Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Branch 44, Davao City
PEPSI PALOMA, CIVIL CASE NO. 222222
Plaintiffs,
FOR: SPECIFIC
-versus- PERFORMANCE
JESSICA SOHO,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF PEPSI PALOMA, by counsel and unto the Honorable Court,
respectfully states that:
1. Plaintiff Pepsi Paloma is of legal age, single, Filipino, and presently
residing at No.23 Royal St., Coca-Cola Village, Matina, Davao City.
2. Defendant Jessica Soho, is of legal age, single, Filipino, and a resident
of Lot 23, Thick St. GMA Village, Davao City where she may be served
with Summons and other processes of this Honorable Court.
3. That the Petitioner is the registered owner of the parcel of land (Lot 23-
B-2-4) with an area of 3,335 square meters, located at Calinan, Davao
City, Philippines, then covered by TCT No. 69696 (Annex A) issued
by the Register of Deeds, Davao City, Philippines.
4. That on or about September 7, 2011, the defendant Jessica Soho had the
petitioner’s subject property’s title certificate withheld and retained by
her under the contract of Deed of Equitable Mortgage of Real Property
(Annex B).
5. That on March 15, 2019 the plaintiff had already fully paid and satisfied
the outstanding balance of their loan in the amount of five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) as evidence by the acknowledgement
receipt signed and received by the defendant (Annex C).
6. That under the contract, upon satisfaction and full payment of the loan
with its interests the defendant Jessica Soho is bound to return the
certificate of title of said property.
CAUSE OF ACTION
7. That on November 5, 2019 the plaintiff caused the preparation and
issuance of the Demand Letter to Return the subject certificate of Title,
copy of which hereto attached as Annex “D”, defendant unreasonably
fails and refuses to honor the Deed of Equitable Mortgage to return such
title of property after due payment of the plaintiff’s obligation including
the interests.
8. Plaintiff and the defendant had an agreement that defendant Elaine N.
Marieb would return the subject certificate of title No. TCT No. 69696
but consistently refused to do so. Thus, an action for Specific
Performance is proper in this case. Specific performance is the remedy
of requiring exact performance of a contract in the specific form in
which it was made, or according to the precise terms agreed upon. It is
the actual accomplishment of a contract bound to fulfill it.1
Notably, Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides
that:
“Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene
the tenor thereof are liable for damages.”
9. Plaintiff is thus constrained to seek judicial intervention and in the
process, has to engage the professional service of a legal counsel for a
fee in order to protect its rights and return of his title of property.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff respectfully prays that this
Complaint be given due course; and after due notice and hearing, judgment
be in favor of the plaintiff by ordering the defendant the following:
a. To return to the owner-plaintiff his Certificate of Title No. TCT
No. 69696;
b. An Order directing the defendant to pay the following:
a. P50,000.00 in moral damages;
b. P50,000.00 in exemplary damages;
c. P60,000.00 in attorney’s fees and P40,000.00 for litigation
expenses.
Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Davao City, Philippines, 6th February 2020
PEPSI PALOMA
Plaintiff
Davao City, Philippines
Assisted by:
ATTY. PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN
Counsel of the Plaintiff
Roll of Attorneys No. 696969
PTR No. 69669, 4-24-20, Davao City
IBP No. 69669, 4-24-20, Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0220293; 4-19-19
Valid until April 14, 2022
Ecoland, Davao City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
IN THE CITY OF DAVAO ) S.S.
x-----------------------------------------x
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Pepsi Paloma, of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of Davao City,
after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the authorized Representative of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled
case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Complainant, have read and
understood the same, and attest that all the statements are true and correct to the
best of my personal knowledge and/or authentic documents;
3. That I hereby certify that (a) the Plaintiff and I have not commenced any other
action involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, I must state the
status thereof; and (d) if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals
or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report the same within 5 days
therefrom to the court or agency wherein filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 15 th
day of January 2020, Davao City, Philippines.
Pepsi Paloma
Affiant
UMID CRN NO. 55555
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, the day, the year, and
the place above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2020
