COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT FOR EJECTMENT

(Three Petitioners Against One Defendant – Unauthorized Occupation of a Road Lot)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

[PETITIONER 1's FULL NAME],

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT FOR EJECTMENT

COME NOW, the Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully state:

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Petitioners are all of legal age, Filipino citizens, and registered owners of residential lots situated
in [Subdivision Name, Address], where the subject road lot is located. Their addresses for
purposes of this proceeding are as follows:

o [Petitioner 1’s Full Name], residing at [Address];

o [Petitioner 2’s Full Name], residing at [Address]; and

o [Petitioner 3’s Full Name], residing at [Address].

2. Defendant, [Defendant’s Full Name], is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, and residing at
[Defendant’s Address], where he/she may be served with summons and other court processes.

3. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to Section 33(2) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, considering that this is an action for
ejectment involving possession of real property.

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

4. Petitioners are the registered owners of the following residential lots located in [Subdivision
Name] under the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs):
 o [TCT No. XXXX] registered under the name of [Petitioner 1];

o [TCT No. XXXX] registered under the name of [Petitioner 2]; and

o [TCT No. XXXX] registered under the name of [Petitioner 3].

5. Adjacent to their properties is a road lot, which forms part of the subdivision’s common areas
intended for public use, as reflected in the subdivision plan approved by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB, now Department of Human Settlements and Urban
Development).

6. The road lot is designated for vehicular and pedestrian passage and is not subject to private
ownership or residential construction, pursuant to Section 27 of Presidential Decree No. 957,
which states:

"The owner or developer shall provide adequate roads, alleys, and sidewalks, which shall be donated to
the government or to the homeowners’ association upon completion. Such roads shall remain open for
public use."

7. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendant was permitted to temporarily occupy the road
lot by the mere tolerance of the homeowners, including the Petitioners, due to the
extraordinary circumstances brought about by the lockdowns and movement restrictions.

8. However, the occupancy was understood to be temporary and revocable, and the Defendant
was never granted any legal right or ownership over the road lot.

9. Over time, the neighboring vacant lots were developed and occupied by their rightful owners,
leaving the designated road lot as the only accessible passageway for the Petitioners and other
homeowners.

10. The Defendant’s illegal occupation:

 Blocks the road lot, preventing the Petitioners from using the designated access way to their
properties;

 Creates a public nuisance, making it difficult or impossible for pedestrians and vehicles to pass
through; and

 Deprives the homeowners of their right to freely use the subdivision’s common areas.

III. PRIOR BARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS

11. In accordance with Section 412 of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), the
parties underwent conciliation proceedings before the Katarungan Pambarangay of [Barangay
Name].

12. Despite good faith efforts, no settlement was reached, as evidenced by the Certificate to File
Action issued on [date], a copy of which is attached as Annex “A.”
IV. LEGAL GROUNDS FOR EJECTMENT

13. The Defendant’s continued occupation of the road lot, despite lack of any legal right, constitutes
unlawful detainer under Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

"A person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, or a lawful possessor deprived thereof by tolerance and whose possession has been withdrawn
or terminated, may file an action for ejectment."

14. In Spouses Alcaraz v. Tangga-an (G.R. No. 217744, July 5, 2017), the Supreme Court held that:

“Possession by mere tolerance does not create a legal right. When the lawful possessor withdraws his
tolerance, the possessor by mere tolerance becomes a usurper without color of title, warranting
ejectment.”

15. The Defendant’s refusal to vacate the road lot despite the withdrawal of tolerance by the
Petitioners constitutes unlawful detainer, justifying this action for ejectment.

16. In De Vera v. Agloro (G.R. No. 196290, February 19, 2020), the Court ruled that:

"Unauthorized occupation of a common area, such as a road lot, constitutes a disturbance of the rightful
possession of the legitimate owners, warranting ejectment."

V. DEMAND TO VACATE

17. On [date], Petitioners sent a written demand letter to the Defendant, demanding that he/she
vacate the road lot and remove the illegal structure. A copy of the demand letter, with proof of
service, is attached as Annex “B.”

18. Despite repeated demands, the Defendant refused to vacate, thus compelling the Petitioners to
seek legal redress.

VI. DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

19. As a direct consequence of the Defendant’s illegal occupation, Petitioners have suffered the
following damages:

 Actual damages in the amount of [PHP XX,000.00] representing costs for legal action, travel
expenses, and other losses;

 Moral damages in the amount of [PHP XX,000.00] for the anxiety, distress, and inconvenience
caused by the Defendant’s illegal act;

 Attorney’s fees of [PHP XX,000.00] and litigation expenses incurred in protecting Petitioners’
rights.

VII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray that this Honorable Court render judgment:

1. Ordering the Defendant to immediately vacate and surrender possession of the road lot;

2. Directing the Defendant to remove all structures and improvements illegally erected on the
road lot at his/her own expense;

3. Awarding Petitioners the following:

o Actual damages in the amount of [PHP XX,000.00];

o Moral damages in the amount of [PHP XX,000.00];

o Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; and

o Costs of suit.

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

Respectfully submitted.
[City/Municipality], Philippines, [Date]

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

✅ This version includes pandemic-related tolerance, strong legal basis, and relevant jurisprudence. Let
me know if you need further revisions or additional legal citations!