Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
San Juan City, Branch 101



DON REVILLA,
Plaintiff,

SCA Case No. 2222
- versus - For: Ejectment


SHONGET NAPOLES,
Defendant.
x ----------------------------------- x

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE BRIEF


COMES NOW, defendant SHONGET NAPOLES, by the undersigned
counsel, respectfully submits her Preliminary Conference Brief and states:


BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Plaintiff owns the subject property located at 111 Wilson St.,
Greenhills, San Juan City which he leased to defendant under the terms and
conditions stated in the Contract of Lease dated 1 January 2013, which contract
has expired on 31 December 2013.

1.1 On December 21, 2014, the plaintiff, personally went to defendants
residence and offered the defendant an Option to buy the subject property for
One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) within thirty (30)
days.

1.2 On December 29, 2013, the defendant, in writing, accepted the offer
and wrote a Letter of Acceptance of the Offer to Sell agreeing on the
consideration offered by the plaintiff and the same was personally served to the
latter.

1.3 On December 31, 2013, the defendant issued RCBC Check No.
153234 in favor of the plaintiff as payment for the property offered for sale in view
of the Option Contract, however, the latter refused to accept said check without
providing any reason for such refusal.

1.4 Defendant, in view of the refusal of the plaintiff to accept the check as
tender of payment, filed a petition in court for the consignment of the aforesaid
payment. The petition was granted in an Order dated May 10, 2014 and the
defendant consigned to the Court, the amount of P1,500,000.00 in cash on May
12, 2014, in lieu of the check which will become stale come June 2014.





PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

2.1 The plaintiff offered to sell the subject property to defendant in the
amount of P1,500,000 and gave the defendant a period of 30 days to accept the
offer and pay, which the defendant accepted in writing.

2.2 The defendant issued a check as payment for the subject property
within the thirty-day period given by the plaintiff but the latter refused to accept
the same.

2.3 The defendant consigned to the court the check she issued in favor of
the plaintiff as payment for her purchase of the subject property in lieu of
plaintiffs non-acceptance of the check.

EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

3. Defendant intends to present the following documents:

3.a. Acceptance Letter of Option Contract of Offer to Sell as Exhibit 1
to prove that there was a perfected Option Contract and the signature of the
plaintiff and date of receipt appearing on the same as Exhibit 1-A as proof of
plaintiffs receipt of said letter.

3.b. RCBC Check No. 153234 issued in favor of the plaintiff as Exhibit 2
to prove that the defendant paid the purchase price of the subject property.

3.c. Court Order dated May 12, 2004 issued by Regional Trial Court, Br.
103, San Juan City as Exhibit 3 to prove that the defendant resorted to
consignment of the RCBC Check No. 153234 to the court in view of plaintiffs
non-acceptance of payment from defendant.

3.d. Acknowledgment Receipt of the consigned amount of One Million
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos as Exhibit 4 to prove that the defendant has
already consigned with the court the amount of the check as payment for the
subject property.

3.e. Judicial Affidavit of Shonget Napoles as Exhibit 5 to substantiate the
allegations in the Answer.

ISSUES

4. a . WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS CAUSE OF ACTION TO EJECT
THE DEFENDANT FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

4.b. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT IS OBLIGED TO PAY THE
DEMAND OF THE PLAINTIFF FOR HIS RENTAL OF THE MACHINERIES.


APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

5. The Civil Code of the Philippines provision on Contract particulary on
Option Contracts, Lease and Special Civil Action on Ejectment

5.1. Jurisprudence relevant in the instant case



AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

6. The defendant is willing to submit this case for mediation and explore
the possibility of an amicable settlement with the plaintiff.


Respectfully submitted.

Mandaluyong City for San Juan City, Metro Manila; 14 June 2014.



DIMAGUILA AND DIMAGUILA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff



By: MA. ELENA G. DIMAGUILA
732 Mandaluyong Executive Mansion 3,
G. Enriquez St., Brgy. Vergara, Mandaluyong City
Roll of Attorneys No. 62916
PTR No. 81653916 Jan. 3, 2014, Mandaluyong City
IBP No. 9298132 Jan. 3, 2014,RSM Rizal
MCLE Compliance No. 91689 February 2014




Copy furnished:

Atty. Ronaldo David