1 Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Branch 47, Pasay City RAINIER IBARROLA, HEIR AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF ELISEO CHING, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. M-PSY-08-06442 FOR: EJECTMENT WITH DAMAGES -versus- MARIO BOY CUNETA, Defendant. x---------------------------------------------x RAINIER IBARROLA, HEIR AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF ELISEO CHING, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. M-PSY-08-06443 FOR: EJECTMENT WITH DAMAGES -versus- MARTHA CUNETA, Defendant. x---------------------------------------------x JOINT ORDER For resolution is the dismissal of the instant cases for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction pleaded in the Answer with counterclaim filed by defendant’s counsel Atty. Ramel Aguinaldo on July 10, 2008. It was argued that the plaintiff’s Certificate to File Action was issued almost two (2) years from the filing of this case which is more than the one (1) year prescriptive period for filing an ejectment suit. Plaintiff’s counsel Atty. Florencio Anchuvas filed his comment and/or opposition thereto on June 15, 2010. He stated, inter alia, that there was no factual and legal bases with the defendant’s counsel argument that this Court has no jurisdiction. He contended that the basis for filing an ejectment is the last extrajudicial demand to vacate the premises which was made on May 31, 2007 while the case was filed on May 30, 2008, which is within the one (1) year period for filing an ejectment under the Rules. He reasoned out that the referral of this case before a barangay for which plaintiff was issued a Certificate to File Action dated July 21, 2006 cannot be considered as last extrajudicial demand to vacate as contemplated under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 70 of the 1997 Revised rules of Civil procedure. The referral of the case to the barangay is purely a requirement under PD No. 1508 to avoid indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. Defendant’s counsel, Atty. Sancho Ferancullo, Jr. filed his reply on June 25, 2010. He alleged that plaintiff’s complaint dated April 28, 2008 stated therein that the date of the demand letter is May 31, 2007 while the date of the Certificate to File Action is July 21, 2006. He disagreed with the arguments raised by Plaintiff’s counsel Atty.