Republic of the Philippines

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
CITY OF CABUYAO, LAGUNA

DELIA RAMOS-SAISAKI, rep by

Atty-in-fact:ANGELITA RAMOS
RAFALLE AND SHERYL VIRAY MERCADO
Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE NO.2909

-versus-

FOR: Ejectment and Damages w/

OLIVIA L. DEL MUNDO AND Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
MARIETTA L. AMULAR Restraining Order (TRO) & Writ
Of Preliminary Injunction
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE DEFENDANTS)

DEFENDANTS, to the Honorable Court, respectfully submit this

Position Paper in support of the arguments in the Answer and the
documentary evidence attached therewith, thus:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is an Ejectment suit filed under

FACTUAL
ANTECEDENTS

Defendants have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious

and adverse possession IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER AND FOR
VALUE as early as 2016 over a portion of Lot situated in Mabuhay City,
Mamatid, City of Cabuyao, Laguna, covered by and described in TCT.s
No. 664090 and 664091 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of
Laguna, registered in the name of DELIA P. RAMOS. They derived their
right of ownership and possession from DELIA P. RAMOS, ANGELITA R.
RAFALLE, CARMELITA P. RAMOS, REMEDIOS R. VIRAY, and MARVIN M.
DE LEON who ceded, sold, transferred and conveyed the subject
property for value in favor of OLIVIA L. DEL MUNDO and MARIETTA L,
AMULAR the herein defendants; as evidenced by the Contract to Sells
dated May 2016 which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”

It was all started sometime in January of 2016, when my sister,

Marietta L. Amular, also a defendant, called me and ask me to help her
friend a Mr. Jessie Montiano with the problems of his school because he
is severely sick. She said that Mr. Montiano is going to sell the school,
Mrs. Amular was the Principal of the said school for sometime. She
explained to me that, the power supply may be cut off, the building will
be padlock, there were no teachers. I told her to send proof of his
ownership. She sent a receipt signed by Mrs. Angelita Rafalle as
payment for the school. I even told her that (“Bumili si sir Jess ng
school na ito lang ang papel?”). Out of sympathy to sir Jess through my
sister who is his “Kumare”, I helped him. I paid his 1 month rent during
that time so that the building will not be padlock, I even paid his electric
bill because the Meralco cut its services. My Ate sent Sir Jess to Sta
Rosa City Community to amputate his legs. To make the long story
short, after sir Jess recovered, he together with his brother denied our
arrangement, he operates the school on the said building until end of
school year 2015-2016. I was able to communicate to Mrs Angelita R.
Rafalle otherwise known as Ma’am Leng when I send to her payment in
behalf of sir Jess sometime in January 2016. During the course of time,
we were able to meet ma’am Leng and ate Remy, Mrs. Remedios Viray.
Together we visited the brgy. Hall of Baclaran while I complain Mr. Jesse
Montiano, Mrs. Angelita Rafalle even signed as one of the witness of
our “Kasunduan ng Bayaran” Exhibit they have their own transaction
with Sir Jess. At the time of agreed payment, which is February 10,
2016 Sir Jess did not gave me the money for he is asking for the original
permits and recognition of the school which I possess and that ma’am
Leng and ate Remy ask me not to give it because they just lend it to sir
Jess. Unfortunately I was not able to get my money back. Mam Leng
and ate Remy was also there during that time because sir Jess also
promise them to pay some of his debt to them. They know that I did
not receive the money from Sir Jess again they persuade me to buy the
said property.
 Mrs. Angelita R. Rafalle and Mrs. Remedios R. Viray ask us to buy
the school and its building. I told them that I don’t have that much
money we agreed that I am going to loan the said property to the bank
proceed of the loan will be given to them as full payment and that the
amount that sir Jess supposed to give me will be deducted to the
agreed selling price. And that the electric bill and water bill left by sir
Jess will be given back to me.

For the record, even before we met for the signing of the contract
to sell we have agreed that the we are going to loan the property to the
bank, proceeds of the loan will be given to the plaintiffs as full payment
for my balance. At first they ask me to make contract to sell, later on
they do it since they know an attorney who will make it with minimal or
no payment at all. Thus, they prepare for ___ sets of contract to sell for
loan purposes, I immediately oppose to the stipulation therein that my
payment will be converted to rent once not paid after for months, they
said that its nothing , I even told them that ok provided that there is no
problem with the said school and property. We’ve met at Crossing,
Calamba, Laguna for the signing of the contract also mam Leng gave me
during that time an authorization letter to facilitate transactions to
DepEd with regards to its permit. Before the said signing, I together
with mam Leng and ate Remy went to DepEd Regional office in Cainta,
Rizal to ask for what school name I am going to use for the coming
school year. They advice us that I applied for a change that I followed,
attached hereto said documents Exhibit

Furthermore, one of my loan agent which is known to ate Remy

since year 2007 said that the said property is open for sale since then.
In a sudden turn of events, plaintiffs claim that I am not paying the
supposed rent since December 2016. Plaintiffs aver that they merely
allowed defendants to occupy the said premises due to humanitarian
reason. For clarification, from the day one we stepped on the property
in issue that was on May 17, 2016, we immediately repair damages on
the building to be able to use in June since we don’t have ample time,
we have to make the property conducive to learning. Unfortunately, sir
Jess is using Regina Angelorum School, Inc. as his school at another
place within Mabuhay City, Mamatid, City of Cabuyao, Laguna. I settle
the dispute without so much help from one of the plaintiffs since I know
that she is having trouble with her knees and also she is a senior citizen
already I spare her out of respect even knowing that they must be the
one to settle all those problems since in the first place its their school. I
just go to their house at Punta, Sta. Ana , Manila if they have something
to sign for the expedition of the said case. In doing so. They have
prepared a board resolution and secretary’s certificate citing me as the
School Administrator, Exhibit . With the grace of God, before our
Graduation on April 2, 2018 what we ask for to DepEd was granted to
us. The Asst. Division Superintendent of DepEd Cabuyao was then our
guest speaker. I immediately told them that we have won over Mr. Jess
Montiano’s claim. I even told them, that my full time will be given to
facilitate the loan. They even told me that from time to time that don’t
have “paki” with the school they were after the building , I told them I
must first finish the issue with the school name, permits, etal because
there were students who will be affected and that parents will ransack
me with complaint.

Moreover, during the course of faciIitating the loan I paid the

taxes of the building and lot last 2016 and 2018, as per receipt attached
herewith Exhibit, . Furthermore, when I am processing my documents
to change name I also found out that there were open cases for tax
payment with BIR Exhibit . I told them , they told me that we split in
half the amount. I disagree, I reasoned out that it is not my doing and
that I don’t have money for it there were plenty of things needed for
the school.

While I am in the process of fighting our interest for the school

name against Mr Jessie R. Montiano, somebody borrowed the school
key which is left at one of our teacher who lives nearby. The borrower a
parent of one of our student during that time said that her friend wants
to look at the school because they were looking for a school for their
child the following school year, said event happened sometime in
December 2017. Again, atlas the LIS of the school was given to me
before our Graduation Rites last April 2, 2018, I thought all along that
my big problems with the school will be put into rest and that all my
time, resources and others will be diverted to the payment of the
building and to look for financers and banks who will accept school as
loan collateral or if the loan amount is sufficient with my balance to
them. Since my acquisition to the property last May, 2016 we look loan
entities that will help us with the school finances. In doing so Before
the start of SY 2018-2019, mam Leng and ate Remy went to the school
to tell me that they were sorry for there is someone who buys the
school and that I must start renting the school starting June 2018 until
the end of the school year she even left me a contract to sign Exhibit .
Later on I was able to meet with the supposed new owner of the
property they also gave me a contract to sign Exhibit. The new owner
even complaint me at the Lupon of brgy Mamatid for not paying the
supposed rental fees Exhibit.
 Last January 18, 2018 I requested from the Registry of Deeds
Documents required for the Conversion of the Properties Tax
Declaration (Exhibit )to the name of Delia P. Ramos for it is still
registered in the name of Extra Ordinary Group. It was one of the
requirements for the loan, even before my request to the RD for
pertinent papers for conversion I asked mam Leng if they have the
required documents so that the time of waiting for the paper will be
lessened and the filing of conversion will move at once, they didn’t
have that’s why I requested RD. I have the original copies of the Tax
Declaration named after Delia P. Ramos , Exhibit . Also the Title was
annotated on my behalf how come they was able to sell it. All along I
was in good faith in acquiring the said property, all along they know
where I am going to get the amount to be able to pay them. For the
money I have is intended for the maintenance of the school. The school
have a very minimal enrollees up to now because of all the issues in
ownership of the name. The plaintiffs and their family knows all my
hardships, struggles in maintaining the school and probing its worth
even to my own family. I have invested so many things in this, money,
time, family et al, and then all of the sudden they will denied all of our
arrangement. From time to time I went to their house at Punta, Sta.
Ana, Manila, to update them with my transaction I met almost all that is
living with them. I felt closed with them as I thought I were fighting my
right to the school alongside with them.

I was able to meet the supposed new owner at the Lupon hearing
twice. They were pleading for my ejectment to the said for they are
going to use it. The Lupon advise them not to go inside the school,
nevertheless they still did. After my meeting at the Lupon together with
Mr. & Mrs. Padugar(new owner), the plaintiffs ask me to meet them so
that we will be able to talk, I even suggest to them that since its
Saturday lets meet someplace else, they don’t want they even hinted
that I don’t want them to enter the school. Without any malice, I
agreed, we met at the school at 9: am. My two Teachers Mrs. Joy D.
Ledda and Ms. Christy Obispo was there with me. During that time ,
while inside the school premises the plaintiffs together with ate Remy
and Sheryl’s husband told me that the owner will be coming also
despite the fact that they were being advice by the “Lupon of
Mamatid”. All along they were planning to forced me to vacate the
premises in favor of the others, I immediately called and even went to
the brgy. Hall of Mamatid to seek for their intervention and helped
Exhibit .After the brgy representative left they still padlock the building
and even threatened me. Nov. 27 at 10:00 am I have again met the
supposed new owner at the “Lupon” Hall. I sew the plaintiffs together
again with ate Remy and Sheryl’s husband at investigator’s office. We
haven’t able to talk during that time. On the same date after the end of
classes at around 4:30pm but still there were students inside, they
came at the school. They were plenty of them, they banging at the gate
and asked me to let them in. I called, the brgy personnel they sent
representatives, I even called Atty Leif Opina, Kon. Christian Del Mundo
of Baclaran and lastly I even called our Hepe Avelino for intervention.
The harassment and everything last till night. They tried to open the
gate and planned to bring all the things inside the school. They even
told me that me that once they open the gate “lagot kaming lahat na
nasa loob’ our teacher’s and students go back the school they were
outside the school premises and kept asking us inside if we were OK.
Almost all of the resident of that street were outside and witnessing the
harassment. The Police and Brgy Tanod were going at the school front
back and fourh, because everytime the said officials left they started
banging at the gate, shouting and threatening, they even planning to
use welding machine to open the gate. We were so afraid inside,
fortunately one of my companion did not suffer from heart attacked for
she have a heart problem. The commission only stopped when Hepe
Avelino intervened he sent one of his Police at the site and immediately
all of the accomplice left one by one, the police officer invited the
Plaintiffs etal at Mamatid brgy Hall, after the street was already cleared
the said police officer ask me to come out of the building and that he
will escorted me at the brgy Hall. We were able to talked, they even
reasoned that they just want to talk to me, that there is no one with
them. They were even adviced to bring this dispute in court. I have of
witnesses that there were many of them during that time. The
following day we again filed a blotter Exhibit . I repeatedly reasoned
to them what happened to the payments I’ve made to all the major
repaired made at the school, the school is still ongoing.

Last April 29,2019 at night my sister Mrs. Marietta Amular was

able to contact and told me that there were letter for us from Cabuyao I
told her that I will go to the Municipality of Cabuyao on May 2, 2019,
since April 30,2019 was the graduation of my daughter, and May 1 is
holiday. While I was in Cabuyao MTC and received our summons the
plaintiffs etal and many said that they were with their Attorney entered
the school, I don’t know what happened inside but they definitely
stayed long for there were four cigarette butts at the floor of infront of
one chair. They even welding the front gates and post sign Exhibit

The Meralco bill was under my name, with regards to the water
bill, some of the amount specified there was not my doing it was left by
the former occupant Mr Jess Montiano. I paid some of it already I even
asked Laguna water that I’m going to pay it staggard Exhibit . W
 With regards to the business permit, I applied first under the
name of Schola De Sta Clara De Cabuyao I first secured for a brgy
Permits Exhibit . Unfortunately, the name did not push through
because of all the things that happened that is stated above. I was able
to talk to the Licensing officer of Cabuyao and advice me to apply for a
new one for the coming school year.

To reiterate things, in order for me to answer DepEd for my

complaint, we made a Board Resolution and Secretary’s Certificate
dated allowing and assigning as the board administrator since June of
2016. The attorney who notarized it held office at Sta. Ana, Manila and
was known to them.

All the troubles was started when somebody wants to buy the said
property I’ve found out that the middleman was known to Jess. My
point is after all the troubles I’ve been through that you cannot imagine,
and that the property is open for sale since Year 2007 and there is no
one bought it, and after I repaired the building for it was already in not
good condition, after I transferred pertinent documents on their name,
paid their taxes they will claim and put all their effort on the contract
that in the first place all along all the stipulation there according to
them since during the first day of signing is only for formality. As you
can see the contents of the said contract to sell is all in favor of them I
did not mind it all for they keep assuring me that its only for formality.

NATURE OF AN ACTION FOR EJECTMENT

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

 Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.- Subject to
the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against
whom the possession of any land or building is withheld after the
expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of
any contract, expressed or implied, or the legal representatives or
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any
time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding
of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court
against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the
restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are two distinct actions
defined in the afore-cited provision. In Forcible Entry, one employs
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive another of
physical possession of the land, (Montanez vs. Mendoza, 392 SCRA
541). Possession by the defendant of the subject property is unlawful
ab initio.

On the other hand, Unlawful Detainer involves the person’s

withholding from another of the possession of real property to which
the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former’s
right to hold possession under the contract, either expressed or implied
(Republic vs. Luriz, 513 SCRA 140). Possession by the defendant of the
property is originally lawful but becomes illegal by virtue of the
termination of his right of possession under his contract with the
plaintiff, either expressed or implied, ( Tirona vs. Alejo, 367 SCRA 17).

In Go, Jr. vs. CA, 362 SCRA 755, it was adjudicated that tolerance
must be present right from the start of possession sought to be
recovered to be within the purview of unlawful detainer.

Basic is the rule that what determines the nature of the action and
what court has jurisdiction over it are the averments or allegations in
the complaint and the character of the remedy or relief sought. As in
the case of unlawful detainer, the permission or tolerance must be
present at the outset or at the beginning of the possession. If not, a
case of forcible entry is the proper remedy. The time or period
mandated by law should be complied with. Otherwise, prescription
steps into the picture (Notes and Cases on Ejectment, Igmidio Cuevas
Lat, p.1, 2005).

The nature of defendant’s entry into the land determines the

cause of action. If entry is illegal, it is Forcible Entry and the action must
be filed within one year from the date of unlawful intrusion. Otherwise,
the appropriate action is Unlawful Detainer and should be filed within
one year from the time possession by the defendant became illegal.

The one year period within which to bring an action for forcible
entry is reckoned from the date of actual entry to the land, (Gener vs.
De Leon, 367 SCRA 631). After the lapse of the one-year period, the
party dispossessed of a parcel of land can file either an accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

He who alleges must prove and the party having the onus
probandi must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.

DEFENDANTS’ POSITION AND ARGUMENTS

DEFENDANTS HAVE A BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION OVER THE

SUBJECT REALTY THAN THE PLAINTIFFS, AND ARE ENTITLED TO THE DE
FACTO POSSESSION OF THE LOT IN ISSUE.

The plaintiffs’ complaint for unlawful detainer is fundamentally

inadequate. There is practically no averment as to when and how
possession by tolerance of the defendants began. In their complaint,
the plaintiffs only made a general claim that the defendants possessed
the property upon their predecessor’s tolerance sans factual
substantiation. In Spouses Valdez, Jr. vs. CA, 523 Phil. 39 (2006), the
Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the complainants to allege key
jurisdictional facts constitutive of unlawful detainer is fatal and deprives
the MTCC of jurisdiction over the action.

The plaintiffs’ evidence inadequately proved their claim that they

have a case of unlawful detainer against the defendants. Plaintiffs’
allegation that their predecessor in interest, TOMAS FAILMA, uncle of
defendant TRISTAN CALUYA, merely allowed the latter to occupy the
land during his lifetime was not substantiated by any evidence. None of
the evidence of the plaintiffs support their claim that defendants’
possession of the land is merely by virtue of their tolerance. Plaintiffs
failed to aver and show as to how or when TOMAS FAILMA, their
predecessor, tolerated defendants’ possession of the land.
Consequently, there was no contract to speak of, whether expressed or
implied, between the defendants, on one hand, and the plaintiffs or
their predecessor, on the other that would qualify the defendants’
possession of the land as a case of unlawful detainer. Neither did the
plaintiffs allege that defendants took possession of the land through
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to make out a case of
forcible entry.

On the contrary, defendants’ claim that their possession of the

land which commenced as early as 1971 in the concept of an owner
was sufficiently established by their evidence particularly the
Acknowledgement Receipt dated August 23, 1973, wherein plaintiffs’
predecessors acknowledged receipt of the balance of TRISTAN CALUYA
as appearing in the Deed of Sale dated November 25, 1971 in full
satisfaction of the sale of a one (1) hectare portion of the land covered
by OCT No. I-513 (Exhibit “1”), and Entry No. 294 dated November,
1971 of a Notarial Registry certified to by the National Archives, copy of
which is hereto attached as Exhibit “2”.

Moreover, the letter of invitation of TOMAS FAILMA to defendant

TRISTAN CALUYA (hereto attached as Exhibit “3”) inviting the latter to
attend a conference regarding the subdivision of the lot covered by OCT
No. I-513 further bolsters defendants’ claim of possession in the
concept of an owner and negates the plaintiffs’ position that
defendants possession is by tolerance only of the plaintiffs.

Further, it is undisputed that defendants have been occupying the

land since 1971. So even assuming without admitting that the RTC
decision in Civil Case No. 24 – 539 had divested the defendants of their
ownership of the lot in issue, and affirmed plaintiffs’ ownership thereof,
the defendants cannot be ejected therefrom through the summary
action of ejectment. As held by the Supreme Court in Sarmiento vs. CA,
320 Phil. 146 (1995), even if one is the owner of the property, the
possession thereof cannot be wrested from another who had been in
the physical or material possession of the same for more
than one (1) year by resorting to a summary action of ejectment. At this
juncture, it is worthy to note that at the time of the filing of this case,
defendants had been in physical possession of the property for more or
less forty four (44) years.

Indeed, if the plaintiffs are the owners of the subject property and
they were unlawfully deprived of the real right of possession or
ownership thereof, they should present their claim before the RTC in an
accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the
municipal trial court in a summary proceeding of unlawful detainer or
forcible entry.

Clearly, the plaintiffs’ evidence are not only inadequate to

substantiate their claim against the defendants. Their complaint failed
to make out a case of forcible entry. Hence, their complaint must
necessarily fail. And even assuming for the sake of argument that the
complaint alleges forcible entry, the same action is barred by
prescription based on the arguments posited at the outset.

THE PLAINTIFFS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

Defendants’ reputation in the community had been tainted by

reason of the plaintiffs’ baseless or unfounded allegations. Thus,
defendants are liable for moral damages.

In the interest of public good and to dissuade others from filing a

similar complaint, plaintiffs should pay exemplary damages.

Since defendants were compelled to secure the services of a

lawyer to protect their rights and interests, plaintiffs should be ordered
to pay the attorney’s fee and honorarium per court appearance
incurred by the defendants in the case at bar.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed that this position paper be given due consideration in the
resolution of this case and that judgment be rendered in favor of the
defendants by DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit, and to
award the defendants damages in such amount as the court may deem
reasonable.

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

Ilagan City for Jones, Isabela, July 22, 2015.

ATTY. RODERICK M. CRUZ

Counsel for the Defendants
Capitol Hills Subd.,
City of Ilagan, Isabela
Roll No. 46359
PTR No. PGI 5968029/03-03-2015
IBP Receipt No. 962910/1-09-2015
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0024734
Valid from 1-29-2015 until 04-14-2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005915
Valid from April 15, 2016 to April 14, 2019
E-mail Add: cruz_RoderickM@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION

We, TRISTAN F. CALUYA, BIVIANA IBANA-CALUYA, MERLISTO

LANO and LUALHATY CALUYA-LANO, all of legal age, Filipinos, married
and bonafide residents of Barangay Linomot, Jones, Isabela, under
oath, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. We are the defendants in the above-entitled Complaint;

2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Position Paper;
 3. We have read the contents thereof and the facts as stated
therein are true and correct and based on authentic records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures

this 23rd day of July, 2015 at Echague, Isabela.

TRISTAN F. CALUYA BIVIANA IBANA-CALUYA

Affiant Affiant

MERLISTO LANO LUALHATY CALUYA-LANO

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of July, 2015

at Echague, Isabela. I hereby certify that I personally examined the
affiants and I am satisfied that they have read and understood the
contents of their Position Paper and they attested that the same is a
product of their own free will. Affiants have individually exhibited to me
their Identification Card bearing their picture and signature as
competent proof of their identity.

Doc No._____;
Page No.____;
Book No.____;
Series of 2015.

Copy furnished via registered mail:

ATTY. ABRAHAM B. SABLE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
#49 VMG Bldg., City Road,
Calao West, Santiago City,
Isabela
EXPLANATION: A copy of the foregoing Position Paper was duly
furnished Atty. Abraham B. Sable in his given address via registered mail
pursuant to Section 7, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court due to distance,
time and expense to effect personal service.

RODERICK M CRUZ