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 latter’s 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 pesos
stands and encroached into the said ten (10) square meters of Juan’s 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 “accion interdictal, 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 satisfy the conditions necessary for such
action to prosper.
In the present case, petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against
respondent. Ejectment case—unlawful detainer—is 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 party’s 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

1 Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium I (7th Rev. Edition, 2007).

2 G.R. No. 177637, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 461
3 G.R. No. 184285, 25 September 2009, 601 SCRA 147
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 Agustin4, 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 latter’s 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.
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

4 GR No. 183822, January 18, 2012.

 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.

Respectfully Submitted

ABE O. GADO
Counsel for the Respondent
North Employees Village,
Brgy. Gulang-Gulang, Lucena City
Roll No. 43414, May 13, 2014
IBP Life Roll No. 01794
PTR No. 6311205, Jan. 2, 2014
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0008909 12/6/12

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.

ABE O. GADO

5 Briones v. Macabagdal, et al. GR No. 150666 August 3, 2010