Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court

12th Judicial Region
Branch 4, Iligan City

ABC,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. 12345

For: Ejectment
XYZ,
Defendant.
x------------------x

POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT

COMES NOW, Defendant assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office through the
undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits his position
paper:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a a civil case for EJECTMENT filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant
for occupying an adjudged real property located at Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City
by virtue of a Contract of Lease.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Plaintiff is the adjudged co-owner of the real property situated at the lot
Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City, a portion of which is occupied by the
Defendant. Attached is a copy of the judgment made by the Court of Appeals
(G.R. CV No. ______) promulgated on 25 April 2016 marked as Annex “A”
declaring the Plaintiff a co-owner of the subject property and made an integral
part hereof. Defendant is of legal age, married, and maintains a Vulcanizing
and Battery Shop at Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City.

2. Sometime in 2014, a contract of lease was executed by and between Plaintiff

and Defendant whereby Plaintiff leased a portion of the property to the
 Defendant, for a period of three (3) years and renewable for 1 year. Hereby
attached is a copy of the lease contract signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant
as parties marked as Annex “B”;

3. In 2017, the period of lease expired. Plaintiff made several verbal and written
demands to vacate the property and continuously in illegal possession of the
said parcel of land. The final demand letter was made on 23 April 2018 and
received by the Defendant on 24 April 2018, the certification of which from the
Philippine Postal Corporation is hereto attached and marked as Annex “C” and
“C-1”, respectively; and

4. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the

subject land from the Plaintiff despite last and final demand, to the damage and
prejudice of the Plaintiff.

5. Sometime in 2016, Defendant XYZ learned that a certain Juan, owned the
property he is leasing. In fact, Juan was paying the Real Property Taxes thereof
and a Certificate of Title was issued in his favor.

6. Defendant contacted Juan, the rightful owner of the property. As stated in

Article 493 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines: ‘‘ Each co-owner shall have
the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto,
and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But
the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall
be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.’’

7. Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements on the Katarungang

Pambarangay Law that expressly states that : All disputes are subject to
Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law
[formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter
VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre-
condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices x x x. The
subject matter of this litigation is under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law
and should be complied with in good faith.
 8. Defendant’s failure to appear should not be construed against him but rather to
the plaintiff for failure to notify the defendant for the scheduled
mediation/conciliation.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action and is entitled for claims against
defendant.
2. Whether or not the defendant committed an unlawful detainer

ARGUMENTS

Ejectment case—unlawful detainer—is 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 respondents’ possession of the
properties became unlawful – a requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer
case.
In Canlas vs. Tubil, 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.
In Corpuz vs. Spouses Agustin, 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 ABC has not complied with the
requirements sufficient to warrant the success of his unlawful detainer Complaint
against respondent XYZ.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays that the reliefs prayed for in the
instant complaint be granted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Iligan City, 2 March 2019.

MAO NA CHIA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
Quezon Ave., Iligan City
By:
ATTY. MAO NA CHIA
Roll No. 54321
IBP No. 153321; 01-01-19; Iligan City
PTR No. 1534567; 01-15-19; Iligan City
MCLE Compliance No. 1234
 Copy Furnished through Personal Service:
ATTY. NANING K. AMOT
Counsel for the Plaintiff

Republic of the Philippines )

Iligan City ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE

I, Minda Nao, of legal age, Filipino, with residence at 456, Purok 9, Brgy. Tibanga,
Iligan City, after being sworn in accordance with the law, hereby depose and state:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Mao Ni Chia, Counsel for the Defendant in Civil
Case No. 12345 for Ejectment (Unlawful Detainer), and that as his messenger, I served
upon the counsel of the adverse party the Position Paper filed in the said case, as follows:
Atty. Naning K. Amot Counsel for the Plaintiff, by personal service and by delivering
personally a copy of the said pleading upon the said lawyer who acknowledged receipt
thereof as shown by his signature or initial on the said pleading, this 1st day of March
2019.

IN WITNESS WHERE, I have signed this affidavit this 1st day of March 2019 at
Iligan City.

Minda Nao
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of March 2019

in Iligan City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his Philippine Driver’s
License Number 789 issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 1, 2019 at
Iligan City and presenting to me a document entitled AFFIDAVIT, affiant is identified
through his official ID card bearing his photograph and signature, and who signed the
said document in my presence and swore that he understood the contents thereof and
that the same was his free and voluntary act and deed.

ATTY. VISA YAS

Notary Public for Iligan City
 Aguinaldo Street, Iligan City
Roll No. 2345
IBP No. 1234; 01-01-19;
Iligan City
PTR No. 1234; 01- 01-15; Iligan City
MCLE Compliance No. 234

Doc. no. 3;
Page no. 7;
Book no. 4;
Series of 2019.