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 PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF, by Counsel most respectfully submits this POSITION PAPER and

avers:

TIMELINESS

The Plaintiff thru Counsel received an Order from said Court dated 18 February
2019 requiring the Undersigned Counsel to file position paper within ten (10) days from
receipt thereof or on or before 28 February 2019 hence said position paper is filed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action for ejectment commenced by the Plaintiff ABC against Defendant
XYZ before Honorable Court. The subject matter of this action is a real property co-owned
by the Plaintiff, a real property situated at the lot Macapagal Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City,
a portion of which is occupied by the Defendant.

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. Defendant denied said allegation and interposed the defense that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action or prematurity, that the instant petition should
be dismissed for lack of merit, that the Plaintiff should pay the net cash advance in the
amount of Php 12,000 as of June 2018 and that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant the amount
of at least Php 50,000 as and by way of moral damages because he was no longer able
to concentrate and properly perform his daily activities due to stress, anxiety and
sleepless nights.

Both parties have presented their pieces of evidence. The case is now submitted
for Decision before the Honorable Court.

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;

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. That 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.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the DEFENDANT can be ejected for UNLAWFUL DETAINER

under Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 2. Whether or not the PLAINTIFF is entitled to damages.

ARGUMENTS

1. In Cabrera v. Getaruela, G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009, the Supreme Court held that
a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for UNLAWFUL DETAINER if it recites
the following:
a. Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff;
b. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
c. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived
the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
d. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the
plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

Additionally, in Ocampo vs. Tirona, G.R. No. 147812, April 6, 2005, the Supreme
Court held that, “[t]he elements to be proved and resolved in unlawful detainer cases are
the fact of lease and expiration or violation of its terms.”

In the case at hand, it is undisputed that the first, third, and fourth elements of
UNLAWFUL DETAINER are present. Hence, the only element in dispute is the second.
Therefore, the sole issue to discuss is whether or not the possession of the DEFENDANT
has become illegal due to unjust refusal of the Defendant to vacate and to return the said
land to the Plaintiff.

Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that anyone of the co-owners may bring an
action for ejectment without joining the others. The action is not limited to ejectment cases
but includes all kinds of suits for recovery of possession because the suit is presumed to
have been instituted for the benefit of all.

A co-owner may bring such an action without the necessity of joining all the other
co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his
co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the
plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the
litigated property, the action should be dismissed.
 The renowned civilist, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino, explained:

A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the
other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the
benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims
possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action will not prosper.
(Emphasis added)

In the instant petition, the plaintiff is one of the co-owner of the subject of this
litigation and that he is doing it for the benefit of all the co-owners.

Premises considered, it therefore just and logical to conclude that the possession
of the DEFENDANT has become illegal upon notice by PLAINTIFF to DEFENDANT of
the termination of the latter’s right of possession.
Considering that all the elements of the offense are present, it is respectfully
submitted that the DEFENDANT should be ejected from the leased premises and held
liable for UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
2. In accordance with the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code, the
PLAINTIFF is entitled to exemplary and liquidated damages, as well as the Attorney’s
Fees and other costs of suit.
RESERVATIONS

Plaintiff respectfully reserves his right to file supplemental pleadings or adduce

additional evidence in the due course of the proceedings, whenever it may seem just and
proper.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that the reliefs prayed for in the
instant complaint be granted.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Iligan City, 26 February 2019.

NANING K. AMOT LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Quezon Ave., Iligan City
By:
ATTY. NANING K.AMOT
 Roll No. 12345
IBP No. 123321; 01-01-19; Iligan City
PTR No. 1234567; 01-15-19; Iligan City
MCLE Compliance No. 123

Copy Furnished through Personal Service:

ATTY. MAO NA CHIA

Counsel for the Defendant

Republic of the Philippines )

Iligan City ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE

I, PHILIP PINES, of legal age, Filipino, with residence at 456, Purok 3, Brgy. Pala-
o, Iligan City, after being sworn in accordance with the law, hereby depose and state:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Naning K. Amot, Counsel for the Plaintiff 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. Mao Na Chia Counsel for the Defendant, 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 27th day of February
2019.

IN WITNESS WHERE, I have signed this affidavit this 27th day of February 2019
at Iligan City.

PHILIP PINES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26th day of February 2019

in Iligan City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his Philippine Driver’s
License Number 456 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. ANDRES BONIFACIO, LL.B.

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

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