Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11TH Judicial Region
Branch 14, Davao City

JOSEPHINE C. HILARIO CIVIL CASE No. R-DV-17-01753-

Petitioner, CV
-versus-

HON. DAYDREWS D. VILLAMOR, FOR: CERTIORARI AND

THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BR. 5 PROHIBITION, ETC.
OF THE MTCC ET AL.,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------------x

MANIFESTATION AND VERY URGENT MOTION FOR

RESOLUTION
AND ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

NOW COMES THE PETITIONER, thru the undersigned counsel,

and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. On September 27, 2017, counsel for the petitioner received a

September 15, 2017 Order of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 5, issued by Judge Daydews Villamor, one of the
defendants in this case, granting the issuance of a Writ of
Demolition to enforce the Writ of Execution for the
implementation of the Decision of January 6, 2010, a certified
true copy of said Order of September 15, 2017 is hereto
attached as Annex “A”;

2. On November 10, 2017, at about 10 o’clock in the morning,

the petitioner, Josephine Hilario, received a Sheriff’s Notice to
Vacate from a certain Edgardo Holifeña of the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Branch 5, which directs the defendant,
petitioner in this case, to vacate the titled premises of the
plaintiffs, defendant in this case (Davao Primeland Properties
Corporation), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
366156, a certified true copy of said Final Sheriff’s Notice to
Vacate is hereto attached as Annex “B”;

3. In addition, said Notice to Vacate directs the Sheriff to enforce

demolition if the defendant, petitioner in this case, fails to obey
Page 1 of 5
 the aforementioned writ, despite clear directive to vacate as
contained in the notice, within three (3) days from receipt
thereof, or until November 13, 2017;

4. Last May 8, 2017, petitioner filed with the Executive Judge of

the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, a Verified Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure coupled with preliminary
injunction with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order, in order to stop the
implementation of the Writ of Execution issued by Judge
Daydews Villamor dated November 24, 2016;

5. In support of the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order,

the Judicial Affidavits of the petitioner and her witnesses were
already submitted to this Honorable Court on June 28, 2017;

6. On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff also already submitted their

Memorandum in compliance with the Order of the Court dated
June 29, 2017 for the parties to the case to submit their
respective Memoranda;

7. To date, the same petition for certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order is still pending before this Honorable Court
after the parties thereto have already filed their respective
memoranda;

8. With all due respect, the prayer for the issuance of the
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
needs to be resolved immediately by this Honorable Court by
virtue of the Special Writ of Demolition issued by the
defendant, Judge Daydews Villamor, last September 15, 2017
and the Final Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate issued by Sheriff
Edgardo D. Holifeña, dated November 10, 2017;

9. It cannot be greatly emphasized that there is an urgent

necessity for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction pending final adjudication
of the merits of this petition, otherwise, the Sheriff would
already be enforcing the demolition order of MTCC Branch 5 on
November 13, 2017;

Page 2 of 5
 10. As already stated in the Memorandum submitted by the
plaintiff, and the affidavits of the petitioner and Engineer
Florencio Sasil, unless a temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the public respondents
shall now implement the writ of execution (and now, even the
writ of demolition order), thus, making ineffectual the
relocation survey that may be hereinafter be conducted if the
relief sought by the petitioner is granted;

11. As can be gleaned from the Final Sheriff’s Notice to Vacate

dated November 10, 2017, the demolition is to be enforced on
the premises covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-366156;

12. Notably, said Order only supports the prayer of the

petitioner in this case that before a writ of execution or a writ
of demolition be implemented, there is still a need for a
relocation survey, in order to ensure that the property to be
demolished is indeed covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-366156, especially that there is a finding by a qualified
geodetic engineer that the property occupied by the petitioner
in this case, is 837.33 meters apart from the property
described in TCT No. T-366156;

13. Without such relocation survey being conducted, then there

is no way of showing that, indeed, the property occupied by
the petitioner in this case -which is about to be demolished-
falls inside the metes and bounds covered by TCT No. T-
366156. The Sheriff of MTCC Branch 5, then, would be making
himself liable for wrongfully demolishing or enforcing said writ,
for he did not ascertain the metes and bounds of TCT-366156.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that:

1) An ex-parte temporary restraining order and/or writ of

preliminary injunction be issued restraining or enjoining the public
respondents, namely, the Presiding Judge of MTCC of Davao City, and
the sheriff of MTCC Branch 5 of Davao City, from implementing the
subject writ of execution, the sheriff’s notice to vacate, and the special
writ of demolition, to enforce the assailed orders;

Page 3 of 5
 2. After determining the merits of the petition, an order be
issued:

(a) denying the respondent’s motion to dismiss;

(a) commanding the court a quo to implement its Order of

November 18, 2016 directing the sheriff to first conduct a
relocation survey to determine the metes and bounds of the
private respondent’s property described in TCT No. T-366156;

(b) ordering the court a quo to direct the sheriff that in the
conduct of the relocation survey, the same must be observed and
duly noted by the geodetic engineer of the herein petitioner;

(c) annulling the assailed orders of the court a quo dated March
31, 2017, November 24, 2016, and November 18, 2016, with
respect to the eviction of the herein petitioner for being unjust
and absurd;

(d) and finally, ordering the respondents to pay the costs of this
suit.

Petitioner prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable in
the premises.

Davao City, Philippines, November 13, 2017.

LASALA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 10 ATU Plaza, Gov. V. Duterte St., Davao City
Tel No. 215-4168

RENAN NORBERT C. LASALA

Roll No. 67141
PTR No. 8809019B-Davao City-05.29.2017
IBP No. 005734-Davao City-05.08.2017
MCLE Cert. No. – Exempt (Newly Passed the Bar)

Page 4 of 5
 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION/HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

Branch 14
Regional Trial Court
Davao City

ATTY. VIVIAN JOY FELICIANO-BRACEROS

2/F Jose A. Pantojan Building, 99-2a Juan Luna Street, Davao City

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing
Manifestation and Very Urgent Motion for the consideration and
approval of this Honorable Court on November 13, 2017 and the same
is set for hearing on November 17, 2017 at 8:30 in the morning.

Davao City Philippines, November 13, 2017.

RENAN NORBERT C. LASALA

Copy furnished by personal delivery:

ATTY. VIVIAN JOY B. FELICIANO-BRACEROS

2/F Jose A. Pantojan Building, 99-2a Juan Luna Street, Davao City

EDGARDO D. HOLIFEÑA
Sheriff, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5
Hall of Justice, Ecoland, Davao City

Page 5 of 5