CORDILLERA CAREERDEVELOPMENT COLLEGE College of Law Poblacion, Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet


Submitted by: RICHARD P. DUMAPIS


by counsel most respectfully submits this POSITION PAPER and avers: TIMELINESS The Plaintiff thru counsel received an order from said Court dated December 30. Defendant denied said allegation and interposed the defense that there is no case of forcible entry since he did not apply “FORCE” when he entered the subject property. 2-C-24 covered with TCT No. 2354 with an area of 1. 2013 hence said position paper is filed. MAKULANGAN Defendant x ------------------------------------x POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF. CIVIL CASE No. LaTrinidad.000 square meters situated at Wangal. Plaintiff claims that the defendant through stealth and strategy usurped a portion of his property and constructed a two storey house therein when the plaintiff was on vacation. Makulangan before the Honorable Court. Benguet. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an action for Forcible Entry and Damages commenced by the Plaintiff Arvin D. 14654 -versusFor: EJECTMENT (FORCIBLE ENTRY) AND DAMAGES JANJAN D.Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LA TRINIDAD FIRST JUDICIAL REGION BENGUET PROVINCE ARVIN D. MAUNAHAN Plaintiff. The subject matter of this action is a piece of land identified as Lot No. that the plaintiff did . Maunahan against the Defendant Janjan D. 2012 requiring the Undersigned Counsel to file position paper within ten (10) days from receipt thereof or on or before January 7.

2. defendant raised the following defense: 6. Antonio H. The plaintiff built a house on and developed one-half of the property. In controverting the instant ejectment complaint. The parcel of land is situated at Wangal. 3. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff. On the same day.not suffer actual or moral damages.000 square meters. Pictures of said structure is attached as Annex “C”. Both parties have presented their pieces of evidence. 4. . La Trinidad Benguet covered by TCT No. 5. leaving the other half idle with the intention of having it rented out at Twenty Pesos per square meter. that plaintiff should be made to pay for the Attorney’s fees of the defendant and that the case should be dismissed because the same was not referred for Barangay Conciliation prior to filing in court. 1. Ambog. Attached is a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale of the land executed by the plaintiff and the seller as annex “A” and made an integral part hereof. plaintiff was surprised to see the new house within his property built and occupied by the defendant. the running rate of lease for undeveloped land at the place. Copy of the TCT No. the plaintiff went on a month long vacation. STATEMENT OF FACTS The plaintiff is the lawful owner of a parcel of land evidenced by a Deed of Sale executed between him and the original owner Mr. Upon his return from his month long vacation on 02 May 2011. 2354 with an area of 1. The case is now submitted for decision before the Honorable Court. plaintiff filed a complaint of forcible entry with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and damages against herein defendant before the Municipal Trial Court. 1434 is likewise attached as Annex “B” and made integral part of this position paper. surreptitiously occupied the remaining undeveloped half of the property and even built a two story house on said lot. herein defendant. On 01 April 2011.

Is Plaintiff in prior possession of the land in dispute? The main issue in forcible entry cases is the physical possession of real property – possession de facto and not possession de jure (Gutierrez vs. The subject matter thereof merely is the material possession or possession de facto over the real property. II. 30 SCRA 897). Magat. the period of such lease contract and whether or not the lease contract has already expired. Concina.Is non-compliance with the Barangay Conciliation Proceedings a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal of this case? I. 67 SCRA 262). peaceful and actual possession is returned to the property (Dizon vs. (d) the right of the tenant to keep the premises against the will of the landlord. the inferior court can decide the questions of (a) whether or not the relationship between the parties is one of landlord and tenant. (b) whether or not there is a lease contract between the parties. was the possessor ousted therefrom within one year from the filing of the complaint by force. As incidents of the main issue of possession de facto. That since the Plaintiff forced him to hire a lawyer to present him in court. Did the Plaintiff suffer actual or moral damage? IV. ISSUES Is Plaintiff in prior possession of the land in dispute? Is “FORCE” necessary in action of Forcible Entry? III. (c) the just and reasonable amount of the rent and the date when it will take effect. That there is no basis for a Complaint for Forcible Entry because he did not apply “FORCE” when he entered the subject property. who had actual possession over the piece of real property? Second. and (e) if the defendant has built on the land a substantial and valuable building and there is no dispute between the parties as to the . or stealth? And lastly. strategy. The questions to be resolved simply are these: First. That the Complaint of Arvin should be dismissed for failure to refer the case to Barangay Conciliation before filing in court.a. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS I. b. Plaintiff should be made to pay him attorney’s fees. threat. and d. does he ask for the restoration of his possession? Any controversy over ownership rights should be settled after the party who had the prior. c. That the Plaintiff did not suffer actual or moral damages.

Where the defendant’s possession of the property is illegal ab initio. their rights according to the Civil Code. an ejectment for forcible entry case may be filed against the usurper who deprives another of possession of land or building by force. if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred. Where a person unlawfully deprives another of his property. 2003).R. Is “FORCE” necessary in actions for Forcible Entry? The provisions of Section 1.” It is sufficient that the Plaintiff was able to subject the property to the action of his will. intimidation. Veridiano II. plaintiff was already residing and is in actual possession of the property. 1994. Moreover. No. after having bought the land from the original owner has in fact developed. II. October 23. the summary action for forcible entry (detentacion) is the remedy to recover possession (Javier v. or stealth or threats or strategy. 237 SCRA 565).ownership of the land and the building. 147549. the plaintiff took possession of the subject premises upon the execution of a Deed of Sale and has been in occupancy thereof since then up to the present. the defendant did not raise the question of lawful possession since in his mind he knows who the lawful owner of the land is. . thus: “Possession is acquired by the material possession of a thing or the exercise of a right. possession is transferred to the vendee by virtue of the notarized deed of conveyance. Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. vs. Carlos (GR No. built a house and occupied the property. or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will or by the proper acts or legal formalities established for acquiring such right. the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the object of the contract.” (Ong Ching Po. 48050. Court of Appeals. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court are clear. 239 SCRA 341). In the instant case. All these clearly show that even before the defendant’s intrusion of the vacant portion of the lot.” The plaintiff. G. the Supreme Court held that “possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed to be in possession. October 10. Article 531 of the statute is explicit. In De la Rosa vs. et al. “when the sale is made through a public instrument. Under the law.

In the instant case. the defendant. who was in prior possession. threat. may at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. it further explained that “if the possession of the defendant was illegal at the inception and not merely tolerated because the defendant started to occupy the subject lot and then built a house thereon without the permission and consent of the owner or rightful possessor. can be deduced from petitioner’s allegation that respondent took full control and possession of the subject property without his consent and authority. In Valdez vs. strategy or stealth. intimidation. entering and building a house on the vacant portion of the subject property. May 2. 132424. while “strategy” connotes the employment of machinations or artifices to gain possession of the subject property (Sumulong v. strategy. 756). or stealth. but also by “STEALTH” and “STRATEGY”. clandestinely usurped portions of the latter’s property through stealth and strategy. 2006). without the consent and permission of the plaintiff. it was held that “the act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property.” In Mediran vs Villanueva (37 Phil 752. and this is all that is necessary. sly. Court of Appeals (GR No. It is therefore possession by stealth which is forcible entry. or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within residence of another without permission. Is the Plaintiff entitled for actual or moral damage? Section 1. Lutheran Church in the Philippines (475 SCRA 13).” It is clear that there are other forms of committing Forcible Entry other than using “FORCE”. was defined as any secret. 232 SCRA 372). the defendant’s entry into the land was effected clandestinely without the knowledge of the owners. include every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real property to exclude another. in this case. Court of Appeals . the Supreme Court held that “the words.In Banez vs.” The employment of force. threat. “Stealth” on the other hand. bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court . III. intimidation. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court states that a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force. with clear intention of permanency.

the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. Hence. plaintiff herein is duly entitled for the payment of exemplary damages in the amount of Php 20. the same did not materialize due to the unlawful intrusion of the defendant to the subject property. Prior to his vacation. indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered. contrary to law. attorney’s fees and costs. Article 20 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “Every person who. it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires. As a result of the clandestine intrusion of the defendant. the provisions of Article 2200 of the Rules of Court clearly state that.00) per square meter. for the restitution of such possession. depriving the plaintiff of his property hence the plaintiff suffered damages. but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. or any person or persons claiming under them. together with damages and costs. however.000 to the plaintiff by way of attorney’s fees. . Section 17 of the Rule 70 further provides that if after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true. willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same”. plaintiff suffered actual damage of Php 10.00. hence defendant should be ordered to pay the amount of P20.against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession. plaintiff intended to rent out the 500 square meter portion of his lot at Twenty Pesos (Php 20.000.000. Moreover. it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises. If it finds that said allegations are not true. By reason of the gross and evident bad faith of the defendant when he clandestinely usurped a portion of the plaintiff’s property and deliberately refused to vacate the aforesaid premises and by way of example or correction for the public good.00. He was constrained to engage the services of a lawyer to protect his rights and interest. If a counterclaim is established.

they shall be dismissed without prejudice. and 4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. Section12.IV. — No complaint. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court further states that cases should be referred for conciliation. and may be revived only after that. or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Is non-compliance with the Barangay Conciliation Proceedings a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal of this case? Section 412 of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides: Sec. ostensibly fall under the exception mentioned in Section 412 (b) of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. delivery of personal property and support pendente lite. At the instant case. . — (a) Pre-condition to filing of complaint in court. 3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction. Rules of Court). as allowed under Section 33 of BP 129. attested to by the lupon chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto. attachment. where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement. there are instances where the parties may go directly to court as provided by Section 412 (b) of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law as follows: 1) Where the accused is under detention. 412. The suit would. 2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings. petition. and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or the pangkat secretary. Rule18. the complaint for ejectment filed by the plaintiff contained an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. therefore. However. action. requirement shall have been complied with( Also Section 2. Conciliation.

premises considered. 4. PRAYER WHEREFORE. irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Other such reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Attorney’s Fees in the amount of P20.00. February 9. R. 81 SCRA 269). 121 SCRA 347). 2. G. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. and that all actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The rationale is that forcible entry cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved (Republic vs. The Court of Appeals and Spouses Ricardo and Gliceria Jimenez.Under Section 3 of Rule 70. Pay the cost of this suit. 107036. Pay plaintiff actual damages in the amount of Php 10. It has been held that these actions "are intended to avoid disruption of public order by those who would take the law in their hands purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession" (Vda de Legaspi vs Avendaño.000. 3. Additionally. et. al. 122 SCRA 877).000. Consolacion. Pay plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of Php 20. and 5. it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that the instant ejectment suit be decided in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the defendant to: Permanently vacate the premises in question and give the immediate right of possession to the plaintiff. shall be governed by the summary procedure hereunder provided. 1993). Madela. No. 79 SCRA 135. So much so that judgment must be executed immediately when it is in favor of the plaintiff in order to prevent further damages arising from loss of possession (Salinas vs. Navarro 126 SCRA 167). 1977).000. it is also a firmly settled principle that the municipal court has jurisdiction over forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases (Heirs of Jacobo Bolus. Jr. 1. September 27. . an ejectment case is a summary procedure. vs. Guarin. It is “time procedure” designed to remedy the situation (Mabalot vs. Procedural technicality is therefore obviated and reliance thereon to stay eviction from the property should not be tolerated and cannot override substantial justice (Dakudao vs.

124 . 8/24/2010. Benguet January 7. Benguet Bar Roll No.2013 Notary Public for Benguet Province Until December 31.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED La Trinidad. 8/22/2012 Copy furnished Atty. 5 La Trinidad. A-564235. 8/15/2010 IBP Lifetime No. 309 Lakay Building Km. Km. 1/4/2013. Brusco N. I 47786 series of 2012. 68799. RICHARD P. Baguio-Benguet MCLE Compliance No. Room 204 RPD Building. 134342. Benguet By: Personal Delivery . Talunan Counsel for the Defendant Talunan Law Office. DUMAPIS Commission No. La Trinidad. 4 La Trinidad Benguet PTR No. 2013 Dumapis and Associates. 2013 ATTY.

RICHARD P. Km. Filipino. La Trinidad. that I have caused the preparation of the above brief and understood the contents thereof. at La Trinidad.S. 1/4/2013.2013 Notary Public for Benguet Province Until December 31. Benguet. 2011. at La Trinidad. Series of 2012. Philippines on January 3. issued at Baguio City. Page No. ARVIN D. . 124 . DUMAPIS Commission No. Benguet Bar Roll No. Room 204 RPD Building. Benguet. hereby depose and state that: I am the petitioner of the above titled case. 4 La Trinidad Benguet PTR No. MAUNAHAN Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of January 2013. affiant is known to me personally and exhibiting to me his Driver’s License with number 788999. Baguio-Benguet MCLE Compliance No. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 28. Book No. 68799. and I hereby declare that all the allegations contained herein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and the authentic records of the case. ATTY. of legal age and resident of Wangal. MAUNAHAN . Benguet. 8/15/2010 IBP Lifetime No. 8/24/2010. I 47786 series of 2012. 8/22/2012 Doc No. 34. Philippines. ARVIN D. Municipality of La Trinidad ) VERIFICATION I. Philippines. I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of January 2013.Republic of the Philippines) Province of Benguet ) S. 20. after having been duly sworn in accordance with law. A-564235. 134342. La Trinidad. 2013 Dumapis and Associates.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful