REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fourth Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Taal Batangas

SUSAN ROXAS
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 143

For: Unlawful Detainer
SPOUSES JUAN and STELLA BERNABE
Defendants.
X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW the plaintiff, by counsel, to his Honorable Court, most

respectfully submits its position paper as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

a. This is a complaint for Unlawful Detainer praying for the following

reliefs:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing,
judgment be rendered in favor of Plaintiff:
1. For the restitution of the abovementioned property;
2. To pay the cost of the suit.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.”

The case was set for Preliminary Conference on 27 October

2020, and considering that the parties failed to settle the case
 amicably, they entered into stipulation of facts and the same are
contained in the pre-trial order of this court as follows:
1. The instant case was referred to the Punong Barangay in
Barangay Butong, but the parties failed to reach an amicable
settlement.
2. The plaintiff was the absolute owner of the 500 qm lot under
title Lot No 123 located at Brgy Butonf Taal Batangas.
3. The defendants are occupying the said lot prior to acquisition
of the plaintiff of the said lot and until the plaintiff acquired
the property.
4. Oral and written demands were made by the plaintiff but the
defendants refused to vacate the property.

Likewise in the pre-trial order, the Court enumerated the

following factual and legal issue to be resolved in the instant case.
5. Whether or not the summary remedy of unlawful detainer is
available in this case;
6. Whether or not there was possession by tolerance by the
defendant; and,
7. Whether or not the parties are entitled to reliefs being prayed
for by them from the Court.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Susan Roxas, plaintiff, is of legal age, Filipino, with residence

and postal address at Brgy Butong Taal Batangas where she
may be served notices and other court processes;

2. The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the 500 sqm lot under title
Lot No 123 located at Brgy Butong Taal Batangas which was
acquired from Spouses Jose and Maria Castillo and now
 occupied by the respondent. Attached herein is the transfer
certificate of title as Annex “A”;

3. The defendants came into possession and occupation of the

said lot by mere tolerance of the previous owner and plaintiff.
Upon acquisition by the plaintiff of the said lot on 08 August,
2012, it was orally agreed by the plaintiff and the defendants
that upon determination of the former of the use of the lot, the
latter shall vacate the property after giving of proper notice and
grace period to vacate property. When the plaintiff is now
considering to develop the said lot, she demanded the
defendants to vacate the property giving them a 30-day grace
period to do such but they refused to vacate. Copies of the
demand letter dated 17 February, 2020 and addressed to the
defendant is attached hereto as Annex “B”;

4. With the intention of settling the controvery amicably, and in

compliance with the provisions of the Katarungan
Pambarangay law particularly the pertinent provisions of the
Local Government Code (RA 7160), the Punong Barangay of
Butong, Taal invited defendant to appear before his office for
mediation conference with the plaintiff. The parties failed to
reach an amicable settlement such that a Certificate to File
Action was issued attached hereto as, Annex “C”;

III. DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT

1. From the foregoing facts and circumstances, the case falls within
the purview of Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court which
provides as follows:
“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. . . or other
person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully deprived after the expiration or termination of the right to
hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express 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 cost.”

2. The possession of the defendant in the instant case was by mere

tolerance of the plaintiff such that the instant case clearly falls
under unlawful detainer since no force, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth was used to obtain possession and occupation
of the property.

3. In Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Spouses Barbarona 1, the Court

held that 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. If, as in this case, the claim is
that such possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts
of tolerance must be proved.

4. In the instant case, the defendants’ possession was originally

lawful for they were tolerated by the previous owner Spouses Jose
and Maria Castillo until the ownership was transferred. The
plaintiff, who was undoubtedly now the owner of the property,
tolerated also the possession and occupation of the defendant but
with the agreement that upon demand to vacate the defendant
shall voluntarily leave the property. There is no question as to the
ownership of the lot since the defendants admitted in their answer
and was agreed upon in the preliminary conference that the
plaintiff is the lawful owner of the lot.

5. The right to possess of the defendants expired when the plaintiff

orally demand and eventually serve a written demand on 17
February, 2020 to vacate the property since the plaintiff explained
1
Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Spouses Barbarona, GR NO. 195814 (2018)
 that she is now planning to develop the said lot. In Amis vs
Aragon2, the Court hel

6. The acts of tolerance

Batangas City, Philippines, September 24, 2020.

ATTY. MARIA GINALYN P. CASTILLO

2
AMIS VS ARAGON, GR NO L-4684 (1951)
 Counsel for Plaintiff
nd
2 Floor ABC Building, Rizal Ave,
Batangas City, Batangas
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567/Batangas City/01-05-19
IBP Lifetime No. 8910112/Batangas City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0022843;08-12-16
TIN: 156-277-235-000