DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.

LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Eight (8th) Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Municipality of Palo, Leyte

DANN LIM and JOAN LIM, CIVIL CASE No. 55

Plaintiffs,

-versus-
FOR: Unlawful
Detainer

STEPHANIE MAE WONG,

Defendant.

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

POSITION PAPER
(For the Plaintiffs)

Plaintiffs, DANN LIM AND JOAN LIM, through counsel, unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Position Paper in
compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court which was received
by the counsel on July, 27, 2019.

PREFATORY STATEMENT
The case before this Honorable Court is a complaint for unlawful detainer
filed by Plaintiffs, Dann Lim and Joan Lim against Defendant, Stephanie
Mae Wong for failure to pay her monthly rentals for several months
despite repeated demands and refusal to vacate the subject premises.

THE PARTIES
1.Plaintiffs, DANN LIM AND JOAN LIM, of legal ages, Filipino citizens with
residence and postal address at Cavite East, Palo, Leyte, where they may
be served with summons, orders, notices and other court processes;

2.Defendant, STEPHANIE MAE WONG, is of legal age, Filipino citizen,

single, with residence and postal address at San Jose, Tacloban City,
where she may be served with summons, orders, notices and other court
processes.

1
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.The plaintiffs are the owner of a land over which a townhouse had been
constructed located at Baras, Palo, Leyte;

2.By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiffs leased unto the defendant
the aforesaid townhouse for a consideration of fifteen thousand pesos
(P15,000.00) a month as rental to be paid within the first eight (8) days
of each month starting February 10, 2018;

3. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for five months starting
August 8, 2018 up to the present;

4. On December 1, 2018, the plaintiffs then sent a letter of demand to the

defendant to vacate the townhouse, which was received by the latter as
shown in the registry return receipt hereto attached as Exhibit “A”;

5. The plaintiffs initiated a complaint against the defendants before the

Katarungan Pambarangay. The Lupong Tagamayapa issued a Certificate
to File Action on December 15, 2018, copy of the said certificate is
hereto attached as Exhibit “B” and made an integral part hereof.

6.Plaintiffs as a last ditched to avoid litigation send a formal letter

requesting the defendants to enter a settlement but was ignored by the
latter. Copy of said formal letter is hereto attached as Exhibit “C” and
made an integral part hereof.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

- Whether there is a cause of action of unlawful detainer by the

Plaintiff;

- Whether or not the Defendants should be evicted from the Subject

Premises and the plaintiffs may recover physical possession
thereof; and

- Whether the defendant is liable to pay the unpaid monthly rentals

for 5 months with interest by way of damages for their failure to
pay the rentals due for the use of the subject premises.

2
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

PLAINTIFFS HAVE CAUSE OF

ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT

Stated differently, unlawful detainer is a summary action for the

recovery of possession of real property. This action may be filed by a
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person from 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. The possession of the defendant was originally legal,
as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff on account of an express
or implied contract between them. The defendant's possession, however,
became illegal when the plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate the
subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to
possess under the contract, and the defendant refused to heed such
demand. A case for unlawful detainer must be instituted one year from
the unlawful withholding of possession.1

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if

it recites the following:

(1) initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract

with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff
to the 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 (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.2

Here, it is undisputed that the parties have entered into a contract of lease
and several demands were made to the defendant as these were admitted
by the Defendant.

1 Jose v. Alfuerto, 699 Phil. 307, 316 (2012).

2 Zacarias v. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 508, 516

3
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

The Plaintiffs claim that the possession of the DEFENDANT has become
illegal based on two grounds: (1) the DEFENDANT’s continued failure to
pay the rentals due for the five months covering the months of August,
September, October, November and December 2018 constituting a
violation of the Terms and Conditions of the Contract of Lease; and (2)
the DEFENDANT’s continued, illegal and failure to vacate of the premises
for personal purposes constituting a violation of the Terms and
Conditions of the Contract of Lease.

In paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of his Answer, the DEFENDANT claims that the
PLAINTIFF DANN LIM personally received the payment of rentals for the
months of June, July, August, September, October, November, and
December 2018. The PLAINTIFFS specifically deny this claim, the truth
being that Plaintiff DANN LIM received no such payments and did not
sign any Acknowledgement Receipt to that effect. Hence, the signatures
of the latter in the alleged Acknowledgement Receipts must be blatant
forgeries of the DEFEDANT.

DEFENDANT SHOULD BE
EJECTED FROM THE
APARTMENT

Art. 1673. The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the
following causes:
(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the
duration of leases under Articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;
(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;
(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the
contract;
(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service
not stipulated which causes the deterioration thereof; or if he does not
observe the requirement in No. 2 of Article 1657, as regards the use
thereof.
The ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed by
special laws. (Emphasis supplied)
By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiffs leased unto the defendant
the aforesaid townhouse for a consideration of fifteen thousand pesos
(P15,000.00) a month as rental to be paid within the first eight (8) days
of each month starting February 10, 2018. Plaintiffs orally demanded the
defendant to vacate the property, but the latter refused. They sent a

4
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

demand letter to the defendant by registered mail, and which was

received by the latter but again, refused to act on the demand letter.

It has been said that when the private respondents defaulted in the
payment of rents in the amount of P 18,000.00, they lost their rights to
remain in the premises. Hence, when the petitioner demanded
payment of the P 18,000.00 due and unpaid rentals or a case for
ejectment would be filed against them, the owner was giving strong
notice that "you either pay your unpaid rentals or I will file a court
case to have you thrown out of my property." The word "vacate" is
not a talismanic word that must be employed in all notices. The
alternatives in this case are clear cut. The tenants must pay rentals
which were fixed and which became payable in the past, failing
which they must move out. There can be no other interpretation of the
notice given to them. Hence when the petitioner demanded that either he
pays P 18,000.00 in five days or a case for ejectment would be filed
against him, he was placed on notice to move out if he does not pay.
There was, in effect, a notice or demand to vacate [emphasis
supplied]." 3
Under the principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions:
(1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and
(2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another.4
It is well to remind Defendant violated the contract of lease and that she
failed to vacate the premises upon demand. Hence, spouses Lim are
justified in recovering the physical possession thereof and consequently,
in making use of the property. Besides, in violating the lease by failing to
pay the rent, Wong took the risk of losing the improvements it introduced
thereon in favor of the spouses Lim. This is because despite the fact that
the lease contract provides that in case of termination of the lease
agreement all permanent improvements and structures found in the
subject premises shall belong to the lessors it still violated the lease.

Premises considered, it therefore just and logical to conclude that the

possession of the DEFENDANT has become illegal upon notice by
PLAINTIFFS to DEFENDANT of the termination of the latter’s right of
possession.

3
Golden Gate Realty vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74289, July 31, 1987
4
Flores v. Lindo, Jr., G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 772, 783.

5
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

DEFENDANT IS LIABLE TO PAY

THE UNPAID RENTALS WITH
INTEREST

The Civil Code provides for the obligations of a lessee with respect to the
contract they instituted, to wit:

Art. 1657. The lessee is obliged:

(1) To pay the price of the lease according to the terms
stipulated;
(2) To use the thing leased as a diligent father of a family, devoting
it to the use stipulated; and in the absence of stipulation, to that which
may be inferred from the nature of the thing leased, according to the
custom of the place;
(3) To pay expenses for the deed of lease.
The defendant should pay all her unpaid monthly rentals for the five (5)
months with interest. The plaintiffs are the legal owner of the premises
subject in dispute. By reason of failure of the defendant to vacate the
premises and to pay the unpaid rentals, the plaintiffs were compelled to
file this complaint engaging the services of counsel and the plaintiffs were
supposed to rent the subject property to other interested and those who
are willing to pay the rent but since the defendant did not vacate the
premises, the plaintiffs were also deprived of their right to do the same.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto

this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering
the defendant:

1. To vacate the subject premises;

2. To pay the amount of fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) for the

unpaid rentals for the month of August to December with damages
and as consideration for the use of said premises until she finally
vacates;

3. To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

6
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

Tacloban City, Philippines. August 3, 2019.

UY-UY, ANDERSON & KHO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Real St., Tacloban City Leyte
By:

ATTY. LAUREEN UY-UY

Roll of Attorney No. 00001
IBP No. 1234567/1-05-19/Tacloban City, Leyte
PTR No. 50504/10-10-06/Tacloban City, Leyte
MCLE Compliance IV No. 0001212

Copy Furnished: (By Personal Service)

Atty. GEORGINA PEREZ

Counsel for Defendant
2nd Floor, Uytingko Bldg.
Burgos St., Tacloban City
Leyte 6500

7
DE LA CRUZ, JOVY NORRIETE B.
LAW IV B
POSITION PAPER

VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Tacloban )ss

WE, DANN LIM AND JOAN LIM, of legal ages, Filipino citizens, married,
with residence and postal address at Cavite East, Palo, Leyte, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say:

1. That we are the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case;

2. That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing POSITION

PAPER and have read the allegations contained therein;

3. The allegations in the said POSITION PAPER are true and correct
of our own personal knowledge and authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto affixed our signatures

this 3rd
day August 2019, in the Tacloban City, Leyte, Philippines.

DANN LIM JOAN LIM

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of August

2019 in the City of Tacloban , Leyte, affiant exhibiting to me her Driver’s
License No. 09123 and 12345 issued by the Land Transportation Office
on February 14, 2017 at the City of Tacloban.

ATTY. LAUREEN UY-UY

Notary Public
My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 2019
Roll of Attorney No. 00001
IBP No. 1234567/1-05-19/Tacloban City, Leyte
PTR No. 50504/10-10-06/Tacloban City, Leyte
MCLE Compliance IV No. 0001212

Doc. No. ________

Page No. _______
Book No. _______
Series of 2019.