Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Third Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
____________________

_____________________,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. ________

For: Ejectment (Unlawful
Detainer) with Damages

______________________,
Defendant.
x-----------------x

VERIFIED POSITION PAPER

(of Plaintiff ______________________)

PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Office most respectfully submits the foregoing Verified
Position paper and avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

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 against 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. A
complaint for unlawful detainer must allege that: (a) 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; (b)
the defendant's possession 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; (c) the defendant
refused to heed such demand; and (d) the case for unlawful detainer is
instituted within one year from the date of last demand. (Jose v. Alfuerto,
et. al.G.R. No. 169380, November 26, 2012.)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1
 The instant case is for Ejectment on the ground of unlawful
detainer wherein the plaintiff is seeking the order of the Honorable Court
for the defendant to vacate the subject property that she had been
occupying after the expiration of the period they agreed upon.

On _______________, the plaintiff through the undersigned

counsel filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with Damages against
the defendant. The defendant filed her answer dated ______________ and
the Preliminary Conference was held on ________________. Thereafter,
the parties were required to file their respective position paper, hence the
instant position paper.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Plaintiff is the owner of parcel of land with an area of _____ square

meters situated at ____________covered by ___________ registered in
his name. Copy of the _____________ was marked during the
Preliminary Conference as EXHIBIT “A” and the Subdivision Plan of
______________ as EXHIBIT “J”;.

The said land is assessed for taxation purposes in the amount of

________ as evidenced by a copy of Tax Declaration No. __________.
Copy of the Tax Declaration No. 17-19003-00843 was marked during the
Preliminary Conference as EXHIBIT “B”;

Plaintiff had been paying the real property taxes on the said land as
evidenced by Tax Receipt No. _______ issued by the Municipal Treasurer
of _________. Copy of Tax Receipt No. _______ was marked during the
Preliminary Conference as EXHIBIT “C”;

Sometime in ___________, the plaintiff and the defendant entered

into an agreement that the defendant will peacefully vacate the ______
square meters portion of the land covered by ___________ after
harvesting the crops on or before November 2014. Copy of the agreement
was marked during the Preliminary Conference as EXHIBIT “E”.

After the expiration of the period agreed upon by the parties, the
Plaintiff made several oral demands to the defendant to vacate the
property, but despite repeated oral demands and pleas, the defendant kept
on possessing the subject property.

Plaintiff then sent a written demand letter to the Defendant to

vacate the subject property and to surrender the possession thereof to the
Plaintiff. Copy of the demand letter was marked during the Preliminary
Conference as EXHIBIT “F”;

2
 The deliberate refusal of the defendant to vacate the land subject of
this case after the expiration of the period agreed upon led to the filing of
the instant case.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer and

should be evicted from the land subject of the instant case;

2. Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages.

ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION

The defendant is guilty of

unlawful detainer and should be
evicted from the land subject of
the instant case.

In Javelosa vs. Tapus, et.al. (G.R. No. 204361, July 04, 2018), the
Supreme Court laid down the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer
case to prosper, to wit:

i. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by

contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
ii. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of
possession;
iii. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof;
and
iv. within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate
the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment.

In Vda. De Aguilar vs. Sps. Alfaro G.R. No. 164402, July 05, 2010,
the Supreme Court held in this wise:

“It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to

property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears. It is
conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described
therein. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes
of ownership of the property, including possession. Thus, in Arambulo v.
Gungab, this Court declared that the "age-old rule is that the person who
has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."

3
 As the issue over ownership over the land subject of the instant
case is already settled, the only issue left is proving the jurisdictional facts
for an unlawful detainer case to prosper.

Initially, possession of property by

the defendant was by contract with
or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

The Agreement is the valid contract by and between the plaintiff

and defendant and the tenor of the contract involves the temporary
possession of the latter over the property subject of the instant case. The
agreement proved that, initially possession of property by the defendant
was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

As held by the Honorable Supreme Court in Limketkai Sons

Milling, Inc. v. CA et al. (G.R. No. 118509, 250 SCRA 523, 535-536,
December 1, 1995), to wit:

“It is well-established that a contract undergoes various stages that

include its negotiation or preparation, its perfection, and finally, its
consummation.

Negotiation covers the period from the time the prospective

contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract
is concluded (perfected). The perfection of the contract takes place upon
the concurrence of its essential elements. A contract which is consensual
as to perfection is so established upon a mere meeting of minds, i.e., the
concurrence of offer and acceptance, on the object and on the cause or
consideration. The consummation stage begins when the parties perform
their respective undertakings under the contract, culminating in its
extinguishment.”

Eventually, such possession

became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latter's right of
possession.

After the expiration of the period agreed upon by the parties, the
Plaintiff made several oral demands to the defendant to vacate the
property, but despite repeated oral demands and pleas, the defendant kept
on possessing the subject property;

Plaintiff then sent a written demand letter marked as EXHIBIT

“G” to the Defendant demanding that herein defendant vacate the subject
property and to surrender the possession thereof to the Plaintiff;

4
 It is worthwhile to note the decision of the Honorable Supreme
Court in Manotoc v. CA (G.R. NO. 130974, August 16, 2006) that
personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of
summons.

Likewise worth citing is the Section 6 of the Rules of Court which

states that, as a rule, summons must be served personally upon the
defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. If the
defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons, it shall be
tendered to him or her.

While the above cited ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court and
the provisions of the Rules of Court discussed about Summons, sumns
and notice is in effect has the same effect and that is notifying the other
party which in the instant case is the defendant;

Thus, this prove the fact that possession of the defendant became
illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the
latter's right of possession.

Thereafter, the defendant

remained in possession of the
property and deprived the plaintiff
of the enjoyment thereof.

Up to the present date, herein defendant continued to unlawfully

possess the land subject of the instant case.

Within one year from the last

demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint for ejectment.

The jurisdictional fact that herein plaintiff initiated the complaint

for Ejectment against herein defendant can be found in the records of the
case and the exhibit identified, marked and attached to the records of the
instant case;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing facts, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Board that an ORDER be issued certifying that
no agrarian dispute exist in the above-entitled case.

Other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

5
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

________________________.

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Copy furnished by registered mail:

_____________________
Counsel for the Defendant