Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

12th Judicial Region
Branch 4, Iligan City

ABC,
Plaintiff Civil Case No: 12345
For: Ejectment

-versus-

XYZ,
Defendant

x-----------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFF

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully submits this Position Paper and aver the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is an action for unlawful detainer filed under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure and governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, single, residing at Macapagal Avenue, Tubod,

Iligan City. Plaintiff is in prior possession and an adjudged co-owner of the real property
made by the Court of Appeals (G.R. CV No. 12345) promulgated on April 25, 2016. A
copy of the said judgment is attached and marked as Annex “A”. Plaintiff is an indigent
litigant and has no financial capacity to engage the services of a lawyer. A certification of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- Lanaodel Norte Chapter is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “B” and a Certificate of Indigency issued by the Office of the Punong
Barangay of Barangay Tubod is also attached and marked as Annex “B-1”.

1
 Defendant is likewise of legal age, Filipino, married residing at Purok Riverside II,
Mahayahay, Iligan City. Defendant is a lessee of herein plaintiff, ABC, co-owner of the
above mentioned property. Defendant agreed to the Contract of Lease, copy of which is
hereto attached and marked as Annex “C”, which he entered into with herein plaintiff
sometime in 2014 and that the former shall use the property for a period of three (3)
years and renewable for one (1) year with a lease amount of five thousand pesos only
(P 5, 000.00).

In 2017, plaintiff made several verbal and written demands to vacate the said
property as the period of lease had already expired but the Defendant remained and
continuously in illegal possession of the said parcel of land. The final demand letter was
made on April 23, 2018 and was received by the Defendant on April 24, 2018, the
certification of which from the Philippine Postal Corporation is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “D” and “D-1” respectively.Notwithstanding demands, defendant,
without any justifiable nor valid reason, refused to vacate the premises, to the damage
and prejudice of plaintiff.

In view of the unjustified refusal of defendant despite demands, to vacate the and
return the said land, plaintiff referred the matter to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
Barangay Tubod but no amicable settlement was reached by the parties and as a result
thereof, a Certificate to File Action was issued, a copy hereto attached and marked as
Annex “E”.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

During the preliminary conference, plaintiff presented and requested the marking
of the following documentary exhibits, to wit;

Exhibit “A” – Copy of the judgment made by the Court Of Appeals (G.R. CV No. 12345)
Purpose: To prove that plaintiff is the co-owner of the property subject of this case.

Exhibit “B” – Certification of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- Lanaodel Norte
Chapter

Exhibit “B-1” – Certificate of Indigency issued by the Office of the Punong Barangay of
Barangay Tubod
Purpose: To prove that plaintiff is an indigent litigant and has no financial capacity to
engage the services of a lawyer.
2
Exhibit “C” – Certified copy of the Contract of Lease
Purpose: To prove that defendant agreed to the terms and conditions stipulated therein
by him and herein plaintiff.

Exhibit “D” – Certified copy of the final demand letter sent by plaintiff to defendant
Purpose: To prove that demand was made for defendant to vacate the premises but due
to his deliberate refusal, plaintiff was compelled to raise the dispute to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Tubod.

Exhibit “E” – Certified copy of the Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Tubod
Purpose: To prove that no amicable settlement was reached by herein parties

ISSUES

From the pleadings submitted by the parties, the following issues are raised for
the resolution of the Honorable Court:

I. Whether or not plaintiff has the right to file an ejectment case against the
defendant;
II. Whether or not defendant XYZ is unlawfully withholding possession of the
subject property; and
III. Whether or not there is compliance with the Barangay Conciliation.

DISCUSSION

I. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO FILE AN EJECTMENT

CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

The plaintiff ABC has sufficiently proven that he is a co-owner of the subject property
hence under Article 487 of the New Civil Code; he has the right to file an ejectment case
against the defendant XYZ.

Article 487 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 487. Any of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. (n)

3
 This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487
includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession
(accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of
ownership (accion de reivindicacion). A co-owner may bring such an action without the
necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed
to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where
the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and
entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action should be dismissed.

Plaintiff ABC is in prior possession and an adjudged co-owner of the subject property
located at Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City by virtue of judgment made by the
Court of Appeals promulgated on April 25, 2016. Copy of the judgment marked as
Annex “A” is attached and made integral part of this Position Paper.

II. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT XYZ IS UNLAWFULLY WITHOLDING

POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

Section 1 of Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

“SEC. 1.Who may institute proceedings, and when.

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.

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.”

In the case at bar, it is established that the defendant is a tenant of the former
owner with Contract of Lease. Plaintiff and defendant agreed that the latter shall lease

4
the said portion of the property for a period of three (3) years and renewable for one (1)
year with the lease amount of five thousand pesos only (P5, 000.00). However
defendant failed to vacate the said property upon the expiration of the lease. Clearly, the
defendant violated the tenor of the contract entered into by him with herein plaintiff, and
as such, the right to terminate the contract and eject the lessee therefrom is conferred
upon the plaintiff.However, defendant deliberately refused to vacate said premises
despite several demands by the plaintiff and, as a result thereof, the latter was
compelled to file an ejectment complaint with the Honorable Court.

Upon the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court, the lessor, at any time
within one (1) year after unlawfuldeprivation or withholding of possession, bring an
action to the proper inferior court. Herein plaintiff is the lessor of the property subject of
action. Defendant’s possession of the premises became unlawful when demand was
made by plaintiff for the former to vacate the place and he refused. In the case of
Sarona vs. Villegas, 22 SCRA 1264, the Supreme Court held:

“If right at the incipiency defendant’s possession was with plaintiff’s tolerance,
we do not doubt that the latter may require him to vacate the premises and sue
before the inferior court under Section 1 of Rule 70, within one year from the date
of the demand to vacate. Because, from the date of demand, possession became
unlawful. And the case is illegal detainer.”

In the instant case, plaintiff filed the complaint within one year from the date of
demand.

As alleged in the complaint, By reason of the unlawful act of defendant in

refusing to vacate the premises, plaintiff could not use the property to lease to other
lessees. PLAINTIFF ABC is compelled, in order to protect his rights, to secure the
services of counsel. In addition, plaintiff, by reason of the wrongful act of defendant in
contravening the terms of the tenor of the Contract of Lease and depriving him further
use of his property, has been suffering from serious anxiety, worries, sleepless nights
and great inconvenience.

III. WHETHER OR NOR THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE BARANGAY

CONCILIATION

Section 412 of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides:

5
 Sec. 412. Conciliation – (a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in court. –No
complaint, petition, acton, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the
Lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or in any other government office for
adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the
lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the lupon secretary or the pangkat secretary, attested to by the
lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by
the parties thereto.

Section 12, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court further states that cases should be
referred for conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement; they shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after
that, requirement shall have been complied with (Also Section 2, Rule 18, Rules of
Court).

The defendant alleges that his failure to appear for three (3) consecutive times is
not attributable to his fault. This allegation is without merit because the defendant, in his
answer, admitted that only two (2) summons was not received by him and by
implication, he had received the third summon but still failed to appear before the
Pangkat. This unjustified non-appearance of the defendant resulted in the failure of the
parties to arrive at an amicable settlement hence the issuance of the Certification to File
Action. With the foregoing facts, there is a compliance with the Barangay Conciliation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed upon this

Honorable Court, the instant ejectment suit be decided in favor of the plaintiff and
judgment be rendered as follows:

1. Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him be ordered to vacate
the subject property located at Mahayahay Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City
where the defendant maintains a Vulcanizing Shop 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;

6
 d. Reasonable rent of P5,000.00 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 the foregoing amount from the date of the filing
of the complaint until payment of the defendants; and

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 way of liquidated damages; and

3. Costs of suit.

Other such reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Iligan City, March 11, 2019

ATTY. ROA DAY H. YUSON

Counsel for Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I, ABC, of legal age, Filipino, single and a bonafide resident of Macapagal

Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City, under oath, hereby depose and state as follows:

7
 1. I am the plaintiff in the above-mentioned position paper;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts as stated therein are true and
correct based on my personal knowledge and/or on authentic records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 11th day of

March 2019 at Iligan City.

ABC
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Iligan, this 11th day of
March 2019, the affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 12345 issued by the
Land Transportation Office in Iligan City valid until December 2021.

ATTY. MONIQUE E. NAVALTA

Notary Public

Doc No._____;
Page No.____;
Book No.____;
Series of 2019.