REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

DAVAO DEL SUR
DAVAO CITY
BRANCH 123

SPANGE BAB,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 143
- versus - For: Unlawful Detainer

SQUID WARD,
Defendant.
x-------------- ------------- -x

DECISION
----------------------------

This an action for unlawful detainer filed by plaintiff against defendant.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that: he is the absolute and registered owner of
the parcel of land under TCT No. PT 98765 and the building situated on the said lot.
Sometime in January 2000, the plaintiff’s parents who were managing the said
properties entered into a 10-year Contract of Lease, from the period January 25 2000 –
January 25, 2010 with defendant paying monthly rentals amounting to P100,000.00
pursuant to the said contract. The defendant was allowed to take possession of the
premises subject to the condition of faithfully paying the monthly rentals thereof; on
December 3, 2015, two days after the Plaintiff arrived from California, United States,
where he resided since 1995, it came to his knowledge that his parents, entered into a
Contract of Lease on January 25, 2000 with the Defendant, leasing the 2-storey
building. Such transaction was made without any authority granted to the ‘Lessor’ to
enter into the contract. Upon knowledge, on December 5, 2015, Plaintiff immediately
released a Notice to the Lessees stating that the Contract of Lease was void on the
ground of lack of authority from real owner to enter into such contract. Attached in the
notice is a new Contract of Lease with terms and conditions set upon by the real owner
of the land and building should they wish to continue using the involved property.
However, the defendant refused to accept the new Contract and insisted on the validity
of the old Contract they signed with the Spouses in 2000.

By way of Answer to the complaint, the defendant alleged that: the lease contract
entered into with plaintiff’s parents is valid and subsisting. The defendant is in continued
possession of the property and has been dutifully paying the rents pursuant to the
manner of payment stipulated in the lease contract; The defendant claimed to be
justified in its continuous possession of the leased property as it has not defaulted in his
obligation to pay the rentals due and that the instant case against them is premature.

At the preliminary conference, no settlement was reached by the parties, for

which reason this court terminated the preliminary conference and directed the parties
to file their respective position papers.

It is clear from the foregoing that the allegations in the Complaint succeeded to
constitute a case for unlawful detainer. In Cabrera v. Getaruela, the Court held that a
complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the
following:

(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by

tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and
deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the
plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

In the instant case, it has been established that plaintiff is the absolute and
registered owner of the leased property in the possession of defendant. However, due
to a defective verification filed and was non-compliant with Section 4, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court which requires the affiant to attest the allegations in his petition to be true
and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

WHEREFORE, the case is DISMISSED for failure of the plaintiff for failure to
comply with the requirements of verification and to prevail with the evidence he had
against the defendant.

No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.