Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Branch ___
Lucena City
Juan

Civil Case No. 2014-01

Plaintiff,
versus

-for-

Pedro,
Ejectment
Defendant.
x--------------x
POSTION PAPER
(for the respondent)
Defendant, through counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court respectfully states:
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
This is an ejectment case for unlawful
detainer filed by petitioner Juan wherein the 10
meters of his land was allegedly occupied by Pedro
on which the latters comfort room stands.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Pedro built a house adjacent to the lot of
Juan. After Juan secured geodetic survey and found
out that the ten (10) square meters were allegedly
illegally seized by respondent Pedro which led him to
file a complaint for ejectment against the respondent
where Juan is the registered owner.
Allegedly, the comfort room of Pedro which
costs 300,000 pesosstands and encroached into the
said ten (10) square meters of Juans lot.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether or not Pedro should be ejected and
who has the better right over the disputed property?
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff in this case has no cause of
action for an ejectment case for unlawful detainer.
One of the three kinds of action for the recovery of
possession of real property is accioninterdictal, or
an ejectment proceeding ... which may be either that
for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer
(desahucio), which is a summary action for the
recovery of physical possession where the
dispossession has not lasted for more than one year,
and should be brought in the proper inferior court. 1
Instructive on this matter is Carbonilla v.
Abiera2 which reads thus:
Without a doubt, the
registered owner of real property is
entitled to its possession. However,
the owner cannot simply wrest
possession thereof from whoever is
in actual occupation of the
property. To recover possession, he
must resort to the proper judicial
remedy and, once he chooses what
action to file, he is required to

1Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial

Law Compendium I (7th Rev. Edition,
2007).
2G.R. No. 177637, 26 July 2010,
625 SCRA 461

satisfy the conditions necessary for

such action to prosper.
In the present case, petitioner opted to file
an ejectment case against respondent. Ejectment
caseunlawful detaineris summary proceeding
designed to provide expeditious means to protect
actual possession or the right to possession of the
property involved.The only question that the courts
resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled
to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to
the possession de facto and not to the possession de
jure.It does not even matter if a partys title to the
property is questionable. For this reason, an
ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in
favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of
the subject property. Key jurisdictional facts
constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed
must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently
proven.
A requisite for a valid cause of action in an
unlawful detainer case is that possession must be
originally lawful, and such possession must have
turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right
to possess. It must be shown that the possession was
initially lawful; hence, the basis of such lawful
possession must be established.
In this case, petitioner has not established
when respondents possession of the properties
became unlawful a requisite for a valid cause of
action in an unlawful detainer case.
In Canlas vs. Tubil3, the Supreme Court
enumerated the elements that constitute the
sufficiency of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as
follows:
Well-settled is the rule that what determines
the nature of the action as well as the court which
has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in
the complaint. In ejectment cases, the complaint
should embody such statement of facts as to bring
the party clearly within the class of cases for which
the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings
are summary in nature. The complaint must show
enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction
without resort to parol evidence.
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover
possession of real property from one who illegally
withholds possession after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied. The possession of the
defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but
became illegal due to the expiration or termination of
the right to possess.
In Corpuz vs. Spouses Agustin 4, the Court
held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of
action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
(1) initially, possession of property by the
defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of
the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became
illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latters 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 year from the last demand
on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
Based on the above, it is obvious that Juan
has not complied with the requirements sufficient to
warrant the success of his unlawful detainer
Complaint against respondent Pedro.
Apropos,
Article
527 of
the Civil
Code presumes good faith, and since no proof exists
to show that the mistake was done by respondent
Pedro in bad faith, the latter should be presumed to
have built the house in good faith.

3G.R. No. 184285, 25 September

2009, 601 SCRA 147
4 GR No. 183822, January 18, 2012.

Based from the foregoing, it can be

presumed that respondent Pedro is a builder in good
faith on the following reasons:
First, good faith is presumed on the part of
the respondent. Second, petitioner Juan failed to
rebut this presumption. Third, no evidence was
presented to show that petitioner opposed or
objected to the encroachment of the property by the
respondent. Consequently, it can be validly
presumed that petitioner consented to the said
infringement.
Further, when a person builds in good faith
on the land of another, Article 448 of the Civil
Code governs. Said article provides:
ART. 448. The owner of
the land on which anything has
been built, sown or planted in good
faith, shall have the right to
appropriate as his own the works,
sowing or planting, after payment
of the indemnity provided for in
Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige
the one who built or planted to pay
the price of the land, and the one
who sowed, the proper rent.
However, the builder or planter
cannot be obliged to buy the land if
its value is considerably more than
that of the building or trees. In
such case, he shall pay reasonable
rent, if the owner of the land does
not choose to appropriate the
building or trees after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the lease and in
case of disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof.
The above-cited article covers cases in
which the builders, sowers or planters believe
themselves to be owners of the land or, at least, to
have a claim of title thereto. The builder in good
faith can compel the landowner to make a choice
between appropriating the building by paying the
proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the
price of the land. The choice belongs to the owner of
the land, a rule that accords with the principle of
accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the
principal and not the other way around. However,
even as the option lies with the landowner, the grant
to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. He must choose
one. He cannot, for instance, compel the owner of
the building to remove the building from the land
without first exercising either option. It is only if the
owner chooses to sell his land, and the builder or
planter fails to purchase it where its value is not
more than the value of the improvements, that the
owner may remove the improvements from the
land. The owner is entitled to such remotion only
when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other
party fails to pay for the same.
Furthermore, respondent have the right to
be indemnified for the necessary and useful
expenses he may have made on the subject property.
Articles 546 and 548 of the Civil Code provide,
ART. 546. Necessary expenses shall be
refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor
in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to
the possessor in good faith with the same right of
retention, the person who has defeated him in the
possession having the option of refunding the
amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in
value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof.
ART. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere
pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in
good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with
which he has embellished the principal thing if it
suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the
possession does not prefer to refund the amount
expended.
Thus, the petitioner has the option to
appropriate the house on the subject land after

payment to the respondent of the appropriate

indemnity or to oblige the latter to pay the price of
the land, unless its value is considerably more than
the value of the structures, in which case respondent
shall pay reasonable rent.5
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is
most respectfully prayed that the foregoing Position
Paper be noted and considered in the resolution of
this case.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable
under premises are likewise prayed for.
May 24, 2014, Lucena City, Philippines.

Submitted

Respectfully
ABE

GADO

O.

Counsel

for the Respondent

North

Employees Village,
Brgy.Gulang-Gulang, Lucena City
43414, May 13, 2014
Roll No. 01794
6311205, Jan. 2, 2014
Compliance No. IV-0008909 12/6/12

Roll

No.

IBP

Life

PTR No.
MCLE

Notice of Hearing and Service of Copy:

TO:
ATTY. PROSE C. UTOR
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Lucena City
THE CLERK OF COURT
Municipal Trial Court
Lucena City
Kindly take notice that the undersigned is
submitting the foregoing Position Paper immediately
upon receipt hereof to the Honorable Court for its
consideration and approval.
That by way of explanation, a copy of this
Position Paper was served to the Office of the City
prosecutor through personal service.
A
BE
O.
GADO

5Briones v. Macabagdal, et al. GR No.

150666 August 3, 2010