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 and defendant 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 to the de facto possession of the

subject property;

2. Whether or not the plaintiff have a better right of possession over the

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 posses-sion, or any

person or persons claiming under them, for the restitu-tion 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” referring 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
 4

of regularity of service of summons. It is, therefore incumbent upon the party

questioning the validity of the service to rebut these presumptions with

competent and proper evidence. Thus, the issued certificate to file action is prima

facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Defendant failed to overcome this

presumption by presenting the necessary evidence to rebut the issuance of the

said certificate.

Moreover, plaintiff claimed under the facts established in the case that he

is an adjudged co-owner of the subject property of which a portion thereof is

being occupied by the defendant. Plaintiff based the strength of his claim on the

judgment of the Court of Appeals in G.R. CV No. ______ and promulgated on

April 25, 2016, thereby declaring him as co-owner of said property. A decision

issued by a court becomes final and executory when such decision disposes of

the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action,

leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been

determined by the court, such as when after the lapse of the reglementary period

to appeal, no appeal has been perfected.3 Thus, the decision made in said G.R.

CV No. _______ is ought to be given full accord and respect, owing to the legal

principle that the decisions, orders and resolutions made by the judiciary, when

reached with finality, are issuances of the highest order.

Hence, being a co-owner of the subject property, plaintiff is afforded the

rights of a co-owner under Art. 493 of the New Civil Code. Under Art. 493 of the

New Civil Code:

“Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, ad even substitute another in its enjoyment, except
when personal rights are involved. xxxx”

3
Delima v. Gois, G. R. No. 178352, June 17, 2008.
 5

THE PLAINTIFF HAVE A BETTER RIGHT TO POSSESS

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

Having been adjudicated in a judicial proceeding the title as co-owner

over the subject property, plaintiff has the right to exercise the attribute of

ownership, including the right to possess over the aliquot portion of his share in

the land. Said adjudication is akin to a title over the subject property.

While defendant claimed to have learned that a certain Juan is the real

owner of the property he is leasing and that said real owner is the one paying for

the subject property’s real estate taxes, the act of paying for the real estate taxes

of a land is not a conclusive indicia of ownership. It was held in Cureg v.

Intermediate Appellate Court4 that as against an array of proofs consisting of tax

declarations and/or receipts which are not conclusive evidence of ownership, a

certificate of title indicates the true and legal ownership of the registered owners

over the land.

Defendant likewise failed to show to this Honorable Court the proof of

Juan’s title over the subject property. In the case of Oño v. Lim5, a certificate of

title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property

described therein. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose

the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in

the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered

owner. The actual Certificate of Title, the most important document to prove in

whose ownership the subject property is entitled to, is the vital piece of evidence

that would have cemented defendant’s case and yet and for reasons defendant

can only raise, said certificate of title was not annexed as documentary evidence

to the defense of ownership.

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

Considering that the case established by plaintiff satisfactorily raises the

issue of unlawful detainer on the part of the defendant, it follows therefore that

4
Cureg v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73465, September 7, 1989

5
Oño v. Lim, G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010
 6

plaintiff is entitled to the payment of unpaid rentals and legal interest from the

date of the filing of the complaint until payment of the defendants.

Since plaintiff was compelled to secure the services of a lawyer to protect

his rights and interests, plaintiffs should be ordered to pay the attorney’s fees.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Position Paper be given due course and that upon resolution of this case, a

favorable judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff of the order as follows:

1. Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him be ordered to vacate

the subject property and to restore to the plaintiff the possession thereof;

2. The plaintiff be awarded the following to wit:

a. Php 250,000.00 as and by way of unpaid rentals;

b. Php 20,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees;

c. Php 20,000.00 as and by way of exemplary damages;

d. Reasonable rent of Php 5,000.00 as and by way of monthly rent

for the subject property to commence from the date of the filing of

the complaint until the subject property is peacefully restored

and/or surrendered to the plaintiff;

e. Legal interest on all foregoing amounts from the date of the filing

of the complaint until payment of the defendants;

f. The equivalent amount of 140% of the prevailing monthly rental

for every month of delay to surrender possession of the property

as and by of liquidated damages, and:

3. Cost of suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise

prayed for.

City of Iligan, Philippines, September 7, 2018.

ATTY. JUAN B. DELA CRUZ

Counsel for the Plaintiff
 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