REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES ANTIPOLO CITY

SAMAHAN NG MGA TAGA SITIO EAST KAMIAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, -versusCIVIL CASE NO. 075-08 For: Recovery of Possession with damages

SPOUSES WARREN AND OFELIA NOVAL, NORMA CABANGON, MA. LUISA GUILLERMO, RAFAEL SIBUYO, SPOUSES LEGUNDINA ALIBIN., Defendants, x--------------------------------------------------x POSITION PAPER

Defendants, through counsel, unto this Honourable Court, respectfully submit to dismiss the case for the following reasons:

The case filed by the plaintiff is not within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.

1. The nature of the case is for recovery of possession. In this jurisdiction, the three kinds of actions for the recovery of possession of real property are: a. Accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding which may be either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), which is a summary action for recovery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior court; b. Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession, which should be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and

allegedly owned by herein plaintiff . the herein complaint for ejectment filed by herein plaintiff against herein defendants is filed way out of time and therefore not within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Clearly. Accion reinvindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion. The contested lots had been in possession by defendants and others similarly situated since 1989 in the concept of an owner or claimant and therefore even prior to the issuance of the TCT No. 3.R. 2007 . Clearly.c. The complaint was filed only in July 29. As stated. 324182. 2008. No. 169793 September 15 2006 Bejar vs Caluag G. dated March 12. 5. The complaint should have been filed before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City for recovery of possession and not before this Honorable Court who has no jurisdiction over the disposition of real property lasting for more than ten (10) years. an ejectment proceeding should be filed with the proper inferior court while Accion publiciana and Accion reinvindicatoria should be filed with the Regional Trial Court. which is an action for the recovery of ownership which must be brought in the proper Regional Trial Court1 2. 1 2 Encarnacion vs Amigo G. Actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry must be filed within one year from the date possession is lost. 1992. The herein complaint is a case for recovery of possession filed with the Municipal Trial Court.R No.2 4. the case filed by the plaintiff is an ejectment proceeding. 171277 February 15.

6.Transfer Certificate of Title No. Transfer Certificate of Title No. The acquisition of the same lots was by virtue of an executive pronouncement declaring the same as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and subsequently awarded to defendant and other bonafide tenants therein. when those were surveyed. this complaint is premature as the respective conflicting. but not the one occupied by the defendants and other adjoining lot claimants. Thus. 9. 10. 324182 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City in favor of plaintiff covers an entirely different. discrepancy occurs as to its exact boundaries as there were some lots that had already been titled and some still unregistered. defendants were surprised to learn that plaintiff is claiming lots by virtue of the alleged purchase and/or acquisition from the National Housing Authority and thereafter demanded defendants to vacate the same. Because of all these confusions. However. 8. Memorandum Order No. The Department of Justice has not yet submitted no completed its investigation on the over-lapping of titles. 324182 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City in favor of plaintiff covers an entirely different lot from that of the defendants. claims on the subject lot and other covered by presidential proclamation has not been resolved. 324182 and therefore. 7. . 72 was issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo directing the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation regarding the conflicting claims of owners/possessors/claimants to the lots covered by said TCT No.

13. the complaint must contain two mandatory allegations: (1) prior physical possession of the property by the plaintiff. and (2) deprivation of said possession by another by means of force.11. 2005. 142308. Alejo. November 15. At no point can it be said that defendant’s possession of the disputed portion ceased to be legal and became an unlawful withholding. This latter requirement implies that the possession of the disputed property by the intruder has been unlawful from the very start. Sps.3 14. Plaintiff cannot claim that the possession of the defendants is illegal. Resultantly. PRAYER 3 Bañes v. they cannot be declared as an illegal occupant or settler of a portion of the 140 square meters lots covered by TCT No. Cordova. No. as it is filed in the municipal trial court.R. Tirona v. the nature of the complaint is that of an ejectment case. no ejectment or unlawful detainer suit can prosper against the defendants. To make out a suit for illegal detainer or forcible entry. As stated. 475 SCRA 13. G. Lutheran Church in the Philippines. The possession of the defendant of the disputed property was not pursuant to any express or implied contract neither of the plaintiff nor its assignor National Housing Authority. As defendants legally owned and possessed the lot where their house is constructed. The case must necessarily fail for lack of cause of action 12. 34. threat. 324182. 464 SCRA 385 (2005). strategy or stealth. 367 SCRA 17 (2001). . intimidation. the defendant’s right of possession over the disputed portion is not subject to expiration or termination. Hence. citing David v.

733987 1-07-08 Manila IV PTR NO. 2010 PURISIMA OFFICE AND PURISIMA LAW Block 42 Lot 17 justice Fernandez Street. Other reliefs just and equitable are equally prayed for. PURISIMA III IBP NO.Wherefore. Manila. Poblacion Muntinlupa City By: ANGEL R. 33567 . premises considered. May 19. 6247198 1-07-08 Manila ROLL NO. it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered dismissing the complaint for utter lack of legal and factual basis and rendering judgment on the counterclaim against the plaintiff. Katarungan Village.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful