Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 5
Cebu City

PETER DE LEON, JAMES DE LEON AND,

JOHN DE LEON
-PlaintiffCivil Case No. 2
-versus-

For: Unlawful Detainer

MANNY VELA,
-Defendantx------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Statement of Facts
In 1970, the subject Lot 123 covered by TCT No. 5678 was co-owned by the
defendant Manny Vela with his siblings Helen Vela and Novie Vela. However,
Helen Vela claimed that she has a Special Power of Attorney from Novie Vela who
was abroad at that time. This resulted to the sale of the land to the father of the

herein plaintiffs named Christopher de Leon, with a Deed of Absolute Sale, which
was later on sought by Novie Vela to be anulled, claiming that the SPA of Helen is
a forged one.
After the Sale, Christopher allowed the defendant to occupy the property.
Later on, because Christopher was already old and in dire need of money, he sold
the property to his children Peter de Leon, James de Leon, and John de Leon, the
plaintiffs. After discovering that the subject land is occupied by the defendant, this
prompted them to file a case against the latter. It should be noted however that the
defendant never received any demand letter from the plaintiffs, nor did the latter
made a demand orally before filing a case for unlawful detainer.

Proposed Stipulations
The defendant admits the following:
1. That prior to Christopher de Leon, Helen Vela owned said lot and was
registered in the name Helen Vela, Manny Vela and Novie Vela (Vela
Siblings).
2. That when the Vela siblings sold the lot to Christopher on February
16, 2003, Christopher allowed the family of Manny Vela to occupy
the disputed lot for the time being until such time that the family of
Manny would be able to find another lot to construct their family
home.
3. That the Plaintiff together with the Defendants was able to undergo
the Katarungang Pambaranggay proceedings but such was not
resolved resulting for the issuance of the Certification to file action
dated August 23, 2016.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the filing of the case by the plaintiff is immature.
2. Whether or not the plaintiffs has a cause of action against the defendant.

Evidence for markings

1. Affidavit of the defendants sister, Novie Vela

Purpose: to prove that there is still an on going case to determine the ownership of
the property specially the extent of ownership of the plaintiffs. To prove also that
she allowed the defendant to continue possessing the property despite opposition of
the plaintiffs.

Witnesses
1. Defendant Manny Vela to testify on the matters and circumstances regarding the
absence of demand letter
2. Witness Novie Vela to testify that she was a co-owner of the property
considering that she did not consent to the sale of the property to Christopher de
Leon

Applicable Laws and Jurisprudence

In Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes, the Court defined the nature and scope of an
unlawful detainer suit, as follows:
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from
one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his
right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by
the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the
expiration or termination of the right to possess. The proceeding is summary in
nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial
court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last
demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.
(Emphasis supplied.)

With regard to the right of the plaintiffs over the property, they are just at
most, co-owners of the subject lot together with Novie Vela for the latter never
consented to the sale made by her siblings considering that her signature was
forged in the SPA of Helen. Thus,
Art. 484 of the Civil Code states that there is co-ownership whenever the
ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. In default of

contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the

provisions of this Title.l
It can be said therefore that the plaintiffs cannot make the defendant vacate
the property for they still cannot determine the portion of their ownership for it is
co-owned by Novie who in turn allowed the continue possession of the defendant
on the property.

Trial Dates
November 1, 2016, November 2, 2016, December 25, 2016, January 1,
2017, and February 14, 2017.

Willingness to enter into an amicable settlement and possible terms of any

such settlement
Plaintiff is open to settling this dispute amicably, subject to a concrete
proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness
from defendant.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, October 8, 2016.

Kajihara-Florentino-Basadre-Chua Law Offices

Urgellio St., Cebu City

By:
Shogo Kajihara
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 123456/5-14-2015
IBP No. 123456/ 7-19-2015

MCLE Compliance No. 123456/ 12-21-2015

PTR No. 123456/ 1-08-2016

And:
Ven Rod M. Florentino
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 123456/5-14-2015
IBP No. 123456/ 7-19-2015
MCLE Compliance No. 123456/ 12-21-2015
PTR No. 123456/ 1-08-2016

And:
Den Krystian C. Basadre
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 123456/5-14-2015
IBP No. 123456/ 7-19-2015
MCLE Compliance No. 123456/ 12-21-2015
PTR No. 123456/ 1-08-2016

And:
Mark Chua
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 123456/5-14-2015
IBP No. 123456/ 7-19-2015
MCLE Compliance No. 123456/ 12-21-2015
PTR No. 123456/ 1-08-2016

Copy Furnished:
Atty. Kathrin Mejong
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.

IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.

Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Cebu
Rm. 4 2/F Cebu Business Park
Cebu City