Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
NHA Compound, Kalayaan Avenue
Diliman, Quezon City

EFREN EUSTAQUIO, LUZVIMINDA

BATISTIS, EMERITA CAPANANG, ANN
ROSE MILAN, SEVERINA CRUZ, AMELIA
MANGILA and EDWARD AZUCENA
Complainants,
-versus-

HLURB Case No. NCRHOA040814-2007

ANGELA R. AGAS, ARCHANGELINA

FLETCHERO and ROSALINA CASTAEDA
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Complainants, by the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Office most respectfully filed this Position Paper
within the reglementary period, pursuant to the order of this
Honorable Office and states that:
The complainants, thru the herein counsel was in
receipt of this Office Order dated April 15 2014 last June 7,
2014 requiring him to file his Position Paper within a nonextendible period of ten (10) days from receipt. That he therefore
has until June 17, 2014 within which to file the same, hence,
this pleading is seasonably filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
AND OF THE CASE

This is an unlawful detainer case, the purpose of

which is to recover the material possession of a portion of the
subject property with an area of One Hundred Seventy Five
square meters (175 sqm) more or less. Portion of said property
came into possession of the defendant by virtue of a contract of
lease with the condition agreed upon. The ultimate facts as
alleged in the complaint and contained in the affidavit of
plaintiff are quoted herein below:
It is undisputed that plaintiff owned the property
subject matter of this case, specifically located at #01 Mabuhay
Street, Zone IV-A, Penafrancia, Brgy. Mayamot, Antipolo City.
This was duly admitted by the defendant during the
preliminary conference. Plaintiff acquired the said property on
April 28, 1988 from Roberto C. La- Llaban by virtue of an
Affidavit of Sale.
Sometime in 2011, defendant occupied the portion of
the property under the terms and conditions, among others,
that defendant will pay the rent of Two Thousand Five Hundred
pesos (P2, 500.00) per month. The lease agreement was likewise
admitted both in defendants Amended Answer and during the
preliminary conference.
However, defendant had been remiss of its obligation
to pay rents since November 2012. Several and repeated
personal and verbal demands were made by the plaintiff
demanding the defendant to settle the rentals that were already
due and to vacate the premises, plaintiff already need the
property. Demands were not heeded.
Sometime in December 2012, plaintiff sent demand
letter to the defendant for the latter to vacate the property, but
the defendant refused to do so. Worst, defendant continues to
occupy the property without paying rents. On April 4, 2013,
plaintiff sent a final demand letter for the defendant to vacate
the premises and to settle its back rentals. Out of generosity,
plaintiff asked for the payment of back rentals starting only
from the month of January 2013. Demand letters were served
personally but defendant refused to receive. An Affidavit of
Service executed by Rodrigo C. Victorino, whose affidavit
attached to the record of this case will show proof that the

demand letters were served to the defendant, though the later

refused to receive.
Notwithstanding these written and verbal demands,
defendant has repeatedly failed to settle its obligation and up to
now still refuses to turn over the said premises peacefully to the
plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff sought the intervention of
the barangay to recover the possession of the property in
question.
In view of defendants adamant refusal to either
vacate the subject premises and to pay the rentals demanded of
him, and after failed barangay conciliation, on June 5, 2013,
plaintiff commenced an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities against defendant.
ISSUES
I.
Whether or not ejectment is proper.
II.
Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages.
III.
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this case.
IV.
Whether or not defendant is entitled to damages.

DISCUSSION/ ARGUMENTS
The above issues defined in the Preliminary
conference order are discussed/ argued interchangeably
considering their proximity with each other.
Ejectment is proper.

Unlawful detainer (ejectment) is a summary action for

the recovery of possession of real property. This action may be
filed by 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. 1
The allegations in the complaint determine both the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court. The
complaint must specifically allege the facts constituting
unlawful detainer. Plaintiff believes that his complaint
sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer when
it states the following:
(a) Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant
was by contract of lease with the plaintiff;
(b)Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
the plaintiff to the defendant about the termination of the
latters right of possession;
(c) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
property and deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment; and
(d)Within one year from the making of the last demand to
vacate the property on the defendant, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
In resolving whether the complaint states a cause of
action or not, only the facts alleged in the complaint are
considered. In his amended complaint, the plaintiff presents
the following allegations in support of his unlawful detainer
complaint:
4)
The said property was being leased to the defendant under
the terms and conditions that defendant will pay the rent of Two
Thousand Five Hundred pesos (P2, 500.00).
5)
Since November 2012 and up to the present, defendant failed
to pay the agreed monthly rental of Two Thousand Five Hundred
pesos (P2, 500.00). Numerous verbal demands were made by the

(Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court)

plaintiff demanding the defendant to settle the rentals that were

already due. Demands remain unheeded;
6)
As early as December 2012, plaintiff sent demand letter to
the defendant for the latter to vacate the property, but the defendant
refuse to do so. Worst, defendant continuously occupying the
property without paying rents. On April 4, 2013, plaintiff sent a
final demand letter for the defendant to settle its back rentals and to
vacate the premises. xxx
8)
Despite repeated demands orally and in writing, defendant
failed to settle its obligations and refused to vacate the said
premises and continues to occupy the property without plaintiffs
consent to the damage and prejudice of herein plaintiff;
9)
Plaintiff resorted to Barangay Conciliation proceeding but no
settlement was reached. xxx (emphasis ours)

The plaintiffs allegations in the amended complaint

sufficiently make out a case for unlawful detainer. His
complaint could thus fall under ejectment suits for unlawful
detainer cognizable by the metropolitan or municipal trial
courts under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Defendant further states in his amended answer that
the amended complaint shows no copy of the Lease Contract
between the plaintiff and defendant was attached to the
complaint.
Admittedly, the Kasunduan ng Upa sa Bahay cannot
be produced in Court because defendant failed to return the
signed copy of said Kasunduan to the plaintiff. However,
defendant admitted in his amended answer and during the
preliminary conference, that he is occupying the subject
property by virtue of a contract of lease wherein he agreed to
pay Two Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) per month.
If the agreed rentals were paid monthly, in the
absence of written agreement, according to law it is to be
understood that the lease was on a month to month basis and
is terminable at the end of every month. Thus, plaintiff may
exercise his right to terminate the contract at the end of any
month.
If the month-to-month agreement is only on a verbal
basis then the lease is considered terminated as of the end of

the month, after proper notice or demand to vacate has been

given.2
In the case of Uy Hoo and Sons Realty
Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Thomas
Kuan, (G.R. No. 83263, June 14, 1989), the Supreme Court
ruled that a month-to-month lease under Article 1687 of the
Civil Code is a lease with a definite period, the expiration of
which upon previous demand by the lessor to vacate, can justify
ejectment.3
The Court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of this case.
Defendant nevertheless insists, both in his answer
and amended answer, that the plaintiff failed to prove the
existence of the demand letters and that the same were duly
received by the defendant, thus, an action for ejectment is
premature and tantamount to lack of jurisdiction and not
actionable by the Honorable Court.
In support of defendants allegation, he further cited
the case of Sps. Bandoy v CA, GR No 77133, July 19, 1989.
But, the above case of Bandoy cannot be applied in
this case. In the said case, the complaint was defective because
of its failure to allege that there was a prior demand to vacate.
The defect was not cured because no evidence of a prior
demand to vacate was presented in the trial court.
In the present case, the complaint sufficiently alleged
that several verbal and written demands were made upon the
defendant to turn over the subject property to plaintiff but
defendant refused and up to now still refuses to peacefully
vacate the property.
What prevents a trial court from acquiring
jurisdiction in ejectment cases is the failure to allege in the
complaint that a demand was made, not the fact that plaintiff
2

Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 199

Uy Hoo and Sons Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Thomas Kuan, (G.R. No.
83263, June 14, 1989)
3

failed to prove said allegation. In ejectment cases, the trial court

does not assume jurisdiction if the complaint fails to allege that
a demand has been made.4
In the case at bar, the complaint shows that plaintiff
made an oral and written demand on the defendant to vacate
the premises. Paragraph 6 of the complaint states:
6)
As early as December 2012, plaintiff sent demand letter to
the defendant for the latter to vacate the property, but the defendant
refuse to do so. Worst, defendant continuously occupying the
property without paying rents. On April 4, 2013, plaintiff sent a
final demand letter for the defendant to settle its back rentals and to
vacate the premises. xxx (emphasis our)

Consequently, this Honorable Court acquired

jurisdiction over the case because the complaint expressly
alleged that plaintiff made a demand on defendant to vacate the
subject premises.
Though, only photocopies of the demand letters were
attached to the record of the case, nevertheless, an affidavit of
Rodrigo Victorino attesting that he personally served said
demand letters to the defendant, is sufficient proof that indeed,
defendant received the demand letters dated December 27,
2012 and April 4, 2013 within one year before a complaint for
ejectment was filed.
In any event, even assuming arguendo that a written
demands to vacate is absent, still plaintiffs allegations in his
complaint
constitute
sufficient
compliance
with
the
jurisdictional requirement concerning previous demand to
establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
In the case of Jesus C. Jakihaca vs. Sps. Lilia
Aquino and Apolonio Aquino, Jose Toralde, and Hon.
Emma Cenidoza-Ona, the court ruled in this wise:
The records show that the complaint explicitly
alleged that "plaintiff verbally asked the defendants
to remove their houses on the lot of the former but the
4

SILVERIO, et. al. vs. CA, G.R. No. 143395, July 24, 2003

latter refused and still refuse to do so without just

and lawful grounds." (p. 44, Rollo) Such is sufficient
compliance with the jurisdictional requirements, in
accordance with the doctrine laid down in the case of
Hautea v. Magallon, 12 SCRA 514, to wit:
An allegation in an original complaint for illegal
detainer that in spite of demands made by the
plaintiff the defendants had refused to restore the
land, is considered sufficient compliance with the
jurisdictional requirement of previous demand.
Thus, the law does not require that the Demand to
Vacate should be in writing. As long as demand has been
made, oral or written, the requirement has been complied with.
This was reiterated in the case of Pablo D. Acaylar, Jr. vs.
Danilo G. Harayo, thus:
In the absence of an oral or written demand,
petitioner's possession of the subject property has yet
to become unlawful.
The use of the conjunction OR supports this
contention.
Plaintiff is entitled to damages.
All told, the rude manner by which the defendant
treated the plaintiff by maliciously refusing to vacate the
subject property and instead, challenged the former to bring
the matter in court entitles the latter to an award of actual,
moral and exemplary damages. Defendant is also liable to pay
reasonable rent as an equitable relief for depriving the plaintiff
of the use of the subject property.
Such being the case, the defendant must be
condemned by ordering him to pay attorneys fees in favor of the
plaintiff who was compelled to litigate because of the malicious
refusal of defendant to vacate. In the case of Carla vs. de la
Rama Steamship, L-5377, 51 O.G. 755, when the defendants
act or omission has compelled plaintiff to litigate or incur

expenses to protect his interest, attorneys fees may likewise be

awarded as damages.
In support of his arguments, plaintiff submits and
offers the following exhibits to wit:
Exhibit B Affidavit of Sale executed by Roberto La
Llaban in favor of Orlando Claveria;
Exhibit C- Barangay Certification dated June 4, 2013;
- To prove that the area owned by the plaintiff is
One Hundred Seventy Five square meters more
or less (175 sqm) and that portion of it is in
possession of defendant.
Exhibit D- Demand Letter dated December 27,
2012;
Exhibit E- Demand Letter dated April 4, 2013;
Exhibit F- Affidavit of Rodrigo C. Victorino;
Exhibit JClaveria;

Judicial

Affidavit

- To prove
allegations
complaint.

and corroborate
of plaintiff set

of

Orlando

the material
forth in his

Exhibit G- Certificate to File Action;

- To prove that this case has first been submitted
to the Lupon in compliance of the condition
precedent provided by law.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that the complaint

will be granted and the defendant be ordered to vacate the

subject property and to pay the damages and legal expenses
incurred by the plaintiff.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Antipolo City, June 16, 2014

RIZAL PROVINCIAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP

Counsel for the Plaintif
Provincial Attorneys Office
Rizal Provincial Government
nd
2 Floor, Rizal Provincial Capitol
Ynares Center Compound, Antipolo City
(02) 6202400
By:
MARIVIC MORGIA FERUELO
Roll of Attorney No. 61649
IBP No. 907580/ 01-03-14/ Rizal
PTR No. 1171283/ 01-03-14/ Rizal
MCLE Compliance: IV-0013224 Tel No. 02-6202400
Email Address: marivicferuelo@yahoo.com
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Justo S. Lopez
Counsel for Defendant
114-B Dona Nieves St., (Itaas)
San Isidro Angono, Rizal

VERIFICATION
I, ORLANDO C. CLAVERIA, of legal age, Filipino,
with residence and post office address at # 17 Zeus St.,
Crestview Subdivision, Brgy. Mayamot, Antipolo City after

having sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say

that:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing position
paper; and
3. I have read the same and know the contents thereof
and that the allegations therein are true and correct based on
my personal knowledge and authentic record.
Antiplo, Rizal. June 16, 2014.
ORLANDO C. CLAVERIA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____ day of

________________, at _______________, affiant exhibiting to me
her Community Tax Certificate No. ________ issued on ________
at _____________.
Notary Public

EXPLANATION
The foregoing POSITION PAPER is being filed with
this Honorable Court by personal service and served on the
opposing counsel by registered mail by reason of the distance of
the residence of the plaintiff to the office of plaintiffs counsel.

MARIVIC MORGIA FERUELO