REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT BRANCH 1234, MANILA GOLLUM REALTY DEVELOPMENT,

INC. Represented by its President, Marcelo Pilar, in his capacity as President of the Company, Plaintiff, -versusCivil Case No. 5678 For: Unlawful detainer, damages and attorneys fees

CELSO MENDOZA, Doing Business under the Name and Style of Colossus Trading, and All Persons Claiming Rights Under Him, Defendant. X----------------------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER PLAINTIFF: by Counsel, to this Honorable Court by way of compliance with the order dated January 28, 2013 copy of which was received February 2, 2013, respectfully submits this position paper and in support thereof alleges as follow:

1.0 The case before the bench is a complaint for an unlawful detainer filed by the petitioner, Gollum Realty, Inc., against defendant, Collossus Trading thru its proprietor Celso Mendoza. The Petitioner respectfully prays for the collection of arrears, attorneys fees and the cost of suit.

2.0 PARTIES 2.1 Plaintiff is a domestic corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with principal business address at 1521 Dapitan St., Sampaloc, Manila. It may be served with notices and other legal processes of this Hon. Court, through its counsel-of-record, ATTY. MIDAS RIZAL, with office address at No. 1522, Units 407-408, Prime Edifice Bldg., Dapitan St., Sampaloc, Manila; 2.2 Defendant is a Filipino doing business under the name and style of Colossus Trading with address at No. 1524 Dapitan St., Sampaloc, Manila.

3.0 On September 5, 2011, Acme Realty and defendant entered into a Contract of Lease involving a commercial building located at 1521 Dapitan St., Sampaloc, Manlila, (Hereinafter referred to as the leased premises) at P50,000.00 per month payable within the first five (5) days of every month for a period of three (3) years. Conformably with th e parties Contract of Lease, defendant was required to issue 12 postdated checks covering the monthly rent for one (1) year starting from September 5, 2011. Copies of the Contract of Lease and the 12

Metrobank postdated checks payable to Acme Realty are hereto attached as EXHIBITS A and B to B-11, respectively and made integral parts hereof; 3.1 On October 31, 2011, plaintiff purchased the leased premises from Acme Realty as well as all the rights, interest, participation and equity thereto including its rights over the lessees of the said leased premises as a consequence of which a new title in the

name of the plaintiff was issued in its favor, copies of the Deed of Sale dated October 31, 2011, and TCT No. 12345 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila in the name of the plaintiff are hereto attached as EXHIBITS C and D, respectively and made integral parts hereof; 3.2 On November 7, 2011, defendant was served with a copy of plaintiffs letter dated November 5, 2011, informing him that plaintiff is already the new owner of the leased premises and requested him to replace the post dated checks which he issued to Acme Realty with post dated checks payable to plaintiff. Sadly, despite receipt thereof, defendant did not issue the replacement checks. Copy of the letter dated November 7, 2011, is hereto attached as EXHIBIT E and made an integral part hereof;

3.3 Meanwhile, plaintiff deposited 2011,

four (4) Metrobank Checks starting December 5,

duly endorsed by Acme Realty but all were dishonored on the ground of

STOPPED PAYMENT, copies of the four (4) dishonored Metrobank checks with stamped marked STOPPED PAYMENT are hereto attached as EXHIBITS F to F-3, and made integral parts hereof;

3.4 . On

March 15, 2012, plaintiff

personally served defendant with a copy of its

letter dated March 10, 2012, demanding him to settle his arrears in the accumulated amount of P400,000.00 representing monthly rentals from December 2011 to March 2012, as well as to vacate and peacefully turn over the possession of the leased premises to the plaintiff within a period of 15 days from receipt thereof but despite the lapsed of the said period, defendant failed to heed the said demand letter, copy of which is hereto attached as EXHIBIT G and made an integral part hereof; Hence this complaint for unlawful detainer with payement of arrears and attorneys fees.

4.0 ISSUES 4.1 Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action and is entitled for claims against defendant? 4.2 Whether or not the defendant committed an unlawful detainer?

5.0 ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 In the case of Ocampo vs. Tirona, [G.R. No.147812. April 6, 2005]: The elements to be proved and resolved in unlawful detainer cases are the FACT OF LEASE and EXPIRATION or VIOLATION OF ITS TERMS.xxx

The following facts support the conclusion that there was a violation of the lease agreement:

5.1.1 With the abovementioned factual basis presented, the defendant entered to a Contract of Lease with Acme Realty and agreed to pay monthly rents of P50,000.00. 5.1.2 Plaintiff informed defendant through a letter dated November 5, 2011 that bought the leased premises, from the previous owner and lessor Acme Realty. 5.1.3 Defendants continued occupancy of the leased premises signifies defendants acceptance of plaintiffs conditions of lease stated in the November 5, 2011 letter. 5.1.4 As of March 2012, the defendant has not paid its rents corresponding to December 2011 to March 2012 and continued to stay at the leased premises despite the final demand letter that was sent to them dated March 10, 2012 which is analogous to violation of terms and condition of the contract.

5.2 It was also decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Mirasol v. Magsuci, et al.[ 124 Phil. 1428 (1966)]. That the sale of a leased property places the vendee into the shoes of the original lessor to whom the lessee bound himself to pay. The vendee acquires the right to evict the lessee from the premises and to recover the unpaid rentals after the vendee had notified the lessee that he had bought the leased property and that the rentals on it should be paid to him, and the lessee refused to comply with the demand.xxxx

6.0 PRAYERS/ RELIEFS 6.1. Defendant, and all persons claiming rights under him, be ordered to vacate turn over the leased premises to plaintiff; and

6.2. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of P400,000.00 representing arrears from December 2011 to March 2012 and the amount of P60,00.00 per month starting April 2012, until after he finally vacates the leased premises.

6.3. Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of P20,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees and costs of suit. JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEFS in the premises are likewise prayed for.

June 15, 2012, Manila (for Quezon City).

MIDAS RIZAL Roll No. 38057 IBP No. 706723:1-5-12 PTR No. 8235965:1-5-12 MCLE Exemption No. IV 000440:1-12-12 Manila III Off. Tel Nos. 731-48-17/731-81-71/731-81 Units 407-408, Prime Edifice Bldg., Dapitan St., Sampaloc, Manila;

VERIFICATION

Marcelo Pilar, under oath deposes and says that: 1.0. He is the President of Gollum Realty Development Corp. (Gollum) and he was duly authorized to act for and in behalf of the company to file the present complaint against defendant on the strength of the Secretarys Certificate dated April 1 3, 2012, copy of which is hereto attached as ANNEX H and made an integral part hereof; 2.0. He, for and in behalf of Gollum, has caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint and he has read the allegations contained therein and that they are true and correct of his own personal knowledge and that they are based on authentic/genuine documents; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, he has hereunto affix his signature on this 14 th day of in the City of Manila. JUAN DE LA CRUZ Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 14TH day April 2012. Affiant presented to me his Senior Citizens ID No. 29986 issued on March 3, 2011. April 2012,

MARIA ROSARIO Notary Public Until December 31, 2012 PTR No. 23425:1-3-12 IBP No. 648340:1-5-12 Tretorn Plaza, Espana, Manila Notarial Commission No. 5242325

Doc. No. 34; Page No. 64; Book No. I Series of 2012