Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES Branch 1 - Baguio City

MARIA ABUEL

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 12345 For : UNLAWFUL DETAINER

- versus REYNALDO CRUZ Defendant. x----------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE PLAINTIFF)
PLAINTIFF, through undersigned counsel unto the Honorable Court most respectfully allege and aver the following: PREFATORY STATEMENT Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court.1 It is not because the possessor previously acquired lawful possession of the property that the lawful owner is not justified to undertake necessary steps to eject the former for not paying the lease rentals and yet refusing still to vacate the leased premises. This is a case for Unlawful Detainer filed by Maria Abuel against Reynaldo Cruz for unlawfully refusing to vacate the leased premises despite several demands made by the former when the latter failed to pay the monthly rentals for the apartment subject of the leased. In such case, the plaintiff was deprived of the possession of the aforesaid apartment and the probable earnings she might have obtained from leasing the property.
1

Article 539 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

1|Page Position Paper Abuel v. Cruz

STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Maria Abuel (Abuel for brevity) is the registered owner of a parcel of land over which an apartment building was erected located at 54 Brgy. Andres Bonifacio, Baguio City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2, respectively, from the Office of the City Assessor of Baguio City, both under her name. She is also the actual prior possessor of the property by virtue of the actual possession over the apartment building. On January 3, 2013, Abuel leased the apartment building to defendant Reynaldo Cruz (Cruz for brevity) by virtue of an oral contract of lease and have stipulated that the lease shall be for a consideration of FIVE THOUSAND PERSOS (P5,000.00), Philippine currency, a month as rental paid within the first ten (10) days of each month. However, starting October 3, 2013 up to the present, Cruz failed to pay the agreed rentals. This failure to pay rentals impelled Abuel to demand from Cruz the payment of the rentals due and to vacate the premises, the last one being made on February 10, 2014. Nevertheless, Cruz failed and adamantly refused to pay the agreed amount of rentals and to vacate the apartment. The controversy was referred to the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay ABCR, Baguio City where plaintiff Maria Abuel and respondent Reynaldo Cruz are residents but mediation failed. Hence, a certificate to file action3 was issued authorizing the filing of the case. On 20 February 2014, plaintiff filed the instant case for unlawful detainer in order to eject the defendant from the apartment premises. Since the unlawful detainer happened on 10 February 2014, reckoned from the date of last demand to vacate and pay rentals, the filing of the complaint for unlawful detainer was within the one (1) year period required by law. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMMITTED
2 3

Exhibit A a certified true copy is attached hereto. Exhibit B original copy which is attached hereto

2|Page Position Paper Abuel v. Cruz

ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSIONS There was unlawful detainer committed in the case Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides for an action for forcible entry. Thus: Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, 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. (emphasis supplied) The rule provides two kinds of action: forcible entry and unlawful detainer. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession over a property after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession. In order that a case for unlawful detainer to prosper, the complainant should prove clearly and convincingly that the defendants possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld from a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract express or implied. To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance have been present from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered. Therefore, it is the nature of defendants entry into the land which determines the cause of action, whether it is forcible entry or unlawful detainer. If the entry is

3|Page Position Paper Abuel v. Cruz

legal but the possession thereafter becomes illegal, the case is unlawful detainer.4 The right of the defendant to hold possession was based on an oral contract of lease entered into by the plaintiff and defendant. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the existence of a formal contract is not necessary in unlawful detainer. Even if there is no formal contract between the parties, there can still be an unlawful detainer because implied contracts are covered by ejectment proceedings. Possession by tolerance creates an implied promise to vacate the premises upon the demand of the owner. 5 Hence, despite the fact that there was no written contract as to the lease agreement between the parties, the same being an oral one is still an express contract conferring upon the defendant right to hold possession over the property. Nevertheless, this lawful possession has subsequently become unlawful when the contract of lease was terminated by virtue of the nonpayment of the rentals for several months. Under the oral agreement between the parties, the lease contract may be terminated if the defendant fails to pay even just one monthly rental. Hence, upon the failure of the defendant to pay the rentals in October 2013, the possession by the same person had already become unlawful. This is what is contemplated by the law as well as jurisprudence in saying that the possession is previously lawful but thereafter becomes unlawful. Although the plaintiff had demanded for several times that the defendant vacate the apartment building, the latter refused to do the same and maintained possession of the property. Lastly, the law also requires that the case shall be instituted by the lessor within one year after the last demand to pay and to vacate is made upon the lessee. By perusing the facts of the case at hand, from the last demand to pay and vacate on February 10, 2014, the plaintiff has until February 10, 2015 to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against defendant. Consequently, the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint on February 20, 2014 is within the prescribed period provided by law. From the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that defendant unlawfully withheld the possession of the apartment building from the lessor. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff had proven that the possession of defendant has become illegal in spite it being previously a lawful one.
4 5

Spouses Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132424, May 2, 2006. Peran v. CFI of Sorsogon, G.R. No. 57259, October 13, 1983.

4|Page Position Paper Abuel v. Cruz

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to the Honorable Court to resolve the instant case in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and to order the following: 1. To order the defendant to vacate the apartment building subject matter of the instant case and voluntarily remove whatever structures they placed therein. 2. To order the defendant to pay in favor of the plaintiff the following: a. Twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as the rentals in arrears with legal interest. b. Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) be for attorneys fees and costs of suit. Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable are likewise prayed

for.

March 6, 2014. Baguio City, Philippines.

MC RHONDOLF LOUIE V. MABALOT Counsel for the Plaintiff Roll No. 2080203 IBP No. 1234678 / 03-01-10 / Baguio City PTR No. 5266338 / 03-01-10 / Baguio City MCLE Compliance No. II 123123123 / 09-07-13 Suite 201, Laperal Bldg., Session Road, Baguio City Contact No. 0918-284-06-46 E-mail Address : rhondolfmabalot@yahoo.com
Copy furnished: ATTY. LOVELY STRAWBERRY PATDU

5|Page Position Paper Abuel v. Cruz

WRITTEN EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure) It is hereby explained that, in lieu of personal service, a copy of this Position Paper was served to the defendants through counsel Atty. Lovely Strawberry Patdu by registered mail due to time and manpower constraints, the same is not practicable. ATTY. MC RHONDOLF LOUIE V. MABALOT

6|Page Position Paper Abuel v. Cruz