Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES
12th Judicial Region
Branch 4, Iligan City
ABC
Plaintiff,
- versus - Civil Case No. _______________
For: Unlawful Detainer with Damages
XYZ
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- x
POSITION PAPER
(FOR PLAINTIFF)
PLAINTIFF, through counsel, unto the Honorable Court, respectfully
submit this Position Paper in support of the arguments in the complaint and the
documentary evidence attached therewith, thus:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint as an indigent
litigant before this Honorable Court last June 28, 2018 specifically praying for his
restitution of the possession of the subject property, together with damages and
costs under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
THE PARTIES
PLAINTIFF ABC (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) is of legal age,
single and with residence address at Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City. He
can be served with notices, orders, resolutions and other court processes of this
Honorable Court at the office address of the undersigned counsel.
1
DEFENDANT XYZ (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) is of legal
age, married and maintains a Vulcanizing and Battery Charging Shop at
Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City, where he may be served with summons
and other court processes of this Honorable Court.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
1. The subject property of the present case which is located at Macapagal
Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City is within the prior possession of plaintiff.
Plaintiff derived his title as co-owner of the real property in a promulgation
made by the Court of Appeals in GR. CV No. _______ on April 25, 2016,
declaring the plaintiff as co-owner of the subject property.
2. Sometime in 2014, plaintiff anddefendant entered into a contract of lease
whereby plaintiff leased a portion of the property to defendant for a period
of three (3) years and renewable for one (1) year.
3. The period of the contract of lease expired in 2017. Plaintiff made several
verbal and written demands to vacate the said property that was left futile
as defendant remained and continued his illegal possession of the subject
property. The final demand letter was sent by plaintiff to defendant on April
23, 2017. The latter received the same a day after it was sent to him, on
April 24, 2017.
4. The defendant raised the defense that sometime during September of
2016, he learned that a certain Juan is the real owner of the property he is
leasing. Said real owner is the one paying for the Real Property Taxes
thereof and have with him a Certificate of Title to the subject property.
5. Thus, despite defendant’s contention and due to his unlawful withholding
and possession of the land after the final demand to vacate, plaintiff was
2
forced engage the services of a legal counsel as indigent litigant; that
plaintiff’s filing of the ejectment suit is within the period of one (1) year
from the last demand to vacate the said property, and; that prior to the
filing of the complaint, the matter at issue was first referred to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Tubod and that the parties failed to come to
an amicable settlement.
PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The following issues were raised during the preliminary conference:
1. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled tothe de facto possession of the
subject property;
2. Whether or not the plaintiff have a better right of possession overthe
subject property; and
3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to damages.
ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF, through counsel, respectfully submits in the affirmative for all
the proposed issues, to wit:
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE DE FACTO POSSESSION
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Plaintiff claims to have prior possession of the subject property under the
facts established in the case. It is pivotal in ejectment cases that the issue to be
resolved is the fact of possession. The only issue in forcible entry and unlawful
detainer cases is the physical possession of real property - possession de facto
and not possession de jure.1
1
Gutierrez v. Magat, 67 SCRA 262
3
Section 1, Rule 70 provides that a person deprived of the possession of
any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to
hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person
may at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding
of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the
person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any
person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession,
together with damages and costs. Section 2, Rule 70 provides that, unless
otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after
demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made
upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person
found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no person be
found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in
the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings.
The plaintiff has satisfactory established the fact of unlawful detainer as
was required by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court in the instant case as well as he
has complied with the referral of the said case to the barangay level for
conciliation as evidenced by the documentary evidence in Annex “E” referr ing to
the Certificate to File Action issued by the Barangay of Tubod. Defendant
claimed that the issuance of such certificate is bereft of validity as the summons
required by it was not received by him. Granting arguendo that defendant did not
in fact received the summons, however, it does not follow that such failure is not
attributable to said defendant. It is a principle of adjective law that courts,
agencies and tribunals cloaked with authority to resolve issues are presumed to
have acted its authority with regularity. In Masagana Concrete Products v.
NLRC2, this presumption of regularity of court proceedings includes presumption
2
Masagana Concrete Products v. NLRC, 313 SCRA 576
7
Commission Serial No. 97583
Until December 31, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 10864
IBP No. 1256/Jan. 3, 2018/Iligan City
PTR No. 08533/Feb. 1, 2018/Iligan City
VERIFICATION
I, ABC, of legal age, Filipino, and presently residing at Macapagal
Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I, through counsel, prepared the foregoing Position Paper on this
Unlawful Detainer;
3. That I have read and understood the same and that all the allegations
therein are true, correct and of my personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic documents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 7th
day of September, 2018, in the City of Iligan, Philippines.
ABC
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of September,
2018 in the City of Iligan, Philippines, affiant exhibited to me his Police Clearance
with File Number 259181.
Witness my hand on the date and place above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission Serial No. 68246
Doc. No. 65 Until December 31, 2020
Page No. 14 Roll of Attorney No. 11528
Book No. 1 IBP No. 1684/Jan. 1, 2018/Iligan City
Series of 2018 PTR No. 07592/Jan 4, 2018/Iligan City
