Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Position Paper
Position Paper
Marhiel Calizo
CIVIL CASE NO. 12345
Plaintiff
-versus-
Defendants
x--------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
(FOR PRELIMINARY MANDATORY
INJUNCTION)
FOR PLAINTIFF
COMES NOW the PLAINTIFF, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto her Honorable
1 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
“The only issue in entry cases is the physical or material possession of real property – possession
de facto, not possession de jure. Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue. If
ownership is raised in the pleadings, the court may pass upon such question, but only to
The ownership claim of defendants upon the land is based on the evidence they presented.
Their evidence, however, did not squarely address the issue of prior possession. Even if
they succeed in proving that they are the owners of the land, the fact remains that they
have not alleged or proved that they have not alleged or proved that they physically possess
it by virtue of such ownership. On the other hand, plaintiff prior possession of the land was
This is an action for EJECMENT (Forcible Entry) with an urgent prayer for the issuance
of Writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issue to restore plaintiff in possession of the Lot
0214.
This is an anchored on the act of defendants in entering the property owned and in
possession of plaintiff without the latter’s consent, with force, threat, and intimidation upon the
person of plaintiff’s Attorney-in-fact and the latter’s companions, and despite the fact that
defendants are fully aware that the subject lot is owned and possessed by plaintiff Andrea Mae
2 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES
executed and acknowledge before Notary Public, and she is of legal age, single, Filipino
citizen and a resident of Tarlac, but for purposes of this suit, notices, orders, and
processes of the Honorable Court be furnished the undersigned counsel in the office
2. Defendants and all the other defendants are all of legal ages, married, Filipinos, and with
residence of Tarlac, where they may be served with summons and other court processes;
3. Plaintiff is the co-owner of Lot 0214, with an area of 14,000 square meters, situated in
Iba San Jose, Tarlac City, Philippines, covered by Tax Declaration No. 009087.
4. On April 26, 1997, plaintiff passed by said Lot 0214 on his way to San Jose Public
Market and he noticed persons who forcibly entered said Lot 10877 by destroying the
5. When plaintiff got near, defendants and their workers threatened him with harm should
6. Plaintiff requested defendants and their workers to stop the construction of a structure
inside the said Lot, but defendants and their workers refused to stop their construction.
Then Plaintiff reported the matter to the Government Authorities of San Jose, Tarlac City
3 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
7. That the Municipal Engineer together with some policemen of San Jose, Tarlac City,
went to the place where the Lot is situated and they stopped the construction undertaken
by defendants.
8. However, on the succeeding days, defendants continued with construction of the structure
10. Plaintiff brought the matter before the Barangay Authorities for conciliation, but no
11. That plaintiff has been compelled by defendants to litigate to enforce his rights and to
12. That the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation by defendants of plaintiff’s
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
13. That Plaintiff hereby reproduced all the allegations of the preceding paragraphs insofar as
14. That under the provisions of Article 539 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and Section
3, Rule 70, Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff should be restored to the possession of said
Lot 0214.
4 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
15. That plaintiff is ready, able and willing to post a bond to be fixed by this Honorable Court
to answer for any and all damages in the event that the Honorable Court finally adjudge
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
16. That because of the destroying of the fence and started erecting a structure thereon
committed by the above named defendants, plaintiff and her agents are now being
continuously deprived and enjoined of the use and enjoyment of the premises, and their
continued deprivation has caused plaintiff to be dispossessed of the premises and their
plans to further improve the same has been delayed and denied by the harm being
physically and actually committed by the above named defendants, such that even the co-
heirs of plaintiff Andrea Mae V. Manuzon are likewise denied access thereto;
17. That the area being illegally occupied by defendants causing the dispossession of plaintiff
and her agents, is among others, within the following lot, to wit:
18. That Lot 10877 which is covered by Tax Declaration No. 009087 of the Registry of
Deeds of the Province of Tarlac in the name of Andrea Mae V. Manuzon, where a road
has been introduced by plaintiff has been destroyed the blocked by defendants in the
upper and lower portion with a fence, while the rest, as above-mentioned is being
19. That the act of defendants in destroying the fence to enter the said lot has deprived
plaintiff and her agents block to and from the property of plaintiff;
5 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
20. That the acts resulting to the dispossession of plaintiff over the subject lot is continuing,
and if defendants are not stopped from further introducing improvements thereto or if not
restrained from continuously occupying the premises, plaintiff will later be completely
ISSUES
JURISDICTION
DISCUSSIONS
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The application for temporary restraining order and/or should be granted as there is an
irreparable injury to be sustained by plaintiff. This is an action for forcible entry. Plaintiff
is being displaced by defendants without defendants awaiting the final disposition of the
“The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction rests in the
not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be
refused.
For the court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioner was burdened
to establish the following: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right to be
protected; (2) a violation of that right; (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and
urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Thus, in the absence of a clear
legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
Where the plaintiff’s right is a doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. Injunction is
In the case at bar, Plaintiff Andrea Mae V. Manuzon, is clearly in possession of the
premises. She had improvements prevailing thereto, including structures and fences, she
has a right to be protected and respected and that involves its use and enjoyment of the
premises and its fruits. Her possession is presumed to be in good faith and such
possession has to be respected unless finally proven otherwise in the Courts of Law.
The complaint against the defendants cannot be set aside and dismissed. Because the lot
title in the name of plaintiff with the registry of deeds of the Province of Tarlac. The said
7 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
lot is verified and validated to be consistent with the Title by the Tax Declaration No.
Defendants, in their answer contended that plaintiff “is not a co-owner of the subject
property, that it being owned by the government, as said property is a public land.
Defendants also argued that it is the Department of Agrarian Reform property, being an
The lot in question is now under excavation, destruction, and occupation by the
defendants. The right of plaintiff has been violated. She is now being unreasonably
denied of its enjoyment and possession, a right that is protected by law, it should be noted
that it is a established jurisprudence in ejectment cases that “the legal right thereto is not
essential to the possessor’s cause of action for no one may take the law into his hands and
forcibly eject another or deprive her of her possession by stealth even if her title thereto
In Lopez vs. Hon. Santiago (L-41889, April 25, 1960) it was said that “Public interest,
public policy and public order demand that the party in peaceful possession of the land,
regardless of whether it is private or is part of the public domain, be not ousted therefrom
by means of force, violence, or intimidation, regardless of the quality of his alleged right
to the possession thereof, and that whoever claims to have a better title or right thereto
should seek from the proper authorities the legal remedies established therefore instead of
Defendants, even assuming that they are the owners, could not simply take possession of
the property by putting the law into their hands. They have to go to court and utilize the
8 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
“We stress that the issue of ownership in ejectment cases is to be resolved only when it is
intimately intertwined with the issue of possession, to such an extent that the question of
who had prior possession cannot be determined without ruling on the question of who the
owner of the land is. No such intertwinement has been shown in the case before us. Since
defendant’s claim of ownership is not being made in order to prove prior possession, the
Granting that plaintiff illegally entered into and occupied the property in question,
defendants had no right to take the law into their own hands and summarily of forcibly
Verify, even if plaintiff were mere usurpers of the land owned by public domain, still
they are entitled to remain on it until they care lawfully ejected therefrom. Under
appropriate circumstances, defendants may file, other than an ejectment suit, an accion
publiciana—a plenary action intended to recover the better right to possess; or an accion
The thing to be proven in an action for forcible entry is prior material possession, and that
the same was lost through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, so that it
behooves the court to restore possession regardless of title or ownership. The Supreme
Court said in the case of Dizon vs. Concina, et al., (30 SCRA 897), that where a person
supposes himself to be the owner of a piece of land and desires to vindicate his
ownership against the person actually in possession it is incumbent upon him to institute
invading the property and excluding the actual possessor to place upon the latter the
This is exactly what happened in the case; defendants invaded the property and excluded
the plaintiff who is in actual possession of the subject lot. The invasion is not merely
eminent but was actual with the issue of force and intimidation. The destroying of the
fence and starting to erect a structure thereon by defendants are all recent.
9 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
3. On the third Issue:
CASES. The Municipal Trial Court can rule on forcible entry cases, this Honorable Court is
subject to answer for any and all damages of the plaintiff and that the Honorable Court is to
rule over this case of forcible entry and that plaintiff is entitled thereto. The Municipal Trial
Court therefore has a jurisdiction to regulate over the said ejectment case.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after the filing of the case and upon posting
injunction issue to restore plaintiff in possession of said Lot 0214 and be immediately
issued prohibiting the above-named defendants from intruding into the premises and
further order defendants to discontinue the construction over the said premises of the
plaintiff.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Province of Tarlac, for Iba San Jose, Philippines, 14th of September, 2011.
10 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.
The Clerk of Court
Greetings!
Please submit the above-mentioned Position Paper for the consideration of this Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt thereof.
EXPLANATION
A copy of this pleading has been furnished to defendants by way of registered mail due to
11 of 12
Position Paper
Civil Case No. 12345
Manuzon vs. Acebes et, al.