Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRAILA COURT IN CITIES

7th Judicial Region
Branch 2
City of Talisay

ANTONIO P. MALALAY
Plaintiff,
EC NO. 18-01
- versus - For: Quo Warranto

OSMUNDO J. MANREAL, JR.

Respondent.

POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT

OSMUNDO J. MANREAL, JR.

COMES NOW, Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr., through

the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable Court, respectfully
submit his Position Paper for the Respondent, and respectfully avers
that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“The sanctity of the people's will must be observed at all times if our
nascent democracy is to be preserved. In any challenge having the effect of
reversing a democratic choice, expressed through the ballot, this Court
should be ever so vigilant in finding solutions which would give effect to the
will of the majority, for sound public policy dictates that all elective offices
are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in an
election. When a challenge to a winning candidate's qualifications however
becomes inevitable, the ineligibility ought to be so noxious to the
Constitution that giving effect to the apparent will of the people would
ultimately do harm to our democratic institutions.” 1

PARTIES TO THE CASE

1. Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr. is a Filipino of legal age, a

resident and registered voter of 803 Sitio Sunrise, Barangay

1
AQUINO vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995

POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 1

 Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu who has casted his votes last 14 May
2018 election;

2. Petitioner Antonio P. Malaay is a Filipino, 50 years old, and

likewise a resident of Sition Sunrise, Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu;

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr. filed his Certificate of

Candidacy for Member, Sangguniang Barangay for the 14 May
2018 elections where he ran and gained 1,638 votes was
proclaimed as winner of the position of Barangay Barangay
Chairman of Pooc, Talisay City on May 15, 2018;

4. After his valid proclamation, a petition for quo warranto was

filed against the Respondent by Petitioner Antonio P. Malalay,
a voter of the said barangay, essentially questioning the
Respondent’s compliance with the residence requirement to be
elected to public office;

5. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent is a green card

holder of the United States of America and returned to the
Philippines only last June 12, 2015;

6. The Respondent does not dispute the fact that he has been
residing in his present address of 803 Sitio Sunrise, Barangay
Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu since 2015 or for a period of more than
Three (3) years already2”;

7. The reason that the Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr. has

decided to settle down in the Philippines is that on 2016, he got
invited by then Mayor Eduardo Gullas to be consultant on
Market operations, as evidenced by Memorandum Order No.
2017-05-098 dated 02 May 2017 appointing Osmundo J. Manreal
as Executive Assistant II3 and likewise the 6th Sangunniang
Panlungsod Resolution No. 2016-283 dated 29 November 2016
authorizing the hiring of Osmundo J. Manreal Jr. as consultant
on Market Operations4;

8. The fact that the Respondent has been living in Pooc, Talisay
City, Cebu, Philippines for the past 3 years, actually stepping

2 Judicial Affidavit of Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr., Question Nos. 7-13

3 Annex B of the Judicial Affidavit of Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal
4 Annex C of the Judicial Affidavit of Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal

POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 2

 both feet on Philippine soil the entire time and interacting with
the people on a day-to-day basis, and serving the people as
Market Consultant for the City of Talisay is proof that he has
indeed complied with the residency requirement under the
Local Government Code, and thus possesses all of the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to run and serve
as an elected public officer;

Issues of the Case

A. Whether or not Residency is a question of fact or a question

of law;

B. Whether or not Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr.

satisfied the residency requirement when he ran for public
office; and

C. Whether or not the admission in the pleading and in open

court of the Petitioner Antonio P. Malaay himself that the
Respondent is a resident of Pooc, Talisay City should be
taken as conclusive evidence supporting the Respondent’s
claims;

DISCUSSIONS AND LEGAL BASIS

Residency is a question of fact

and not a question of Law.
X----------------------/

9. In the case of Japzon v. Commission on Elections5, a similar

election case decided by the Supreme Court en banc, the
highest tribunal had the opportunity to explicitly state that:

“Ultimately, the Court recapitulates in Papandayan,

Jr. that it is the fact of residence that is the decisive factor in
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the
residency qualification requirement.

As espoused by Ty, the issue of whether he complied

with the one-year residency requirement for running for
public office is a question of fact. Its determination requires

5 G.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009.

POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 3
 the Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the
probative value of the evidence presented by the parties before
the COMELEC.”

10.Thus, it has been settled in jurisprudence that residency is a

question of fact and as such its determination necessarily
requires the Courts to review, examine and evaluate the
evidence presented by the parties;

Respondent Osmundo J.
Manreal, Jr. satisfied the
residency requirement when he
ran for public office
X----------------------/

11.Here, the fact of Osmundo J. Manreal’s residence and his

compliance with the residency requirement is clearly
established in the documents, pleadings and testimonies
brought forward by both the Petitioner and the Respondent;

12.The Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal did not misrepresent

anything when he put 803 Sitio Sunrise, Pooc, Talisay City as
his address when filing for his Certificate of Candidacy for the
May 2018 elections because in truth and in fact, it was really his
actual residential address since 2015;

13.Nor does the Petitioner contest this fact since he was the one
who presented Manreal’s travel documents which clearly show
that Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr. returned to the Philippines as
early as 12 June 2015;

14.Added to that, the documentary evidence presented by the

Respondent clearly show that he has been actively residing and
even participating in the community, having secured
Memorandum Order No. 2017-05-098 dated 02 May 2017
appointing Osmundo J. Manreal as Executive Assistant II6 and
likewise the 6th Sangunniang Panlungsod Resolution No. 2016-
283 dated 29 November 2016 authorizing the hiring of
Osmundo J. Manreal Jr. as consultant on Market Operations7;

15.To add weight to these official documents, Respondent the

Respondent’s neighbor Mr. Rodel Cueva Descallar, executed an

6 Annex B of the Judicial Affidavit of Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal

7 Annex C of the Judicial Affidavit of Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal
POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 4
 Affidavit8 to attest to the fact that they have been neighbors
with the Respondent since 2011 and he left for the United States
but returned to the Philippines in the year 2015 and have been
staying here ever since;

16.In the case of Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City9, the

Court held that domicile and residence are synonymous. The
term residence, as used in the election law, imports not only
an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention. Here, the physical personal presence of
Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr. in his locality satisfies the residency
requirement under the law;

The Petitioner had already

admitted in his own complaint
and in open court that the
Respondent Osmundo J.
Manreal, Jr. is a resident of
Pooc, Talisay City
X----------------------/

17.In Paragraph 2 of his own Complaint, the Petitioner effectively

admitted that the Respondent Manreal is a resident of Pooc,
Talisay City, Cebu, by explicitly stating that:

“2. The Respondent is also of legal age and a resident of Sitio

Sun Rise, Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu where they may be
served with summons and other processes of this Honorable
Court.”

18.Here, the admission was made in clear and unequivocal terms.

For if the Petitioner had intended the residence of the
Respondent as a party for the purpose of proper service of
summons, knowing very well that Residency was the main
issue of the instant Quo Warranto case, he would have made
the proper reservations before making the statement in his own
pleading;

19.To make matters worse, during cross-examination, the

Petitioner Antonio P. Malaay himself, upon the interpellation of
the Respondent’s counsel, admitted over and over before the

8 Annex A, Answer of the Respondent Osmundo J. Manreal, Jr.

9 G.R. No. 104960, September 14, 1993
POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 5
 Honorable Court that the Respondent Manreal was a resident
of Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu;

20.It is to be remembered that allegations in the complaint are

deemed judicial admissions and does not require further proof.
It is both explicitly and categorically stated under Rule 129,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court that:

Sec. 4. Judicial Admissions. – An admission, verbal or

written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that
it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.

21.Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed

judicial admissions. In the case of Delfin v. Billones10, the
Supreme Court emphatically ruled that admissions made in the
complaint are judicial admissions which are binding on the
party who made them and cannot be contradicted absent any
showing that it was made through palpable mistake. No
amount of rationalization can offset such admission.

22.In the case at bar, the judicial admission was made for the first
time in the Petitioner’s pleading when he stated in his
Complaint that the Respondent is also of legal age and a
resident of Sitio Sun Rise, Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu. The second
judicial admission was made during the course of proceedings,
where the witness Antonio P. Malaay himself made the same
admission as to the Respondent Manreal’s residence when
grilled for cross examination;

23.To recapitulate, since Residency as a requirement qualification

for elected public office is a question of fact and the Petitioner
had already admitted in his pleadings and during the course of
trial that the Respondent has complied with the residency
requirement, the same could no longer be raised as a factual
issue in the instant case;

PRAYER

10 G.R. No. 146550, March 17, 2006

POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 6
 WHEREFORE, all premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that a judgment be rendered in favor
of the Respondent by DENYING the Petitioner’s prayer and
dismissing the instant case with prejudice against him.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

09 July 2018. Mandaue City, Cebu, Philippines 6045.

LUMAPAS BLANCO BERNALDEZ & FIEL

LAW FIRM & NOTARY PUBLIC
Ground Floor, Ermac Bldg., Zamora St.,
Centro, Mandaue City 6014
09176326674

ATTY. NESTOR CRISPIN MIGUEL B. LUMAPAS

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll No. 65124
IBP Life Member Roll No. 015171, June 14, 2017
PTR No. 0737682 Issued on January 15, 2018
MCLE Exempt
miguel.lumapas@yahoo.com
Mobile Number: 0917-625-1658

ATTY. JOHN MICHAEL T. FIEL

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll No. 66837
PTR No. 07377715 01/16/18
Mandaue City
IBP No. 032940, 02/06/18, Cebu City
MCLE Exempt: admitted 2017
Johmikefiel2014@gmail.com
0917-632-6674

POSITION PAPER FOR THE RESPONDENT – MALAAY V. MANREAL 7