REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 15, Manila
For Branch 62
City of Makati

RODOLFO V. PUNO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 17-00841CV

- versus -

VICTORIA F. GARCIA and

all other persons claiming
rights under her,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT
(to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings dated 09 May 2017)

The Defendant, VICTORIA F. GARCIA, through its undersigned counsel

and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states that:

1. On May 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings and which the Defendant prayed to be answered by filing a

Comment within ten (10) days from said date.

I. THE COMPLAINT FAILED

TO SUFFICIENTLY AVER
THE FACTS CONSTITUTIVE
OF FORCIBLE ENTRY AND/OR
UNLAWFUL DETAINER

2. The Plaintiff’s Complaint dated Feb. 17, 2017, failed to sufficiently

establish the elements of Forcible Entry or the elements of
Unlawful Detainer.

The Supreme Court has laid the elements of Forcible Entry in the
case of Nenita Quality Foods Corporation vs. Crisostomo
Galabao, et. al.1
1
G.R. No. 174191               January 30, 2013
NENITA QUALITY FOODS CORPORATION, Petitioner, 
vs.
 “Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides when an

action for forcible entry, and unlawful detainer, is proper:

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

by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a

lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the

possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld

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 costs.

Under this provision, for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the

plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) prior physical possession

of the property; and (2) unlawful deprivation of it by the

defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat or

stealth.”

Further, in one of the cases decided by the Supreme Court, it

stated, to wit:

CRISOSTOMO GALABO, ADELAIDA GALABO, and ZENAIDA GALABO-ALMACBAR, Respondents.

Page 2 of 7
 “xxx the Court held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause

of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:

(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by

contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by

plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of

possession;

(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the

property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and

(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate

the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

xxx”2

3. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements, the Plaintiff failed to

sufficiently aver facts constitutive of Forcible Entry as it did not

emphasize that entry by Defendant of the subject property was

committed through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.

The Complaint also failed to state the cause of action for

Unlawful Detainer as there is no unlawful withholding of

possession or deprivation of possession by Defendant for the

latter was holding the property in the concept of a co-owner.

II. The Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings is improper

2
G.R. No. 183822               January 18, 2012
RUBEN C. CORPUZ, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Wenifreda C. Agullana, Petitioner, 
vs.
Sps. HILARION AGUSTIN and JUSTA AGUSTIN, Respondents.

Page 3 of 7
when the Answer raised
affirmative defenses and
made specific denials

4. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Plaintiff is

improper when the Answer filed by the Defendant made specific denials

of the material averments in the Complaint and raised affirmative

defenses. In this case the Answer dated March 24, 2017 raised the

affirmative defense that: (1) nowhere in the Complaint were the

essential requisites for a Forcible Entry case has been established; (2)

absence of compromise between members of the same family before

instituting suit; (3) the Defendant possessed the property in the

concept of a co-owner under Article 147 of the Family Code and has

jointly contributed to the acquisition thereof; and (4) damages claimed

by the Plaintiff lack factual, legal and equitable justification for what

may be recovered only is the fair rental value or reasonable

compensation for the use and occupation of the property.

5. To elaborate further, the Supreme Court held in the case of Edward

Roco Tan vs. Benigno dela Vega, et. al., that:

“Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, states:

SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an answer fails

to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of

the adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party,

direct judgment on such pleading. x x x.

Where a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, the essential

question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings. In

a proper case for judgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible

Page 4 of 7
 issue at all because of the failure of the defending party’s answer to

raise an issue. The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if

it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits

said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by

confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with

them at all. Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the

material averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative

defenses (allegations of new matter which, while admitting the

material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would

nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on

the pleadings would naturally be improper.”

6. Hence, it is rational to conclude that the Plaintiff’s Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings should be denied and the Complaint

dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant ICCS respectfully prays,

that the Order dated 04 February 2011 be RECALLED and SET ASIDE.

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

Respectfully submitted.

Makati for Malolos City, Bulacan, 16 March 2011.

Page 5 of 7
 AGCAOLI & ASSOCIATES
Counsel for the Defendant
INTEGRATED CREDIT & CORPORATE SERVICES
7th Floor, Citibank Center
8741 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City
email: mail@avaslaw.com
Tel Nos.: 892-4901-03

By:

JOSE LUIS V. AGCAOILI

Attorney’s Roll No. 35153
Lifetime IBP No. 03246; Makati Chapter
PTR No. 2686045; 01/18/11; Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. III-0017754; 07/01/10

THOMAS J.T. F. DE CASTRO

Attorney’s Roll No. 57068
IBP No. 839586; 12/08/10; Makati Chapter
PTR No. 2641725; 01/03/11; Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. III-0006366; 12/04/09

Copies Furnished By Registered Mail:

DULAY PAGUNSAN & TY LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Chinatrust Commercial Banking Corp.
Suite 1300 Strata 100 Building
F. Ortigas Road Jr., Ortigas Center
Pasig City

ATTY. HONORATO V. REYES, JR.

Counsel for the Plaintiff
3rd Flr. Makati Creekside Mall
Cor. Amorsolo & Herrera Sts.
Legaspi Village, Makati City

ATTY. EDUARDO J. MARINO, JR.

Counsel for Leslie Co
Room 302 Health Center Bldg.
University of Santo Tomas
España, Sampaloc, Manila

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

Meycauayan, Bulacan

MR. EDILBERTO BAUTISTA

219 Uracia Street
Page 6 of 7
Valenzuela City

VERALYN GUDOY RODERICK SANTOS

EVANGELINE RAMOS
ARNULFO MEJARES
1234 Solis St., Tondo, Manila

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing COMMENT is being served by registered mail due to lack of

manpower to effect personal service, time constraints and the distance between the
offices of the receipts and the undersigned.

THOMAS J.T. F. DE CASTRO

c:gpc/tfc/iccs/arambulo/comment/16Mar’11

Page 7 of 7