REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
CITY OF GEN. TRIAS
PROVINCE OF CAVITE

CYNTHIA T. CASTRO,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 1493

(For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER/
EJECTMENT W/ DAMAGES)

JOEY DE CASTRO & SUZETTE

MONCADA,
Defendants
.
x----------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
 

          DEFENDANTS, thru their undersigned counsel, to this

Honorable Court, in compliance to its Order, most respectfully
submits this Position Paper:

PREFATORY STATEMENTS

1. There is an age-old saying “He who comes to Court must

come with clean hands”. Such is still relevant in this day and
age and more so in the instant case for unlawful detainer.

2. Defendants, as lessees, have the right to possess the leased

space, and to maintain peaceful occupation, even at the time
that Plaintiff disturbed it by cutting off the Defendants’ leased
space’s electricity and water supply, to their damage and
prejudice.

THE PARTIES

1. DEFENDANTS JOEY DE CASTRO & SUZETTE MONCADA

are Filipinos, of age and residents of Dasmarinas, Cavite. For
purposes of this case, they may be served Summons and other
court processes at their counsel’s given address below.

2. PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA CASTRO is a resident of No. 318, Purok

2, Brgy. Tejero, City of Gen. Trias, Cavite. She may be served

1
 the court’s processes at her counsel’s given address.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This case is a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
(Ejectment) filed on April 18, 2022 by Plaintiff Cynthia Castro against
herein defendants Joey De Castro and Suzette Moncada for alleged
non-payment of rentals and electricity and water bills;

2. On May 7, 2022, Defendants received a copy of the

Summons;

3. On June 6, 2022, Defendants, through counsel, filed their

Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims with Application for TRO
and/or Preliminary Injunction);

4. On June 7, 2022, the Court scheduled a hearing on the

Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction incorporated in the
Answer, and after hearing, the Court GRANTED the application for
injunction, subject to the posting of a bond for P20,000.00;

5. On that same day, Defendants posted the requisite bond

and the writ was issued;

6. On June 22, 2022, or after fifteen (15) days, Plaintiff

personally restored the electricity and water supplies to the bakery
shop by going inside the bakery shop and toggling the circuit breaker
inside the bakery shop of Defendants;

7. On July 24, 2022, Pre-trial was conducted, and the case

was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) on June 29,
2022 for possible amicable settlement. Meantime, the Court required
the parties to submit their respective Position Papers, as well as the
original or certified copy of documents, within ten (10) days ending on
July 4, 2022.

8. Hence, this Position Paper for Defendants is timely filed.

Also attached herein are the original or certified copy of documents to
be utilized as Exhibits for the Defendants.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendants replead by way of reference the foregoing allegations
as contained in their Answer with Counterclaims, to wit:

1) Sometime in August 6, 2018, while wandering through near the

crossing along Tejero Drive, Defendants chanced upon an
advertisement hanging on the commercial space located along
the Tejero Road that read “Space for Rent” owned by Plaintiff.
As Defendants were looking for a commercial space for their

2
 bakery business, they inquired about the space for rent and
were able to talk to herein Plaintiff.

2) After negotiations, Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to a lease of

the property – the first floor, the second floor, and the extension
of the house for ten years, starting on August 6, 2018.

Copy of the handwritten lease contract is attached hereto as

Exhibit “1” and made an integral part hereof.

3) Defendants made some renovation works with the leased

spaces – Defendants removed the dividing wall, which is made
of wood and aluminum materials (contrary to Plaintiff’s
allegation in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint) between the ground
floor and the extension and returned these materials to Plaintiff.

4) However, even before the pandemic, Defendants were

constrained to give up the second floor and extension space
because the space was not enough for their production. So all
the industrial mixers, and related equipment inside the bakery
were transferred to another place. Both parties agreed to this
and agreed that the lease rental be reduced to P23,000.00 per
month, then reduced to P10,000 per month;

However, Plaintiff demanded from Defendants to restore in its

original state the dividing wall between the extension space and
the ground floor. In turn, the Defendants demanded the wood
and aluminum materials earlier given to Plaintiff in order to
restore it in its original state. But the Plaintiff no longer has in
her possession said materials. So the parties agreed to
construct a concrete wall (Earlier marked as Exhibit “8”
during the Preliminary Conference) is the picture of partition
wall between the bakery shop and the extension space
between the extension and ground floor to secure Defendants
leased space and in order to create a partition between said
spaces for other prospective lessees to rent the extension
space. And in fact, said extension space was rented out to
several lessees and the second floor was later occupied by
Plaintiff’s daughter, contrary to Plaintiff’s allegation n Paragraph
9 of the Complaint;

5) There is likewise no truth in Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 9

of the Complaint that the extension was occupied by Plaintiff’s
daughter after Defendants gave it up. There were other
boarders/occupants of the second floor and extension space
before Plaintiff’s daughter occupied it.

6) As the leased space has been reduced only to the first floor
(without the extension space), no industrial mixers and other

3
 electric equipment and gadgets were used by Defendants and
their worker/s in the space. The only electricity consumptions of
Defendants are their light bulb, an electric fan and a heater
which is being used sporadically. The baking and other works
are being performed off-site and the baked products are
transported to the leased space for selling;

7) Even with financial difficulties, Defendants still paid their rent on

time. Likewise, even the Defendants’ share in the Meralco and
water bills prior to the February-March 2021 Meralco billing
were all paid;

8) Things started to heat up between herein parties when

Defendants questioned their share in the Meralco bill that will
be shouldered by them sometime in February 2021. As they are
only using minimum electricity – for two light bulbs, an electric
fan and a heater - they asked Plaintiff why she is charging them
P2,692.00 for such small or minimal consumption of electricity.

9.1) To give a backgrounder, Defendants herein share an

electric meter/sub-,eter with two other occupants/tenants,
with each renting a distinct space in the Plaintiff’s
property. As Defendants are only using electricity only for
their lights, fan and heater, they questioned Plaintiff’s
imposition that they pay P2,692.00 for the February-
March 2021 Meralco bill, which is more than half of the
total Meralco bill to be paid (P4,677.22), while one of the
occupants which is using several electric gadgets,
including a split-type air-conditioning unit, is being
charged less than them.

Attach as Exhibit “2” is a picture of the Plaintiff’s rented space

used as bakery shop and the adjoining extension leased to
another with a split-type air-conditioning unit.

9) One of the reasons why Plaintiff, as of the February-March

2021 Meralco bill, is asking for Meralco payment which is
double than what is being paid by Defendants earlier, is that the
space being rented is classified as “commercial”. However,
when Defendants got hold of the actual Meralco bill, the
Meralco bill classification turned out to be “residential”.

10.1) It must be noted that at that time there was a Covid-19

pandemic, hence no increase in the Meralco rates was
allowed. Further, no additional machines or gadgets or
equipment were added to the electricity consumption of
Defendants’ leased space, only light bulbs, an electric fan
and heater were being used.

4
 10.2) Thus, Defendants questioned the abrupt doubling of their
payment for electricity consumption by Plaintiff. They
asked for a copy of the Meralco bill since Plaintiff just kept
on demanding payment for Meralco bills without even
showing the actual bill itself. Defendants even could not
see the meter/sub-meter for the Meralco and thus could
not verify the meter reading. It was shown to Defendants
only after the electricity and water supply were cut off on
June 19, 2021;

10) Due to Defendants’ questioning of the amount to be paid

for the Meralco bill as of March 2021, Plaintiff harbored some ill-
will and animosity against herein Defendants, and she refused
to receive the payment for monthly rentals from April 2021,
when they tendered payment to Plaintiff.

11) This refusal by the Plaintiff to accept the monthly rentals

starting on April 2021 can be proven, thru their series of text
messages between Plaintiff and Defendant Joey De Castro
(attached as Exhibits “10”, “10-a”, “10-b”, in series). In fact,
Defendants were NOT aware that Plaintiff already paid the
Meralco bills for February-March 2021 billing period and several
billing therafter. Defendants only came to know of it after they
received a demand letter demanding that they pay their share.
However, Plaintiff still failed to make a computation of their
share in said demand letters.

12) On June 16, 2021 Plaintiff filed a complaint with the

barangay concerned against herein Defendants. On June 18,
2021 the parties talked in the barangay, where Defendants
raised the issue of the high electricity charges by Plaintiff
against them;

13) On June 19, 2021 at around 4PM, Plaintiff cut off the
water and electricity supplies for Defendants’ leased
space. This illegal acts of cutting off the electricity and
water supply to the leased space of Defedants was even
ADMITTED by Plaintiff in Item No. 19 of her Complaint.

Attached as Exhibits “3”, “3-a” until “3-e” are pictures taken

by Defendants showing their electricity and water supplies to
have been cut off.

14) Immediately after arriving in the leased space and

discovering that the utility supplies were cut off, herein
Defendants, in order to have electricity and water in their
bakery shop, purchased batteries, electrical wirings, bulbs and
battery chargers.

5
 Attached as Exhibits “4”, “4-a” until “4-j” are receipts for the
purchase of said items, as well as pictures taken by Defendants
showing the cut off electricity and Defendants’ employee
fetching water for the bakery shop.

15) Defendants went to the barangay to report the incident,

and have it blottered with the authorities. Defendants filed a
barangay complaint against herein Plaintiff, but no amicable
settlement ensued. Plaintiff likewise ignored the barangay
authorities when they went to Plaintiff’s house to restore the
supply.

Attached as Exhibit “5”, is a copy of the Katibayan Upang

Makadulog sa Hukuman issued by the concerned barangay in
favor of Defendants.

16) Defendants herein thereafter personally filed with the

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor a criminal complaint for
grave coercion, defamation and/or unjust vexation. However,
since they were not able to attach proofs of their allegations
therein, the Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of
probable cause as Defendants herein failed to attach proofs of
their claims/allegations. It is submitted that such can be
subsequently refiled.

Attached as Exhibit “6” is a copy of the Prosecutor’s

Resolution dated March 30,2022.

17) On May 7, 2022, Defendants received the Summons with

the Complaint in this case, requiring them to file their Answer
within thirty (30) days from receipt.

18) Defendants were constrained to engage the services of

undersigned counsel to protect their rights, claims and interests
for a fee.

Attached as Exhibit “7” is a copy of the Retainer Agreement

by and between Defendants and undersigned counsel.

19) On June 6, 2022, Defendants timely filed their Answer

with Counterclaims with Application for TRO and/or Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction (PMI).

20) On June 7, 2022, this Court conducted a herein on

Defendants’ application for TRO/PMI, and subsequently
GRANTED it, subject to the posting of a P20,000.00 bond. On
that same day, Defendants posted the requisite bond and the
writ was issued.

6
 21) After fifteen (15) days, Plaintiff personally went to the
bakery shop/leased space and personally turned on the circuit
breaker. Immediately thereafter, the electricity in Defendants’
bakery shop was restored. This was witnessed by the
employee of Defendants herein.

Attached as Exhibit “11” is the sworn Affidavit of witness Mary

Grace L. Lisama to prove that she personally witnessed the
Plaintiff went to the bakery shop, asked permission to enter in
order to restore the electricity in the bakery shop, and toggled
the circuit breaker, and the electricity in the shop was
immediately restored.

22) Hence, this Answer is timely filed.

ISSUES

I.
W/N THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE EVICTED FROM THE
SUBJECT PREMISES FOR NONO-PAYMENT OF MONTHLY
RENTALSAS WELL AS THEIR SHARE OF THE ELECTRIC BILL

II.

W/N ON WHO BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ENTITLED TO THE

MATERIAL POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT LEASED SPACE.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR

COUNTERCLAIMS AND DAMAGES.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

I. Defendants, as lessees, have

the right to the peaceful
occupation of the leased space
that they are utilizing as bakery
shop/store, as they have a ten
(10) years contract commencing
in August 2018 until August
2028; Hence, they are protected
under the law and could not be
ousted therefrom, even by
Plaintiff, through force and
intimidation.

7
23) The first two (2) issues shall be discussed jointly as there are
inter-related.

24) One who comes to Court must come with clean hands.

25) There can be no denying that the law also protects any
possessor of real estate despite the fact that they are not
registered owners thereof.

26) The Article 536 and 539 of the Civil Code categorically states
that a possessor has to be respected in his/her possession, and
one cannot acquire possession through force or intimidation, in
these words:

“Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through

force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who
objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a
right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke
the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to
deliver the thing. (441a)

xxx

CHAPTER 3
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION

Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his

possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be
protected in or restored to said possession by the means
established by the laws and the Rules of Court. xxx”

27) In the instant case, Plaintiffs did not come to Court with clean
hands.

28) Defendants, as lessees of the leased space, have been in

peaceful possession thereof since August 2018. Until the fateful
day sometime in April 2021, when they questioned the
exorbitant imposition by Plaintiff of their share (P2,692.00) in
the payment of the Meralco bill for February-March 2021.

29) It must be pointed out that Defendants requested for Plaintiff to

itemize or account or make a computation as to how Plaintiff
was able to come up with Defendant’s share in the Meralco bill
for February-March 2021. But Plaintiff refused to make a
computation thereof.

30) Then Plaintiff refused to accept Defendants’ monthly rentals

starting in April 2021. These can be proved by the several text
messages between Plaintiff and Defendant Joey De Castro
wherein Plaintiff refused to accept and even told Defendants as
“illegal occupants!”

8
 Attached as Exhibits “10”, “10-a”, in series, are the text
conversations between Plaintiff and Defendant Castro showing
that Plaintiff refused to accept the monthly rentals of Defendant,
as well as declaring Defendants as illegal occupants.
31) Here is a summary of the several text conversations between
Plaintiff (Cynthi in the scree printout) and Defendant Joey De
Castro:

Anne Date and Cynthi Defendant

x Time (Plaintiff) Joey
“10” 4/16/21, “I received
7:03:39PM 10k for March
elec to be
followed ty”
“10-a” 4/26/21, “Pk iwan sa
10:21:31am, tindahan un
payment sa
ilaw feb 24-
march 24 =
2,692 plse
reply ty”
“10-b” 4/26/21, “ 1 month lng
10:23:16 yan ba yan?”
“10-C” 4/26/21, “oo, tumaas
10:31:51 metro”
“10-d” 4/26/21, “Coco marte
10:31:37AM mahigit 3k bill”
10-e 4/26/21 “Pakiiwan ang
bill para review
ko nman.
Malaman ko
kung ano
tumaas
electric rates b
o
consumption…
kc ung sac cat
na pwesto ko
ehhh 1700 lng
10-f 4/29/21 “Gud am
iniwan ko un
recibo ng ilaw
sa store. Ma
review mo uli
pakiiwan nila
un bayad. Ty”
10-g 4/30/21, “Iniwan ko

9
 9:29:18 yung Meralco
bill sa
tindahan”
10-h 5/1/21, “Kung hindi na
7:54:59 kayo kumikita
at talo pa kau
sa overhead
gamitin nyo
na un dep at
dkn kau
sisingilin sa
may 14. ty
10-i 5/1/21, “Nililiwanag ko
8:14:04AM lng po sa inyo
ang bayarin sa
merlaco. Dahil
nagbayad ako
nung jan-febna
ang amount is
2,061… at ung
bill na feb-
march na
amounting of
4,677.22 yan
ang nililiwanag
ko… dahil
kasama pa
dnung
previous
month sa
computation
mo na total of
6,822. Eh
bayad na ako
…”
10-j 5/1/21, “kasama pa dn
8:14/04AM ung previous
month sa
computation
mo na total of
6,822. Eh
bayad na ako
dun.”
10-k 5/1/21, “8k an total bill
9:27aM awas dun un
prev 2k+ na
binayaran.
Nakakahiya
na kasi sa

10
 inyo na ang
laki ng bill
ninyo sa ilaw
comparing sa
iba. Wag mon
a bayaran ang
ilaw ng feb-
march at
march to April
offset kn lan
sa dep mo.
Ty”
10-L 5/16/21, “Mamaya ko
11:12:09AM iaabot ang
renta mga
5pm”
10-m 5/18/21, “ Mag
5:05:53pm continue kpb””

10- N 5/18/21, “If continue pa

9:38:50 pm pk up date
rent pk iwan
sa tindahan
un payment
sa ilaw feb 24-
march 24 =
2,692 + rent
ng April and
may plse reply
ty.”
10-o 5/18/21, “wala naman
akong sinabi
nan de na ako
tutuloy…nag-
advised pa
nga ako last
Sunday
regarding rent
payment pero
wala k naming
response”
10-p 5/18/21 “Lagi mo kc
sinasabi sa
akin na
mahina at
wala kang
kinikita.
Nahihiya at
naaawa na

11
 din ako sayo.
Kaya
nagdecide na
ako na if dkn
kumukita,
bithawan mon
a. ty”
10-q 5/18/21 “Till now kc
nde pa clear
ang ilaw…
pls check
again… ung
rent paki
ready ung
resibo bukas
at sana nde
ka bc para
makausap ka
in person
para maiayos
yung issue
sa ilaw.”
10-r 5/18/21, “indi kn din
11:09-49pm tatangapin
yn payment
mo. Un ilaw
feb-march;
march-april;
April to may.
Pinakita kn
sau resibo.”
10-s 5/20/21, “Usap tyo in
1:10:45pm pero mas
maliwanag”
10-t 5/20/21, “So kelan tyo
3:16:16 usap ng
personal”
10-u 5/20/21, “Tingnan ko if
4:45:33pm mk uwi ako
naun before
6pm”
10-v 5/20/21, “Bukas after
5:07:52pm work mo
pwede ka…
maghihintay
ako hanggang
gabi.”
10-w 6/15/21, “Mag pull

12
 12:29:02pm out na kayo
sa pwesto 15
na ngayon
wala kn
deposit at
adv. Kc if dp
kayo mag
out ang brgy
ang
maglalabas
ng mga
gamit nyo.”
10-x 6/15/21, “2 buwan na
12:42:19 nga itong
payment na
nakatago
para jan kaso
nde mo
tinatanggap.”
10-y 6/15/21, “Bakit ang
12:34:01pm bill sa
meralco na
need to settle
na uwe sa
pull out…
nagbabayad
ako nde mo
tinatanggap.”
10-z 6/15/21, “YOU NEED
5:57:22pm TO MOVED
OUT”
10- 6/16/21, “MOVED
AA 9:10:24 OUT,
ILLEGAL
OCCUPANC
Y KN.”
10- 6/16/21, “MOVED
BB 9:42:54 OUT”

32) These text conversations will readily show that their issue
started from Plaintiff’s imposition of the exorbitant share of
Defendants in the Meralco bill for Feb-March 2021. Then, when
Plaintiff could not show a reasonable computation of the
computations, she held a grudge with Defendants. Then, the
Meralco issue escalated into Plaintiff refusing to accept the
rental payment of Defendants despite tender made to her, and

13
 eventually, threatening the latter that if they do not move out
from the leased space, the barangay will force them out.

33) Thus, it is readily apparent and a fact that it was not the
refusal by the Defendants to pay the monthly rentals for
their leased space, but Plaintiff’s refusal to accept the
payment, as can be gleaned from their text conversations.

34) Even when Plaintiff demanded for Defendants to pay and

vacate the lease space, said demand has no leg to stand on
since Plaintiff refused and still refuses to make a computation
on how Plaintiff she arrived at the P2,692.00 share of
Defendants in the February-March 2021 Meralco bill of
P4,677.22.

35) Further, Plaintiff’s refusal to make a computation of the shares

of the three lessees (including her daughter on the upper floor)
smacks of bad faith. It would seem that Plaintiff is charging
Defendants for the electricity and water consumption of
Plaintiff’s daughter on the upper floor to herein Defendants, that
is why Plaintiff could not show any reasonable computation of
each share of the three lessees, including Plaintiff’s daughter.

36) As manifested earlier, Defendants are ready, willing and

able to tender as they are now tendering before this
Honorable Court their uncollected monthly rentals for their
leased space for a total of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED SIXTY
THOUSAND (P160,000.00) for sixteen (16) months starting
on March 2021.

37) Defendants are likewise ready willing and able to deposit to this
Court their reasonable water and electricity consumption share
every month once Plaintff can make a computation of the share
of all occupants of the space which are sharing the same
meter.

III.Defendants, are entitled to

their counterclaims and
damages sought for the illegal
act of Plaintiff in cutting off
the electricity and water
supply to the leased space,
and for the unfounded filing of
this baseless complaint.

38) As the cutting off if the electricity and water supplies of

Defendants in their leased space is illegal and without their
consent, they are entitled to actual damages for the cost of the
electricity items that Defendants purchased from the store as
evidenced by the receipts and pictures. Defendants are likewise

14
 entitled to moral and exemplary damages for the wanton
disregard by Plaintiff of the legal process, thereby causing
undue injury, sleepless nights and lost income.

39) Defendants are, further, entitled to attorney’s fees and costs of

suit as they were constrained to seek the services of counsel to
protect their rights and interests in the amount as stated in the
Retainer Agreement.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that a Decision be RENDERED:

(b) T
o DISMISS this instant complaint for lack of cause of
action, and/or lack of factual and legal bases;

(c) For Plaintiffs to pay the Defendants by way of actual

and compensatory damages and attorney’s fees in the
amount of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND (P250,000.00);

(d) F
or Plaintiff to pay Defendants by way of moral and
exemplary damages in the amount of PESOS: FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php400,000.00);

(e) To pay the cost of suit.

Others reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Gen. Trias City, Cavite. 4 July 2022.

C.G.GONZALES, JR. & ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Defendants
139 J. Luna Street, Bagumbayan, Gen. Trias, Cavite
Tel No.: (046)-489-0275

By:

15
 CESARIO G. GONZALES, JR.
IBP Roll No. 56976
IBP Lifetime Member No. 012897 (6-26-2014)
PTR NO. CAV5502768; 1-03-22; Cavite
MCLE VII Compliance No. 0008863– (02-11-22)
CP: 0927-784-6177
E-mail: czarlaw@gmail.com
Copy furnished:

ATTY. EVELYN R. DOMINGUEZ

Counsel for Plaintiff
Civic Center Compound, Palico IV
Imus City, Cavite

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Gen. Trias City Hall
City of Gen. Trias, Cavite
 

  EXPLANATION

The foregoing Position Paper (for Defendants) is being served by LBC

courier/Registered Mail due to distance. Please disregard if served personally.

                                                     
Cesario G. Gonzales Jr.

16