REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 36 QUEZON CITY
JOHNNY CEE,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 24843

For: Ejectment
(Unlawful Detainer)

-versusGIGI GIMENEZ,
Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFFS POSITION PAPER
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, by way of
compliance with the order dated February 26, 2015, copy of which was
received February 27, 2015, respectfully submits this positions paper;
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 Chinese, residing at No. 24 Malingap
Street, Bgy. Sikatuna, Diliman, Quezon City. Plaintiff is the owner of a
parcel of land together with improvements thereof, with an area of two
hundred (200) square meters, more or less situated at No. 23 Malingap
Street, Bgy. Sikatuna, Diliman, Quezon City and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. N-209059 copy of which is hereto attached and
marked as Annex A.
Defendant is likewise of legal age, Filipino and residing at No. 23
Malingap Street, Bgy. Sikatuna, Diliman, Quezon City. Defendant is a lessee
of herein plaintiff, JOHNNY CEE, owner of the above mentioned property
acquired by plaintiff by way of sale in December 1993. Defendant agreed to
the Contract of Lease, copy of which is hereto attached and marked as
Annex B, which she entered into with herein plaintiff sometime in
February of this year that the former shall use the aforementioned property
1

solely for residential purposes, and any breach of this condition can be a
cause for the pre-termination of the contract.
Upon plaintiffs surprise inspection of the property last November 1,
however, he learned that defendant has been using the apartment as a
canteen catering to the tricycle and jeepney drivers, and its garage for her car
wash business. Plaintiff immediately called the attention of Defendant to
correct her practice but to no avail. 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 premises, plaintiff was constrained to file a complaint with the
Office of the Barangay Captain and as a consequence, conciliation and
mediation proceedings were conducted by the Lupong Tagapamayapa,
Notice of Hearing and minutes of the meeting are hereto attached and
marked as Annex C, C-1 and C-2. During the hearing before the
Lupon, no amicable settlement was reached by the parties and as result
thereof, a Certification to File Action was issued by the Barangay Captain
of Barangay Sikatuna, dated December 14, 2014, copy of which is hereto
attached and marked as Annex D.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
During the preliminary conference, plaintiff presented and requested the
marking of the following documentary exhibits, to wit;
Exhibit A Certified copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-209059
issued by the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City
Purpose:

To prove that plaintiff is the owner of the property subject of

this case

Exhibit B Certified copy of Contract of Lease entered into by plaintiff

and defendant
Purpose:

To prove that defendant agreed to the terms and conditions

stipulated therein by her and herein plaintiff

Exhibit C Notice of Hearing dated November 10, 2014 addressed to the

defendant
Exhibit C-1 Certified copy of Conciliation and Mediation proceedings
conducted by the Lupong Tagapamayapa

Exhibit C-2 Certified copy of Minutes of the Meeting of the Conciliation

and Mediation proceeding conducted by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa
Purpose:
To prove that demand was made for defendant to vacate the
premises but due to her deliberate refusal, plaintiff was compelled to
raise the dispute to the Office of the Barangay Captain of Barangay
Sikatuna, Quezon City
Exhibit D Certified Copy of Certification to File Action issued by the
Barangay Captain of Barangay Sikatuna, Quezon City
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:
1.) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to eject of evict defendant; and
2.) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages including attorneys
fees.
DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT
Section 1 of Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

the

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
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
3

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 use said premises leased by her solely for residential purpose, and
violation of which shall cause the termination of the contract. Clearly,
defendant violated the tenor of the contract entered into by her 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 on December 20, 2014.
Upon the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court, the lessor,
at any time within one (1) year after unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession, bring an action to the proper inferior court. Herein plaintiff is the
lessor of the property subject of action. Defendants possession of the
premises became unlawful when demand was made by plaintiff for the
former to vacate the place and she refused. In the case of Sarona vs.
Villegas, 22 SCRA 1264, the Supreme Court held:
If right at the incipiency defendants possession was with plaintiffs
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. (Underscoring supplied)
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 another lessees. PLAINTIFF JOHNNY CEE 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.
Defendants unlawful act should not be countenanced and she should
be assessed moral damages in the amount of P100, 000.00 for the suffering
incurred by plaintiff, exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to
serve as public example. Moreover, in the process, plaintiff incurred
expenses of litigation and agreed to pay attorneys fees in the amount of P50,
000.00 which should be charged against defendant.
4

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered:
1. Ordering defendant to immediately vacate the premises;
2. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00
representing moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages;
3. Ordering defendant to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as and by
way of attorneys fees plus P1,500.00 as counsels appearance
fee, per court appearance;
4. Ordering the defendant to pay the cost of suit.
PLAINTIFF pray for other relief and remedies which the
Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the
premises.
Quezon City, Metro Manila, March 5, 2015.

RONNIL C. ROSILLO
Counsel for Plaintiff
PTR No. 1077517, 1/3/2014, QC
IBP O.R. No. 491316, 1/3/2014, QC

Office Address:
No. 49- E Mahinhin Street,
Bgy. Teachers Village West,
Diliman, Quezon City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, JOHNNY CEE, of legal age, Filipino Chinese, after being sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
5

2. That I caused the preparation of the Position Paper and read and
understood the contents thereof;
3. That the allegations contained in the Position Paper are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief;
In WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 3rd of March,
2015 in Quezon City, Metro Manila.

JOHNNY CEE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 rd of March, 2015 in
Quezon City, Metro Manila.
Doc. No.
30
Page No. 23
Book No. 23
Series of 2001

RONNIL C. ROSILLO
NOTARY PUBLIC
PTR No. 1077517 1/3/2014, Q.C
IBP O.R No. 491316,

1/3/2014, Q.C
Office Address:
No. 49- E Mahinhin Street,
Bgy. Teachers Village West,
Diliman, Quezon City