1

Republic of the Philippines

Ninth Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch 4, Zamboanga City

DRACO MALFOYO, CIVIL CASE NO.777

Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

HARRY PATEROS, Unlawful Detainer

Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COME NOW, Defendant HARRY PATEROS, through the Undersigned
Counsel, unto the Honorable Court, most respectfully allege, that:

1. The Preliminary Conference Order of this Honorable Court, dated June 29,
2021 , was received by the above-named Defendant on the same day of the
issuance thereof, requiring the Defendant to file and submit his Position Paper
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Thus, they had until July 9, 2021 within
which to submit and file the same;

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Defendants and his family have been in possession and occupation of the
subject parcel of land since September 2013 upon the tolerance of the
plaintiff’s parents as shown in the “AGREEMENT FOR FREE USE”, hereto
attached as ANNEX “B”. This is because the defendant is a good friend of
plaintiff’s parents.
From the time that the Defendants have been in possession and
occupation of the subject property, the Defendant and the deceased Plaintiff’s parents
have sometime formalized the arrangement by entering into a contract of lease on September
 2

20, 2019 valid for a period of 3 years, hereto attached as Annex “1” , and since then, the
defendants have been religiously paying rentals to Spouses Malfoyo as evidenced by
acknowledgement receipts, hereto attached as Annex “2”. They only stop paying rental when
Narcisa Malfoyo died on July 2020 for the reason that they do not know whom to pay. As such,
when plaintiff approached them, defendant offered to pay the unpaid rentals amounting to
P40,000.00 but it was refused by plaintiff. In a sudden turn of events, Plaintiffs now
claim ownership of the subject parcel of land. Thus, the Plaintiffs filed the instant
case for unlawful detainer against the defendants.

THE ISSUES

Whether or not the filing of this case before this court was premature due to
the Plaintiff’s failure to Secure a Certificate to file action from the Barangay.

Whether or not the failure to implead Defendant’s wife in this case renders
the complaint defective and with states no cause of action.

Whether or not the Contract of Lease is valid and/or enforceable.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Defendant hereby adopt, replead and reincorporate all the allegations in their
Answer in this Position Paper and further allege, that:

1. The complaint states no cause of action. Complaint is defective for Plaintiffs’ failure to
implead Defendant’s spouse. Section 4, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. Despite the
complaint alleging that defendant is married, the complaint did not implead the wife of
defendant as party to the case, thus, the complaint is defective. If the action is not brought in
the name of or against the real party in interest, an affirmative defense may be filed on the
ground that the complaint states no cause of action ( Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77356, 15 July 1991, 199 SCRA 205.

2. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against herein Defendant. In unlawful detainer,

possession of the defendant is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or
termination of the right to possess (Spouses Valdez v Ca, G.R. No.132424 May 2, 2006).
However, the possession of defendant did not become unlawful as the Agreement For
Free Use was already replace by a Contract of Lease between the Defendant and
Plaintiff’s parents for a period of 3 years, from September 20, 2019 to September 2021.

3. The condition precedent for filing the instant claim has not been complied with.
The Local Government Code (Sec.412a) requires the parties to undergo a conciliation
process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a pre-condition to the filing of a
complaint in court .This requirement has been declared as compulsory. Failure to comply
with the barangay conciliation proceedings renders the complaint vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for
prematurity. Hence the complaint
 3

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, it most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgement be
rendered:

1. DISMISSING the complaint and DENYING all claims prayed for by

the Plaintiffs with costs against them;

2. ORDERING the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendants the following:

a. Php 50,000.00 as moral damages;
b. Php 30,000.00 as acceptance fee;
c. P5,000.00 for deposit for Legal expenses
d. Attorney’s fees in the amount of P3,000.00 per appearance
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed
for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

July 7, 2021, Zamboanga City, Philippines.

BLACO & Associates LAW FIRM

Counsel for Defendant
Diagon Alley Building, Santa Maria, Zamboanga City
Tel. No. (062) 992-6474

By:
SIRIUS BLACO
PTR No. 1188888 – 01/6/21 ZC
I.B.P. No. 227777- 01/02/21 ZC
MCLE No. VI – 0029999 - 12/13/18 – Pasig City
Roll No. 22222

Copy Furnished:

Atty Tom Marvolo

Counsel for Plaintiff
Phoenix Building. Veterans Avenue,
Camino Nuevo, Zamboanga City
4