REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

COTABATO CITY
BRANCH 13

KRIS AQUINON, Civil Case No. 0001

JAMES YAP YAP, For: Unlawful Detainer
Plaintiffs,

-versus-

GRETCHEN BARRETTE married to

TONY BOY COJUANGCO,
Defendants.

x------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, the Defendant, through counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, respectfully submits this Position Paper and further aver the
following:

TIMELINESS OF FILING THIS POSITION PAPER

Defendant’s Counsel, Public Attorney’s Office Westeros received a copy of

the Preliminary Conference Order on February 28, 2019 ordering both
parties to submit position paper and affidavits relative to this case within 10
days Hence, this paper is filed within the reglementary period;

Page 1 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 PARTIES

1. Defendants, Sps. Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco are of legal

age, Filipino and presently residing at and lawful possessors of a
parcel of land with a total area of 10,238 square meters located at
Castlerock, Brgy. Winterfell, Westeros since 1997. They are being
represented by
2. Public Attorney’s Office, District with address at Hall of Justice,
Golden City Subdivision, Brgy. Winterfell, Westeros where they may
be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable
Court;
3. Plaintiff Kris Aquinon on the other hand is of legal age, married,
Filipino and presently residing at Essos, Castle Rock, Westeros. She
is represented by Atty. Tyrion Lannister of Lannister & Associates Law
Office with address at Castlerock, No. 23 Winterfell, Westeros, she
they maybe served with summons and other judicial processes of the
Honorable Court;

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT ANTECEDENT FACTS

AND PROCEEDINGS

1. As admitted by Plaintiff during the Preliminary Conference, Defendant

Spouses Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco are lawful possessors of
a lot with a total area of Ten Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-eight
(10,238) square meters located at Castlerock, Westeros.

2. They have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious and

adverse possession and occupation of the land since 1980 (even
before Plaintiff acquired the neighboring lot), after having come to the
said area and found that it was resided by the the Defendants. This
fact is demonstrated by the expressed transfer of rights by the
deceased, James Yapyap, issued by Barangay Chairman Tyrion
Lannister on July 1, 1983, a copy attached herein as Annex “A;”

Page 2 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 Affidavits of Witness executed by their neighbors Eowyn
Salilabangabas and Legolas Mamuntaring on January 13, 2019,
acknowledged before Atty Alianna Arnica Mambatao, a notary public
for the City of Westeros, copies of which are herein attached as
Annex “3” and “3-A.

3. Defendants have been applying for the registration of the said

property since 2012, thereby executing an Affidavit of Ownership
for the said purpose, dated January 24, 2019 and acknowledged by
Atty. Alianna Arnica Mambatao, a notary public for the Province of
Westeros. A copy of said Affidavit is herein attached as Annex 2.”

4. As admitted by Plaintiff, Defendants did not enter into previous

agreement with the Plaintiff, or any of her representatives with
respect to the lot subject of this case.

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO

LEGALLY EJECT THE DEFENDANTS AND ALL PERSONS
CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM FROM THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY;

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO HER

MONETARY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES;

III. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.

IV. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO ACTUAL,

MORAL AND EXEMPLARY COMPENSATION.

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS

Page 3 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
I. THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO RIGHT TO EJECT DEFENDANTS AND
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM FROM THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE SHE IS NOT THE LAWFUL
OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY;

The subject property being occupied by the Defendant is an entirely

different property and distinct from her alleged claim.

1. The technical description in the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)

(Annex “A” in the Complaint) of the lot purchased by Plaintiff pertains
only to a specific parcel of land which is adjacent to the subject land
being occupied by the Defendants.

The subject property being occupied by the Defendants does not

and has never formed part of the property allegedly registered by the
Plaintiff in her name.

1. Nowhere in the TCT presented by the Plaintiff in her complaint does it

state that the subject property being occupied by the Defendants
forms part of the property acquired by the Plaintiff and registered in
her name.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING OCCUPIED BY THE

DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN EASEMENT OF
THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE PLAINTIFF

The Transfer Certificate of Title presented by Plaintiff does not grant,

create or establish her right to an easement

1. The Plaintiff claimed in her complaint and during the Preliminary

Conference that the subject property being occupied by the
Defendants is an easement of the adjoining property she allegedly
acquired. Through counsel, Plaintiff cited the TCT (Annex A) as
her basis.

Page 4 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 2. The fact that Plaintiff’s TCT indicates that the lot she allegedly
purchased is “bounded on the NW along line 1-2 by easement”
does not establish her right to an easement especially if there is
no other source of such easement, legally or otherwise, other
than what is indicated in her TCT.

3. Indeed easements may be acquired by “title”. But a “Certificate of

Title” is not what is contemplated by law for the word “title” as a
mode of acquisition of easements. By “title” refers to the juridical
act which gives birth to the easement, such as law, donation,
contract and will of the testator (Manresa 624-625). In this case,
none of these juridical acts were alleged or proven by the Plaintiff
as source of her alleged right to an easement and basis of her
claim for the same.

4. Moreover, mere registration is not a mode of ownership. It

does not create a right where legally, there is none.

The Plaintiff does not have a legal right to demand compulsory

easement

1. An Easement of Right of Way is defined as the right granted by

law to the owner of an esate which is surrounded by other estates
belonging to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public
highway to demand that he be allowed a passageway throughout
such neigboring estates after payment of the proper indemnity.
(De Leon, 2011 ed. p.517)

2. The Civil Code of the Philippines ( Republic Act No. 386) states
that:
Section 3. – Easement of Right of Way
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real
right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is
surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons
and without adequate outlet to a public highway is
Page 5 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring
estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.

3. There are six (6) essential requisites for the establishment of

legal easements.
1) Claimant must be an owner of enclosed immovable or one
with a real right;
2) There must be no adequate outlet to a public highway or
road;
3) The right of way must be absolutely necessary;
4) The isolation must be not due to the claimant’s own acy;
5) The easement must be established at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate;
6) There must be payment of proper indemnity;

4. The first requisite is absent. It is readily apparent from Sketch

Plans issued by the DENR and that issued by the Office of the
Engineer of the City of Cabuyao (Annexes “5-A” and “6-A”
respectively), that the land allegedly purchased and registered by
the Plaintiff in her name is not an enclosed estate.

5. The second requisite is also absent. The Plaintiff’s Certificate of

Title itself categorically states on its face that it is bounded by Two
(2) roads “ALONG THE LINE 3-4 BY ROAD;” and “ALONG LINE
4-5 BY ROAD.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s property has adequate
access to a public highway or road;

6. For the reasons stated in the two previous paragraphs, the third
requisite is also absent.

By essence, easements are “demanded by necessity,

that is, to enable owners of isolated estates to make full
use of their properties, which lack access to public roads
has denied them.” (Costabella Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
193 SCRA 333 [1991]).

Page 6 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 Because Plaintiff’s property has adequate access to a road, it is
not an enclosed estate , there is no necessity for an easement.
Therefore, there is no right granted to the Plaintiff to demand an
easement from the adjoining properties.

Supporting Arguments

1. Granting without admitting that Plaintiff is entitled to an easement,

the law could not have contemplated an easement bigger in
area than that of the dominant estate itself.

Art. 651. The width of the easement of right of way shall be

that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant
estate, and may accordingly be changed from time to time.

It would be the height of absurdity if a land consisting of Three

Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight square meters(3,238 sq. m.),
or the entirety of the subject property being occupied by the
Defendant can be claimed by another property on a mere claim
for an easement.

2. Granting without admitting that there was a time that the previous
owner of the Plaintiff’s property had a need for an easement,
thereby justifying the annotation for one in the Certificate of Title
to be later on transferred in the name of the Plaintiff, there is
presently no longer a necessity for it. And it can and should be
extinguished.

Art. 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate

ceases to be neccessary because its owner has joined it
to another abutting on a public road, the owner of the
servient estate may demand that the easement be
extinguished, returning what he may have received by
way of indemnity. xxx

Page 7 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is
opened giving access to the isolated estate.

THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,

THEREFORE THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION
OVER THIS CASE.

1. Unlawful Detainer consists in the unlawful withholding by a

person from another, for not more than one (1) year, of the
possession of any land or building after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold such possession by virtue of a
contract, express or implied. (Torres vs. Ocampo, 80 Phil. 36).
The requisites for the suit of unlawful detainer are the following:

1. Initially, the possession of the property by the

defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff.

2. Eventually, the possession became illegal upon

the plaintiffs notice to the defendant of the
termination of the latters right of possession.

3. Thereafter, the defendant remained in

possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the latters enjoyment.

4. Within one year from the making of the last

demand on the defendant to vacate the property,
the plaintiff instituted the Complaint for
ejectment. (Macaslang vs Spouses Zamora,
G.R. No. 156375, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 92)

2. The first requisite is absent. The complaint alleges that the

Defendants’ possession of the subject property was merely by
tolerance of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff cannot be said to have
Page 8 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 merely “tolerated” the Defendants’ possession of the subject
property because the said property is not owned by the Plaintiff.

3. The Defendants had been occupants of the subject property

since 1980.
4. From the time Defendants started occupying the subject
property up to the present, the subject property had no owner
and was only declared as Alienable and Disposable Land by the
DENR in September 1991.

5. The second requisite is also absent. The Defendants’

possession of the subject property was never and did not
become illegal as Plaintiff alleged in her complaint.

6. Granting without admitting that the Plaintiff indeed has served

the Defendants with a Demand to Vacate, such demand does
not have a leg to stand on. The Plaintiff does not have a right
over the subject property, legal or otherwise. Again because the
subject property is not and has never been part of the property
allegedly acquired by and registered in the name of the Plaintiff.

II. PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

Considering that the Plaintiff is not the lawful owner of the

subject property being occupied by the Defendants; that neither can
such property be claimed by the Plaintiff as easement; and that
Plaintif has no cause of action for a case of Unlawful Detainer against
the Defendants, it follows therefore that Plaintiffs are not entitled to
payment of damages.

III. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

In fact, it is the Defendants who are entitled to claim damages

from the Plaintiff for constraining them to litigate.

Page 9 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, it is respectfully

prayed that this position paper be given due consideration in the resolution
of this case and that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendants by
DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit, and to award the defendants
damages in such amount as the court may deem reasonable.

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

Westeros, Winterfell, March 01, 2019.

ATTY. GABRIELLA MONTEZ

Counsel for the Defendants
Casterly Rock, Westeros
Roll No. 0000
PTR No. PGI 59680021/12-12-2012
IBP Receipt No. 9999/11-11-2011
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0022014
Valid from 11-11-2015 until 12-12-2019
MCLE Compliance No. V-009111
Valid from June 15, 2016 to June 17, 2019
E-mail Add: breakingfree_12@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION

We, GRETCHEN BARRETTE AND TONY BOY COJUANGCO, all

of legal age, Filipinos, married and bonafide residents of Castlerock,
Westeros , under oath, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. We are the defendants in the above-entitled Complaint;

2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Position Paper;

3. We have read the contents thereof and the facts as stated therein
are true and correct and based on authentic records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures

this 8th day of March, 2019 at Stormborn, Castlerock, Westeros.

Page 10 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer
 GRETCHEN BARRETTE TONY BOY COJUANGCO
Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8TH day of March,

2019 at Stormborn, Castlerock, Westeros. I hereby certify that I personally
examined the affiants and I am satisfied that they have read and
understood the contents of their Position Paper and they attested that the
same is a product of their own free will. Affiants have individually exhibited
to me their Identification Card bearing their picture and signature as
competent proof of their identity.

Doc No._____;
Page No.____;
Book No.____;
Series of 2015.

Copy furnished via registered mail:

ATTY. BRAN STARK

Counsel for the Plaintiff
#000 Castlerock, Westeros
Winterfell

EXPLANATION: A copy of the foregoing Position Paper was duly

furnished Atty. Bran Stark in his given address via registered mail pursuant
to Section 7, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court due to distance, time and
expense to effect personal service.

Page 11 of 11
Position Paper of Defendants Gretchen and Tony Boy Cojuangco
Civil Case No. 000 /Unlawful Detainer