On February 8, 1991, private respondent brought this suit for unlawful detainer in the

MTC. In his answer, petitioner set forth, inter alia, the following affirative defenses!
"a# the $urisdi%tional re&uireent of a foral deand has not been %oplied with'
"b# the property involved has not been suffi%iently identified' and
"%# the herein petitioner was instituted as a tenant by the assignor(s "Felisa
)ngeles# prede%essor, *laton +spiritu ,anto, as original owner of the property,
therefore -petitioner. is an o%%upant/tiller within the eaning of e0isting agrarian
refor laws, having planted and %ultivated nuerous fruit/bearing trees and
introdu%ed iproveents on the par%el of land in &uestion.
*etitioner a1es the following assignent of errors!
"1# T2+ 3+,*O45+4T CO63T +33+5 I4 2O75I48 T2)T T2+3+ 9), )
:)7I5 ,+3:IC+ OF ) 5+M)45 7+TT+3 O4 *+TITIO4+3 ;< *3I:)T+
3+,*O45+4T 92IC2 I, ) =63I,5ICTIO4)7 3+>6I3+M+4T I4
647)9F67 5+T)I4+3 C),+,'
"?# T2+ 3+,*O45+4T CO63T +33+5 I4 2O75I48 T2)T T2+ *3I:)T+
3+,*O45+4T(, *3O*+3T< 2), ;++4 *3O*+37< I5+4TIFI+5 I4 7I4+
9IT2 )3T. @?@ OF T2+ 4+9 CI:I7 CO5+ FO3 *63*O,+, OF
647)9F67 5+T)I4+3'
"A# T2+ 3+,*O45+4T CO63T +33+5 I4 2O75I48 T2)T *+TITIO4+3
CO675 ;+ ,6MM)3I7< +=+CT+5 F3OM T2+ ,6;=+CT *3O*+3T<.
9e find the petition to be without erit.
First. In support of the first ground of his petition, petitioner %lais that no deand was
ade upon hi to va%ate the preises and that there is no proof to show that he re%eived
the deand letter sent to hi on =anuary 1B, 1991.
2e %ontends that the affidavit of ;arangay Captain Fernando )ustria is not entitled to any
weight be%ause no trial on the erits was held in the MTC, as a result of whi%h he was
not given the opportunity to %ross e0aine the witness regarding his affidavit.
)dditionally, he %ontends that any deand ade as alleged by private respondent was not
ade in a%%ordan%e with 3ule CB, se%. ?, of the 3ules of Court.
In his affidavit Fernando )ustria stated that private respondent(s letters to petitioner,
deanding that the latter va%ate the preises and surrender possession of the sae, were
personally handed by hi to petitioner but that petitioner refused to re%eive the. This
affidavit is entitled to great respe%t, in the absen%e of anything to show the %ontrary.
*etitioner(s %ontention that the affidavit should be given no evidentiary value be%ause he
was not able to %ross e0aine the ;arangay Captain has no basis in law. The 3ule on
,uary *ro%edure pre%isely provides for the subission by the parties of affidavits and
position papers and en$oins %ourts to hold hearings only where it is ne%essary to do so to
%larify fa%tual atters. This pro%edure is in 1eeping with the ob$e%tive of the 3ule of
prooting the e0peditious and ine0pensive deterination of %ases.
=anuary 1, ?BDD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
3e%eived fro Atty. Juan Santos the aount of One Hundred Thrty !"e Thousand
Pesos #P$%&'(((.(() ;*I 3o0as ;oulevard Manila ;ran%h %he%1 E 1?A@F/GC89B
representing the payent of!
Two "?# onths deposit and one "1# onth advan%e
for the lease of %ondoiniu unit E F@B *hilippine +0e%utive Towers, )yala )venue,
Ma1ati City.
3e%eived by!
*+tor Gon,a-e,