REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

City of Davao
Branch 1

Efren Te,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 1234-2019
-versus- FOR: Unlawful Detainer

Carlo Mamac,
Defendant.

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

POSITION PAPER
(For The Defendant)

Defendant, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court respectfully

states:

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This is an ejectment case for unlawful detainer filed by plaintiff Efren Te

wherein the 200 meters of his land was allegedly occupied by Carlo Mamac on
which the latter’s comfort room stands.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff, Efren Te, is the previous owner of a property located at at 456

Modesto Bangkal, Davao City. The plaintiff is a good friend and distant relative of
defendant, Carlo Mamac, who lost his home on February 4, 2018 at #17 Aurora St.,
Matina, Davao City. By virtue of plaintiff’s kindness and compassion, the
defendant was allowed to stay in the premises of the subject property with the
condition to preserve and look after the property in the duration of his stay.

At some time in early August 2018, plaintiff has offered the defendant to
purchase one-half portion of the 200 square meters land in the amount of
P2,000,000.00. The defendant soon, after receiving said proceeds from the fire
insurance policy, agreed to purchase half portion of the property where the house is
situated. On August 23, 2018, the plaintiff and defendant executed and entered into
a contract of sale and subsequently a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- 15355
was registered under the name of the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant had
caused the construction of fences to draw out and identify the boundaries of their
respective properties.

To defendant’s surprise, on December 1, 2018, he received a letter of

demand from plaintiff asking him to vacate the property. The letter revealed that
the plaintiff is strapped for cash. On December 4, 2018, the defendant sent a reply
to the plaintiff plaintiffcountering and reminding him the latter of the perfected
contract of sale over said property. Subsequent to the reply letter, the defendant had
not brought up the same matter again.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

a. Who between the plaintiff, Efren Te, and defendant, Carlo Mamac, has a
better right to possession?w

b. Who between the plaintiff, Efren Te, and defendant, Carlo Mamac, is
entitled to damages?

DISCUSSION

The plaintiff in this case has no cause of action for an ejectment case for
unlawful detainer. One of the three kinds of action for the recovery of possession
of real property is “accioninterdictal, or an ejectment proceeding ... which may be
either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), which
is a summary action for the recovery of physical possession where the
dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be brought in the
proper inferior court.”1

Instructive on this matter is Carbonilla v. Abiera2 which reads thus:

Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is

entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest
possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the
property. To recover possession, he must resort to the proper judicial

1Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium I (7th Rev. Edition, 2007).

2G.R. No. 177637, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 461
 remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is required to
satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper.

In the present case, petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against

defendant. Ejectment case—unlawful detainer—is a summary proceeding
designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to
possession of the property involved. The only question that the courts resolve in
ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the
premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It
does not even matter if a party’s title to the property is questionable. For this
reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has
presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Key jurisdictional facts
constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed must be averred in the complaint
and sufficiently proven.

A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that

possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have turned
unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess. It must be shown that the
possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such lawful possession must be
established.

In this case, petitioner has not established when defendants’ possession of

the properties became unlawful – a requisite for a valid cause of action in an
unlawful detainer case.
In Canlas vs. Tubil3, the Supreme Court enumerated the elements that
constitute the sufficiency of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as follows:

Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well
as the court which has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the
complaint. In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of
facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes
provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint
must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol
evidence.

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 of
the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the
expiration or termination of the right to possess.

3G.R. No. 184285, 25 September 2009, 601 SCRA 147

 In Corpuz vs. Spouses Agustin4, 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.

Based on the above, it is obvious that Juan has not complied with the
requirements sufficient to warrant the success of his unlawful detainer Complaint
against defendant Carlo Mamac.

Apropos to the first requisite, it is true that the possession of the property by
the defendant is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff. In Jose vs Alfuerto5, it defined
tolerance not merely as the silence or inaction of a lawful possessor when another
occupies his land; tolerance entailed permission from the owner by reason of
familiarity or neighborliness. Indeed, by plaintiff’s kindness and compassion, it
allowed defendant to stay and live in subject property.

However, in connection with the second requisite, it was not satisfied. The
possession of Carlo Mamac had not became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession by reason of the
perfected Contract of Sale between the two parties as evidenced by the new
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15355.

Moreover, as discussed in the case of Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals6,

it was held that the Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was
believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles
and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized.

It is settled that a Torrens Certificate of title is indefeasible and binding upon

the whole world unless and until it has been nullified by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Under existing statutory and decisional law, the power to pass upon
the validity of such certificate of title at the first instance properly belongs to the
Regional Trial Courts in a direct proceeding for cancellation of title.

4 GR No. 183822, January 18, 2012.

5 G.R. No. 169380 November 26, 2012
6 G.R. No. 107967 March 1, 1994
 Later, in Vda. de Aguilar v. Alfaro7, a case decided by this ponente, the
following pronouncement was made:

It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in

favor of the person in whose name the title appears. It is conclusive evidence with
respect to the ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled that the
titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including
possession. Thus, in Arambulo v. Gungab8, this Court declared that the age-old rule
is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession
thereof.

Then again, in Manila Electric Company v. Heirs of Deloy9, the Court held:

At any rate, it is fundamental that a certificate of title serves as evidence of

an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears therein. It bears to emphasize that the titleholder is entitled to
all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession. Thus, the
Court must uphold the age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens title over a
land is entitled to its possession. In Pascual v. Coronel10, the Court reiterated the
rule that a certificate of title has a superior probative value as against that of an
unregistered deed of sale in ejectment cases.

Furthermore, with respect to the third requisite, although the defendant

remained in possession of the property, he did not deprive the plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof considering that the petitioner has no right or any interest on the
subject matter due to the fact that ownership as well as possession has been rightly
vested upon the defendant.

Lastly, concerning the fourth requisite, within one year from the last demand
on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment. It was substantially complied with; however, the plaintiff must have
bumped his head on a tree and got amnesia for there is no reason for the plaintiff to
make a demand against the defendant to vacate the subject property for in the first
place, he already sold the property to defendant. Subsequently, the defendant
already paid the full purchase price. Title to such has already been transferred as
evidenced by TCT No. T-15355.

7 G.R. No. 16442 July 5, 2010

8 G.R. No. 156581 September 30, 2005
9 G.R. No. 192893 June 5, 2013
10 G.R. No. 159292 July 12, 2007
 Based from the foregoing, it can be presumed that defendant, Carlo Mamac’s
possession is legal. And no unlawful detainer case be filed against him. on the
following reasons:

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

foregoing Position Paper be noted and considered in the resolution of this case.

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

January 26, 2019, Lucena City, Philippines.

Respectfully Submitted

ATTY. POGI C. ONTAL

POGI, SY, BANTAN, EW AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
No. 143 Kagubaon Bldg., Bolton Street, Davao City
Counsel for the Defendant
IBP No. 134348 1/8/21 Davao City
PTR No. 3423688 1/8/21 Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. 01-23458

Notice of Hearing and Service of Copy:

TO:

ATTY. PROSE C. UTOR

Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Davao City

THE CLERK OF COURT

Municipal Trial Court
Lucena City

Kindly take notice that the undersigned is submitting the foregoing Position Paper
immediately upon receipt hereof to the Honorable Court for its consideration and approval.

That by way of explanation, a copy of this Position Paper was served to the Office of the
City prosecutor through personal service.

ATTY. POGI C. ONTAL