceeds of the sale of
the adjoining lot belonging to the defendant Estrella
located on the east of the lot of plaintiff more
particularly that parcel of land covered by T.C.T. No.
2274 consisting of 509 (should be 409 square
meters). The plaintiff undertakes/commits herself to
buy and defendant agrees and binds herself to sell
the said land to plaintiff and no other at the agreed
selling price of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00 per
square meter."

It is important to note the actual consideration as of 06 November

2007 when the Compromise Agreement was signed. Under the Deed of
Absolute Sale, the full consideration is P1,431,500.00 or P3,500.00 per
square meter. While in the Compromise Agreement, the consideration
became P1,227,000.00 because the P3,500.00 was reduced to P3,000.00.

"5. The plaintiff is aware that the Owner's copy of

TCT No. 2274 has been misplaced and currently NOT
IN THE POSSESSION OF DEFENDANT ESTRELLA. In
this connection, defendant Estrella shall immediately
file the appropriate legal action preferably in the
same Court where the herein case is pending (RTC-
27) to cause the issuance in defendant's favor of a
NEW OWNER'S DUPLICATE of said title.

Upon receipt of Plaintiff of the said new owner's

duplicate copy of the title, Plaintiff shall likewise,
IMMEDIATELY PAY to defendant Estrella the
consideration of theland covered by TCT No. 2274,
less the P500,000.00 mentioned in paragraph 4
hereof. Defendant will then execute the Deed of
Absolute Sale of said land in favor of the Plaintiff.

8. It can be observed that AMOR and GRAEME’s Counsel on record Atty.

AURORA SANGLAY did act as their counsel in the execution of the
compromise agreement as she did not sign the same and instead,
another Counsel in the person of Atty. ARLYN DIMAL signed the same in

4
 assistance of AMOR. After the approval of the Compromise Agreement,
AMOR did not institute the legal action for the issuance of the new
owner's duplicate copy of the title, thus, forcing JOY to ask the Court for
the issuance of Writ of Execution on 12 December 2009 but what is more
is that AMOR allowed and authorized/tolerated Defendant NERISSA
SAMPANG to construct illegal-structures on said lot in plain violation of
the compromise agreement. It would appear there was a preparatory
plan or strategy wherein Defendant ____________ intended to avoid
Implementation of the Compromise Agreement;

9. For her part, it was during this time that AMOR migrated to Australia
together with her children and that GRAEME passed away on 26 May
2006. Unfortunately, as of 12 December 2009, the writ of execution was
not implemented or enforced in the matter of the issuance of the lost title
and worst, AMOR allowed NERISSA to construct a residential apartment
over the lot covered by TCT. No. 2274 which was subsequently assigned
to herein Plaintiff. Attached as Annex “J and series” are the
photographs of the structure of the Plaintiff. Attached as Annex “K and
series” are the photograph of the structure of the Defendant. Attached
as Annex “L” is the Certificate of Death of GRAEME;

10. On 26 March 2014, JOY filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction herein attached
as Annex “M” by restraining AMOR and NERISSA SAMPANG and
whomsoever is acting in their behalf or authority, to stop the construction
of the house/structure at Urbiztondo, San Juan, La Union on a parcel of
lot covered by TCT No 2274 to which the trial Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order on 04 April 2014 effective for a period of twenty (20)
days and also setting the hearing for the issuance of the writ on 10 April
2014. Attached as Annex “N” is the said Order. At this time, Atty.
AURORA P. SANGLAY acted as counsel for NERISSA SAMPANG and filed a
Comment to the Plaintiff JOY's Urgent Motion for Issuance of TRO and/or
Preliminary Injunction dated 20 April 2014 on the ground of jurisdictional
and legal issues. Attached as Annex “O” is the said Comment;

11. It was erroneously argued that after the death of GRAEME in 2006,
GRAEME’s authority to administer or to lease the property of AMOR was
"substituted by his heirs, Shayna Lyndall Smith and Lindsey
Smith and Cameron Smith, all residents of Queensland,
Australia" and that authority of administration and management of the
property was "left to Nerissa Sampang." This argument is legally
incorrect for the reason that said authority or power by virtue of a Special
Power of Attorney is extinguished under Article 1919 of the Civil Code by
reason of death of the "agent" who is GRAEME. Hence, there was no
right or authority transmitted by inheritance to the Heirs of GRAEME after
his death on 26 May 2006. From the point of view of Defendant NERISSA

5
 SAMPANG, she became interested to share in the alleged property of
GRAEME who as a foreigner, was disqualified to own real property in the
Philippines. This is an erroneous and baseless argument that was raised
by NERISSA SAMAPANG that "third party defendant Nerissa
Sampang was acting for and in behalf of the Heirs of Graeme
John Smith who appears to be lessee for 50 years from July 26,
2002 up to July 25, 2052." Thus, Nerissa Sampang cannot be bound
to comply with the Compromise Agreement for the reason that she was
not a party therein;

12. As ruled upon by the trial Court in its Order dated 15 April 2014, the
rights as alleged by NERISSA SAMPANG is doubtful because the Contract
of Lease ceased to have legal effects upon the death of GRAEME and as
such, NERISSA SAMPANG has no right whatsoever to construct any
structure on the land already sold by the principal owner AMOR to JOY.
Secondly, the leasehold right of GRAEME from AMOR cannot be inherited
by his heirs, namely, Shayna Lyndall Smith and Judith Matusiewicz, of
City of Queensland, Australia because the lease was already
extinguished.

13. It was only on 07 August 2014 that said Heirs of GRAEME executed a
Special Power of Attorney before the Philippine Consular Office in
Queensland, Australia in favor of third-party defendant NERISSA
SAMPANG granting her right "to act as administrator over the parcels of
land situated in Urbiztondo, San Juan, La Union, which is the subject of a
Contract of Lease between Amor Estrellla (Lessor) and Graeme Smith
(Lessee)' and "to exercise all the rights arising from said Contract of
Lease, but not to sell, dispose of, or alter the rights arising from said
Contract of Lease, she being our alter-ego." Hence, when GRAEME died
on 26 May 2006, he has no more leasehold rights granted by the owner
AMOR and more importantly, this particular parcel of land with TCT No.
2274 was already sold to JOY as early as 24 May 2004 two (2) years
earlier before the death of GRAEME on 26 May 2006. Attached as
Annex “P” is the SPA of GRAEME’s supposed heirs while the said lease is
herein attached as Annex “Q”;

14. For clarity and emphasis. It was also admitted in said Comment that
NERISSA SAMPANG has been the common-law wife of GRAEME way back
in 1999. Further, the records also show that:

a) the Contract of Lease between Amor Estrella and Graeme Smith

was executed on July 20, 2002; b) the Deed of Sale signed by
Graeme Smith as attorney-in-fact was executed on May 24, 2004; c)
Graeme John Smith died on May 26, 2006; and d) the Special Power
of Attorney executed by the Heirs of Graeme Smith was executed on
August 27, 2014 for Shayna Lyndall Smith and on September 11,
2014 for Judith Anne Matusiewicz before the Philipine Consul in

6
 Queensland, Australia and at that time, Civil Case No. 7100 was
already on appeal before the Court of Appeals in a proceeding of a
Petition for Certiorari docketed as Case No. CA G.R. SP No. 138394
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed sometime on 21 November
21, 2014 and later decided on July 26, 2016. Attached as Annex
“S” and Annex “T”, respectively, are the said petition and decision.

This appeal by NERISSA SAMPANG was filed with the assistance of

two (2) law offices, the Sanglay Law Office of Atty. AURORA P. SANGLAY
and ATTY. MARLON S. CORPUZ of Dacanay Law Office.

15. These facts explained above will conclusively prove that at the time of
the hearing on the issue of preliminary injunction sometime on 10 April
2014, defendant NERISSA SAMPANG has no document to prove
her right and authority to construct a house on the land in
question. It was mere oral argument and hearsay evidence without any
document. In short, it was merely an illegal strategy or maneuvering
committed by defendant NERISSA SAMPANG when a new document of a
Special Power of Attorney appeared and "came out of the blues" to save
the losing case just to create a legal issue. Fortunately, the Court of
Appeals was not swayed by such illegal document and instead, made a
serious and conclusive finding of fact against defendant Nerissa
Sampang. Lets quote, to wit:

"The initial evidence satisfactorily demonstrates

respondent Ishii's clear and unmistakable
right over the subject lot covered TCT No.
2274, Respondent Ishii's right over the subject lot
was based on a perfected sale transaction
between her and the registered owner thereof, Amor
Estrella. As record will show, she has already made
partial payment for the lot in the form of damages.
She and Estrella Amor has already agreed on terms
and conditions of the sale as reflected in the
judicially-approved Compromise Agreement
which is in the execution stage.

This right was all the more fortified when it

was disclosed that petitioner Sampang has indeed
NO right to build a structure over the subject lot
covered by TCT. No. 2274. It must be recalled that
petitioner Sampang's right to introduce
improvements on the subject Lot (TCT No. 2274)
was by virtue of the 50-year Contract of Lease
entered into by her alleged predecessor Graeme
Smith and the registered owner Estrella Amor,
wherein the latter allowed Graeme Smith to build a
structure on the leased lot. However, it was
revealed during the formal hearing of the
urgent motion that said Contract of Lease was
annotated on a DIFFERENT TITLE - TCT No.

7
 2278, as approved by the Phil. Leasure and
Retirement Authority - and NOT ON THE
SUBJECT TCT No. 274, which is the subject of
respondent Ishii and Estrella Amor's Compromise
Agreement. In other words, petitioner
Sampang was found to be constructing
building NOT on TCT No. 2278 as reflected in
the Contract of Lease but on a different land,
particularly TCT No. 2274, which is the subject
of the Compromise Agreement." (4th paragraph
of page 7 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of page 8, Court
of Appeals Decision promulgated on 26 July 2016)

Attached as Annex “R” is the above-cited Order of the Court.

16. To prolong and delay the enforcement and implementation of a

judicially-approved compromise agreement issued by the RTC-Branch 27
of La Union on April 4, 2008 by then Acting Hon. Presiding Judge
Robert T. Cawed, Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG, assisted by Counsel
Atty. Aurora Sanglay, filed another petition for review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court on March 21, 2017
docketed as GR No. 230162 which is attached as Annex “U”, however,
on 07 August 2017, the Supreme Court - First Division issued a
Resolution which is attached Annex “V”, wherein, it declared that it
"sees no sufficient reason to interfere with the RTC's issuance of a TRO
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction and the CA's affirmance of the same."
Thus, it ruled that:

"ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM

the assailed July 26, 2016 Decision and January 26,
2017, Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP
No. 138394"
SO ORDERED."

17. Defendant NERISSA SAMPONG still hoping for a "lost cause" filed a
Motion for Reconsideration dated 03 November 2017 which is attached
as Annex “W” and the Supreme Court Special First Division issued a
second Resolution dated 10 January 2018 which is attached as Annex
“X” which reads as follows:

"Acting on petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the

Resolution dated August7, 2017 which denied the petition
for review on certiorari, and considering there is neither
compelling reason nor any substantial argument to
warrant a modification of this Court's resolution, the Court
resolves to DENY reconsideration with FINALITY.

"NO FURTHER pleadings or motions shall be entertained

herein.

8
 Let an ENTRY of judgment in this case be issued
immediately."

Hence, the filing of this damage suit against defendant Nerissa Sampang.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

18. As clearly explained and demonstrated in the above allegations of facts

of this case, Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG acted in bad faith and with
malice by constructing a residential apartment on the property already
sold to JOY who subsequently assigned her rights to herein Plaintiff
CATHERINE Y. NISCE. It is clear also that there were legal
maneuvering and strategy of legal remedies by NERISSA SAMPANG to
avoid the implementation and execution of the judicially approved
compromise agreement between the registered owner AMOR and JOY;

19. Also established in all the judicial proceedings from the Regional Trial
Court of La Union, Branch 27, the Court of Appeals, Special Fifth Division
and the Supreme Court, Special First Division, it was decided and ruled
upon that there is no doubt that defendant Nerissa Sampang has
absolutely no right, interest or any participation in the subject
land in question. However, because of Defendant NERISSA
SAMPANG’s baseless and stubborn pursuit of her misplaced interest
and/or obsession to inherit the property from her common-law husband
GRAEME, she does not want to respect the rights of AMOR, also a
common-law wife of the late GRAEME, being the registered owner of a
large parcel of land to sell, transfer and convey in favor of JOY who in
turn assigned her rights to the herein Plaintiff. It is also evident that by
reason that NERISSA SAMPANG was not given any property by GRAEME
and instead a large parcel of land was given to AMOR by GRAEME on
the basis that it was GRAEME who paid for and bought this large parcel
of land because he was legally disqualified to own real property being a
foreigner;

20. On the other hand, JOY and herein Plaintiff suffered the collateral
damage by spending in litigation and legal expenses to prove their right
of legal ownership and rights over the land in question. Plaintiff was
damaged, disturbed and forced to litigate unnecessarily by the
Defendant with full knowledge the property was already sold in favor of
the JOY and that she has no right or interest therein. In short,
defendant NERISSA SAMPANG is a usurper, intruder and a
builder in bad faith;

21. The applicable laws over this case are:

PROVISIONS OF CIVIL LAW INVOLVED

(Civil Code or Rep. Act No. 386 as amended)

9
 THE LAW ON HUMAN RELATIONS:

Article 20. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights

and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Article 21. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or

negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnity the
latter for the same.

RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY:

Article 445. Whatever is BUILT, planted or sown on the land

of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon,
BELONG to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions
of the following articles.

Article 449. He who BUILDS, plants or sows in BAD

FAITH on the land of another, LOSES WHAT IS BUILT,
planted or sown WITHOUT RIGHT TO INDEMNITY.

Article 450: The OWNER OF THE LAND on which

anything has been BUILT, planted or sown in BAD FAITH
may demand the demolition of the work, or that the
planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in
their former condition at the expense of the person who
BUILT, planted or sowed, or he may compel the BUILDER
or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the
proper rent.

22. By reason of the immoral, illegal and malicious acts of Defendant

NERISSA SAMPANG, it puts at risk the money spent and invested by
Plaintiff for the purchase of the land and also the construction of the
residential house, for which Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG should be
made liable to pay damages to plaintiff In an amount reasonably
assessed at FIVE MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000.00).

SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

23. Likewise, by reason of said illegal and malicious acts of Defendant

NERISSA SAMPANG, the illegal construction on subject should be
Demolished and Removed and to Restore the land to its original
condition without the construction by paying a reasonable rent from the
time it was illegally constructed starting from December 2009 when the
Writ of Execution was being implemented up to the actual demolition
and removal, she is liable to pay rentals at the rate of TEN THOUSAND
PESOS (P10,000.00) PESOS per month. This demand is supported by
the provisions of Articles 449 and 450 of the Civil Code the Philippines.

10
24. Also, by reason of the said acts, Plaintiff suffered sleepless nights,
anxieties and worries, thus, defendant Sampang should be made liable
to pay moral and exemplary damages in the amount of ONE MILLION
PESOS (P1,000,000.00).

25. Further, by reason of the illegal and oppressive acts of defendant

"Nerissa Samang, plaintiff was constrained to protect her rights over this
property and was forced to engage the services of counsel and she
agreed to pay the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00) for attorney's fees as indicated in the attached Retainer
and Official Receipt marked as Annex “Y” and Annex “Y-1”;

26. Due to the willful and open violation of the rights of Plaintiff and also by
reason of the prolonged and uncertain court litigation before the three
(3) judicial courts, the Defendant should be made to pay for litigation
expenses in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P500,000.00);

27. As the parties reside in different municipalities, the matter was no longer
brought before the Barangay;

28. To prove the foregoing, the Plaintiff will present the following documents
which are likewise attached to her Judicial Affidavit:

Annex Description

“A” and “B” Assignment of Rights and the

Supplemental Agreement
“C” TCT No. 2274
“D” SPA of AMOR in favor of GRAEME
“E” Deed of Absolute Sale of JOY and AMOR
“F” Complaint in Civil Case No. 7100 for
Specific Performance by JOY against AMOR
and GRAEME.
“G” Answer
“H” Compromise Agreement
“I” Order approving the Compromise
Agreement
“J and series” Photographs of the structure of JOY
“K and series” Photographs of the structure of NERISSA
“L” Certificate of Death of GRAEME
“M” Urgent Motion for the Issuance of
Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction by JOY
“N” Order granting Temporary Restraining
Order
“O” Comment to the JOY's Urgent Motion for

11
 Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction
“P” SPA of Shayna Lyndall Smith, Lindsey
Smith and Cameron Smith in favour of
Nerissa Sampang
“Q” Lease between AMOR and GRAEME
“R” Order of RTC Branch 27, San Fernando
City, La Union dated 15 April 2014
“S” Petition for Certiorari docketed as Case No.
CA G.R. SP No. 138394 with the Court of
Appeals
“T” Decision dated July 26, 2016.
“U” Petition for Review with the Supreme Court
docketed as GR No. 230162
“V” Resolution of the Supreme Court - First
Division dated 07 August 2017
“W” Motion for Reconsideration
“X” Resolution dated 10 January 2018
“Y” and “Y-1” Retainer and Official Receipt

The above documentary evidence will be presented to prove that the

Defendant has no right over the lot subject of this case and despite her lack
of right thereto, she continues to insist on her alleged right. To be
presented to prove the case will be Plaintiff whose Judicial Affidavit is hereto
attached as well as the Judicial Affidavit of witnesses
___________________________.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after

hearing, judgment be rendered as follows:

1. Declaring the residential apartment constructed on the land of

plaintiff as illegal and as such, should be demolished at the
expense of Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG;

2. Ordering Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG to pay plaintiff damages

in the amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00);

3. Ordering Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG to pay Plaintiff a

monthly rental of P10,000.00 to commence from December,
2009 until the illegal construction is actually demolished and
removed.

4. Ordering Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG to pay Plaintiff the

amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) by way of moral
and exemplary damages;

12
 5. Ordering the Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG to pay Plaintiff the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for
attorney's fees;
6. Ordering Defendant NERISSA SAMPANG to pay plaintiff the
amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for the
delay in the implementation of a judicially approved Compromise
Agreement dated 06 November 2007, thus confirming the sale
between Amor Estrella as Seller and Joy Ishii as Buyer; AND

7. Ordering the defendant Nerissa Sampang to pay the cost of suit

in this case.

Other and further reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Baguio City for San Fernando City, La Union, 08 March 2021.

RODEL D. GALLETO
GALLETO LAW OFFICE
Room 303, 3/F Jose Miguel Bldg., Abanao St. corner Yandoc St., Baguio City
For the Petitioner
PTR No. 4858324; 12.16.2020; Baguio City
IBP Receipt No. 006621; 12.16.2020; Baguio City Chapter
Roll No. 54542; 05.03.2007
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0002648; 06.02.2017
(MCLE Compliance VII Certificate on Process, 24-27 Feb. 2020, Baguio City)
E-mail address: [email protected]; Mobile Phone Number: 0917-5082588

Republic of the Philippines )

City of San Fernando, La Union)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

I, CATHERINE Y. NISCE, a Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident of

__________________, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines, after first being
duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that I am the
Plaintiff/Complainant in the foregoing complaint. That I have caused the
preparation of the foregoing complaint and I have read and understood the same
and knows the contents thereof, and that the allegations contained therein are true
and correct of my own personal knowledge and are based on true and authentic
records/documents;

That the complaint/pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or

needlessly caused to increase the cost of litigation; That the factual allegations
herein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery; That the signature
of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the
allegations in the herein complaint/pleading;

I further certify that: (a) I have not theretofore commenced any other action
or proceeding or filed any claim involving the same issues or matters in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such action

13
or proceed is pending therein; (b) if I should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or proceeding is pending has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I
undertake to report such fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court or
agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein
have been filed.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___th day of

March 2021 in the City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines.

CATHERINE Y. NISCE
Affiant-Complainant

Subscribed and sworn to before me in the City of Baguio, Philippines, this ___th
day of March 2021, the affiant-petitioner who is personally known to me, appeared
before me and exhibited her Identification Card with particulars appearing before her
name and signature above which she signed the foregoing instrument before me and in
my presence which she acknowledged before me as her free and voluntary act and
deed.

Administering Officer

14