Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

Lamut-Kiangan-Tinoc-Asipulo
Lamut, Ifugao

HEIRS OF CARLOS M. CHUG-E HEREIN REPRESENTED CIVIL

CASE NO. 706
BY MS. JANICE D. CHUG-E
Plaintiff, F O R:
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
AND
DAMAGES WITH PRAYER
-versus- FOR A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY
MR. BEN GUMAN INJUNCTION
AND/OR
Defendant. TEMPORARY RES-
TRAINING ORDER
X-------------------------------x

COMMENT
(To the Affirmative Defenses of defendant)

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, plaintiff

Chug-e through the undersigned counsel, respectfully states THAT:

1. An Answer of the defendant with Special and Affirmative Defenses and

Counterclaim to the complaint was filed in court;

2. A hearing on the Affirmative defenses of the defendant was scheduled on

September 5, 2018 and on said hearing, the Honorable Court issued an Order
for the plaintiff to submit her written comment on the affirmative defenses
of the defendant;

3. The plaintiff through the undersigned counsel interposes her opposition to

the Affirmative Defenses filed by the defendant on the ground that:

a. Plaintiff has legal capacity to sue.

When there is a conflict between the caption of the complaint and the
allegations in the complaint, the latter prevail in determining the parties to the
action. Jurisprudence directs us to look beyond the form and into the substance
so as to render substantial justice to the parties and determine speedily and
inexpensively the actual merits of the controversy with least regard to
technicalities.

It is the allegations in the complaint that will prevail in case of conflict

between the caption and the allegations in the complaint. Hence, a defect
in the caption of the complaint regarding the name of the parties
Page 1|4
 (Plaintiff) to the action does not automatically remove the legal capacity
of the plaintiff to sue. Besides, they are the legal heirs of the late Mr.
Carlos M. Chug-e as they are his lawful sons and daughters. An
Amended Complaint was also submitted to correct the defect in the
caption of the complaint for the higher interest of substantial justice,
prevent delay, and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
actions and proceedings. Its correction could be summarily made at any stage
of the action provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.

As to the execution of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA), the non-

existence of a witness or witnesses in the signing of the SPA is not fatal
in the execution of the document. Indeed, it was all the heirs of the late
Mr. Carlos M. Chug-e who signed the document including the Attorney-
in-fact. It was also specifically mentioned in the SPA the authority of the
Attorney-in-fact to sign and execute any documents and deliver the same
to the concerned authorities which includes the signing of the verification
and certification against forum shopping of the complaint.

b. The Complaint should NOT be dismissed.

It is worthy to note that when there is a conflict between the caption of the
complaint and the allegations in the complaint, the latter prevails. It is not the
caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that are controlling. A defect
in the title of the action is not fatal to the case, provided there is a statement in
the body of the complaint indicating the cause of action against the defendant.
Moreover, the complaint was amended to reflect in the caption the correct title
of the case without change of the cause of action of the plaintiff against the
defendant and without prejudice caused to the adverse party.

At this point, it may be beneficial to elaborate on the matter of

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to
hear, try and decide a case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
the Constitution or by law. An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary
in nature, jurisdiction of which lies in the proper municipal trial court
or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought within one
year from the date of last demand and the issue in said case is the right
to physical possession. Under the Rules of Court, Rule 70, Section 1, a
person deprived of possession of any land or building may bring an action in
the proper Municipal Trial Court against a person or persons unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession at any time within one (1) year after
such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.

It is a hornbook doctrine that in an unlawful detainer case, the action must be

brought within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property.

It can be inferred from the foregoing allegations in the complaint that it was on
May 2018 that the heirs of Carlos M. Chug-e made their last demand for the
defendant to peacefully vacate the premises for them to make use of said
property and for future settlement among the heirs of the late Carlos M. Chug-
Page 2|4
 e wherein the defendant refused to comply. Hence, the instant case was filed
within the one (1) year reglementary period to file the ejectment case.

c. The complaint should NOT be dismissed. It is worthy to mention that the

complaint was brought to the barangay on April 21, 2018 for possible
amicable settlement of the parties regarding the land in question, two (2)
months before it was filed in the lower court. Both parties, the plaintiff and
defendant, appeared before the Barangay Lupon for conciliation on the above-
mentioned date before the plaintiff instituted the instant case. In fact, the
Certification to File Action by the Punong Barangay of Bimpal was issued
because the parties failed to settle the matter amicably despite mediation before
the Barangay Lupon contrary to the claim of the defendant that it was issued
on the same day the complaint was lodged. There was already a prior
confrontation between the parties before the date of the issuance of the
Certification to File Action but the parties failed to come up with their
amicable settlement, hence, said certification was issued on June 5, 2018 the
same day the defendant forcibly and unlawfully built fences on the disputed
land.

Granting without admitting that there was an absence of a barangay

conciliation which is a condition precedent in the present civil action, the
same would not prevent the court of competent jurisdiction from
exercising its power of adjudication over the case before it. It is true that
the precise technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement
of barangay conciliation is much the same effect produced by non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies - the complaint becomes afflicted
with the vice of pre-maturity; and the controversy there alleged is not ripe
for judicial determination. The complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion
to dismiss. Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a jurisdictional
requirement, so that non-compliance therewith cannot affect the
jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject
matter or over the person of the defendant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

Affirmative Defenses of the defendant dated July 21, 2018 be DENIED for the
higher interest of substantial justice, prevent delay, just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of the instant case.

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

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of September 2018 at Lagawe for Lamut,
Ifugao.

ATTY. PRESLEY JOHN L. NAMINGIT

Counsel for Plaintiff
Page 3|4
 Lagawe, Ifugao
Roll No. 69260 – May 31, 2017
IBP Receipt No. 1065396 – 1-9-2018
PTR No. 1008786 – 1-15-2018
MCLE Compliance –Exempt (New Lawyer)

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. HOWARD B. FABRO

Counsel for Defendant
23 Burgos St., Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Page 4|4