REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 3, LIPA CITY

SPS.
Plaintiffs,

- versus - Civil Case No. 0030-2015

For: EJECTMENT
Xxxxx and all persons
deriving rights from them.

Defendants.
X-------------------------------------------X

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

PLAINTIFFS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

submit their Pre-Trial Brief and alleges the following:

AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs are more than willing to enter into an amicable settlement that
may be stipulated upon between the parties in the interest of justice and fairness
and within the limitations provided by laws and jurisprudence;

FACTS OF THE CASE

The instant case is an action for recovery of possession with damages filed
by plaintiffs against defendants for failure of the latter upon demand to vacate the
land covered by TCT No. T-388 registered in the name of the former. This action
is rooted from the fact that the respondents’ equitable right over the said property
has already ceased to exist upon lawful demand made by the plaintiff. They seek
for the dispossession by the respondent of the said land in favor of them. The
plaintiffs also want the court to grant those damages arising directly and
incidentally from the said failure of defendants to comply with what is incumbent
upon them.

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS

The parties admit the existence of these facts, viz:

a.) That Sps. VVV , are the legitimate and registered owners of a parcel
of land (Lot 54) located at Sitio Sto. Toribio, Marauoy, Lipa City covered by TCT
No. T388;

b.) That the said land was awarded to Sps. V by the Department of
Agrarian Reform on July 19, 2001 for being legitimate beneficiaries of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the Government (RA 6657) ;

c.) That Defendants surreptitiously occupied portions of the

aforementioned land, but Sps V upon knowing the act of defendants, allowed them
to stay which the only consideration was their friendship and with the
understanding that they will vacate the premises upon request or demand by Sps.
Valencia;

d.) That the issue was brought before the Barangay for conciliation but the
parties failed to amicably settle their differences.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

Plaintiffs propose the following facts:

a.) That plaintiffs have sole powers to ask defendants to vacate the
land owned by the former upon lawful demand considering that they never entered
into any agreement as to the duration of the former’s stay in the said land;

b.) That plaintiffs gives lawful demand to ask defendants to vacate

the said land in conformity with Article 1169 of the Civil Code but the latter still
refuses to heed without reasonable excuse and to the prejudice of the former ;
 c.) That the basis of the defendants in refusing to deliver and retain
the said copy in their possessions is the failure of plaintiffs to pay the litigation
expenses for the protection of their claims in the said property;

d.) That the said basis is not meritorious or based on speculations

and surmises because the defendants can’t adduce evidence to prove that the said
expenses are legitimate and incurred for the aforementioned purpose;

e.) That assuming arguendo that the defendants have claims over
plaintiffs, the former has no right to retain the said copy as security of payment in
the absence of prior agreement to that effect;

f.) That Plaintiffs comply with the provisions of the Family Code
because prior to bringing the case to the jurisdiction of the Court, they first made
earnest effort to settle the case but to no avail;

g.) That the assessed value of the subject property is 25, 360.00 as
evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 160013-00191;

h.) That Plaintiff suffered damages due to the unreasonable delay of

defendants to deliver the said duplicate copy.

ISSUES

a.) Whether or not defendants incurred in legal delay in the delivery

of the duplicate’s copy of TCT No. 138623 within the contemplation of
Article 1169 of the Civil Code;

b.) Whether or not defendants should be liable to pay damages to

plaintiffs under Articles 1170 and 2197 of the Civil Code for their
unreasonable failure to comply to what is incumbent upon them;

c.) Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to the duplicate’s copy of

TCT No. 138623;
 d.) Whether or not the refusal of defendants to deliver the said
property will give rise to cause of action against them as contemplated in Rule 2
Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court.

DOCUMENTS/EXHIBITS

a.) Subdivision Plan of Lot 9208, Cad- 218, prepared by Engr. CS

– To establish the veracity of the facts that the four

compulsory heirs caused the subdivision of the land and
show the location and the metes and bounds of the
property registered to plaintiffs; to prove that plaintiffs
can exercise exclusive dominion over Lot 9208-B
because their interests to the property that they inherited
from Victor’s deceased parents are already determined;

b.) Transfer Certificate of Title No. 138623 registered in the name of VR

– To serve as evidenced of plaintiff’s ownership over the

said properties; To establish the facts that being the
owner of the said lot, plaintiffs are entitled to the
possession of its duplicate copy;

c.) Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-31621 registered in the name of the
four compulsory heirs of the deceased Spouses R

d) Demand letter delivered to defendants and received by Spouses DR

- To establish the facts that plaintiffs complied with the

provisions of the law in putting defendants in legal
delay; To prove that defendants received the said
demand letter but the defendants still refused to deliver
the said duplicate copy to the detriment of plaintiff; to
prove that plaintiffs did the earnest effort to settle the
case amicably but to no avail.

e. Others (Plaintiffs reserved their rights to present additional documentary

evidence if the existing facts and circumstances warrants or if newly
discovered evidence will be obtained by plaintiffs

WITNESSES

a.) Engr. CS
 – To identify his Subdivision Plan, and to verify that he
made personally the examination of the said property
which is the subject matter of the said subdivision plan.

b.) Plaintiffs or any of their representatives

– To prove and establish their ownership over the said

property; The damages, and expenses incurred; the efforts
exerted to reach an amicable settlement;

c.) Others (Plaintiffs reserved their rights to present additional

witnesses if the existing facts and circumstances warrants or if
newly discovered evidence will be obtained by plaintiffs)

AVAILMENT OF DISCOVERY
PROCEDURES/REFERRAL TO COMMISSIONER

The plaintiff reserves the right to avail of discovery procedures under Rules
23 to 29 of the Revised Rules of Court and/or referral to commissioner as the
circumstances may warrant.

Respectfully submitted.

Lipa City, September 13, 2016.

MLP LAW OFFICE

2nd Flr. Panganiban Bldg. corner P.
Torres & Kalipulako Sts., Lipa City

By:

MLP
PTR No.
IBP No.
MCLE Compliance No. IV
0020863 / June 18, 2013
Attorneys Roll No.
Copy Furnished:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

RTC Branch12
Lipa City, Batangas

ATTY. EGC
106 Marang Street, Project 2
Quezon City

EXPLANATION

Copy of this Pre-Trial Brief was sent through registered mail with return
card in lieu of personal service due to distance and lack of office personnel.

MLP