Republic of the Philippines

Third Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
City of Malolos, Bulacan

SPS. RODOLFO AND AURORA

MANALILI,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. 347 – M -

-versus- 2018
For: Recovery of Possession
and Ownership

MILAGROS REYES, and all

other persons in actual
occupation of the property
under her control and
supervision,
Defendant/s.

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
(For Plaintiffs)

Plaintiffs, by counsel, unto the Honorable Court,

respectfully submit the foregoing brief conformably to A.M. 19-
10-20-SC that took effect on May 1, 2020, as follows:

CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND

THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR

This is a complaint for recovery of possession of a rightful

owner of property (portion of Lot 10) from an illegal possessor.
Plaintiffs’ have already bought by the subject property from its
registered deceased Jose Flores long time ago. Despite
knowledge and conniving act that was done by the defendant
Milagros Reyes, she still have the audacity to retained the
possession of the subject property depriving the rightful owner
of their right of possession and enjoyment of the property they
bought from their hard earned money.

Records of this case will reveal that defendant Milagros

Reyes despite unlawfully misappropriating the money given by

Page | 1
the plaintiffs for the payment of the subject property fearlessly
retained possession of the property belong to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs being deprived of the lawful possession of the

property for a long period prays for the defendant to surrender
and vacate the subject property. Accordingly, plaintiffs also
prays for the payment of moral damages, exemplary damages,
attorney’s fee in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,
000.00), respectively, and the cost of the suit.

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS

Plaintiffs did not admit any of the allegations in the

defendant Milagros Reyes’ answer.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

1) Plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of Two Hundred

Two Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (Php202, 800.00)
bought the portion of Lot 10 covered by Psd – 01 – 03 –
032162 with an area of 534 square meters from deceased
Jose Flores.

2) The sale happened prior to the death of Jose Flores by

virtue of which the parties executed a handwritten Deed
of Sale.

3) Defendant offered to the plaintiffs that the sale will

include her house erected in the subject land if the
purchase price will be changed to Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).

4) Plaintiffs and defendant agreed to the said proposal,

hence, plaintiff ensued in paying the house and lot.

5) Plaintiffs and defendant agreed that payment will be

given to defendant and the defendant will remit the same
to the owner of the property Jose Flores.

6) Plaintiff thru Virginia Martin gave the initial payment of

One Hundred Forty Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty
Five Pesos (Php140, 725.00).

7) Accordingly, plaintiffs gave once more to the defendant

Milagros Reyes an amount of Seventy Six Thousand Nine

Page | 2
 Hundred Thirty Eight Pesos (Php76,938.00) for the
payment of house and lot.

8) Hence, the total amount paid by the plaintiffs to the

defendant Milagros Reyes for the house and lot and to be
remitted to Jose Flores is Two Hundred Seventeen
Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Three Pesos (Php217,
663.00).

9) Defendant purposely did not remit the aforementioned

amount to Jose Flores.

10) Plaintiffs due to defendant’s conniving act decided to

directly transacted to Jose Flores.

11) Plaintiffs pay to Jose Flores an amount of Two Hundred

Two Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (Php202, 800.00)
hence plaintiffs and Jose Flores executed a handwritten
Deed of Sale.

12) Plaintiffs after payment made to Jose Flores demanded

the defendant to vacate the subject property.

13) Defendant refused to vacate the same.

14) Plaintiffs filed an ejectment case against the defendant

for its refusal to vacate the subject property.

15) The amount of Two Hundred Seventeen Thousand Six

Hundred Sixty Three Pesos (Php217, 663.00) was never
returned by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

16) Even the heirs of the deceased Jose Flores acknowledge

that the subject property was already bought by the
herein plaintiffs.

THE MAIN FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES

TO BE TRIED/RESOLVED

Whether the plaintiffs are have the right of possession over

the portion of Lot 10 covered by PSD – 01-03 – 032162 with an
area of 534 square meters?

Whether or not the defendant has a right to retained

possession of the subject lot?

Page | 3
 Whether the defendant should have vacated and
surrender the possession of the subject property?

THE PROPRIETY OF REFERRAL OF FACTUAL

ISSUES TO COMMISSIONERS

The defendant is willing to refer the factual issues to

commissioners.

THE DOCUMENTS OR OTHER OBJECT EVIDENCE TO BE

MARKED, STATING THE PURPOSE THEREOF

EXHIBIT DOCUMENT PURPOSE

Voter’s ID of To prove plaintiff’s
“A” Rodolfo Manalili. identity of the
plaintiff.

Technical To prove that the

“B” Description of technical
subject property description of the
under the name of subject property.
plaintiff Rodolfo
Manalili. To prove that
plaintiffs right and
ownership over the
subject property.

“B -1” Approved To prove the

Subdivision Plan technical
(PSD – 01 – 03 – description of the
032162) subject property.

To prove that the

subject property is
a residential land.

“C” Certification issued To prove that the

by the Department property of Jose
of Agrarian Reform Flores was not
covered by the
agrarian reform
program of the
government.

Page | 4
 To prove that the
subject property if
a residential land,
hence, not subject
to the program of
Department of
Agrarian Reform.

Handwritten Deed To prove that

“D” of Absolute Sale/ plaintiffs already
Declaration of Sale paid the purchase
executed by Jose price for the
Flores. subject property.
To prove that prior
to the death of
Jose Flores, he
executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale in
favor of the
plaintiffs.

To prove that
plaintiffs are the
owner of the
subject property.

To prove that
plaintiffs being the
owner has the
right to possess
and enjoy the use
of the subject
property.

To prove that
plaintiffs paid Jose
Flores and amount
of Php202,800.00
for the purchase of
Lot 10, the subject
property.

Proof of receipts of To prove that

“E” defendant Milagros defendant has a
(series) Reyes. knowledge of the
sale between Jose
Flores and the
Page | 5
 plaintiffs.

To prove that
defendant
participated in the
sale of the subject
property.

To prove that
defendant received
money from the
plaintiffs as
payment for the
subject property.

“F” Demand Letter to To prove that

Defendant despite knowledge
Milagros Reyes that the subject
property was sold
to the plaintiffs
defendant refused
and continuously
refused to vacate
the subject
property.

“G” Voter’s ID of To prove her

Theresa E. Flores identity.

“H” Sinumpaang To prove that the

Salaysay of heirs of the
Theresa E. Flores deceased Jose
Flores acknowledge
that the plaintiffs
are the lawful
buyer of the
subject property.

THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES AND THE SUMMARY OF

THEIR RESPECTIVE TESTIMONIES

1. RODOLFO MANALILI – Plaintiff will testify on the fact

that they bought the portion of Lot 10 (PSD – 01 – 03 –
032162) with an area of 534 square meters from

Page | 6
 deceased Jose Flores and that, he has the right to
possess and occupy the property. Plaintiff will also testify
that the aforementioned property is not covered by PD
27, as such a certification as to the said incident was
issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform. In
addition, plaintiff will testify defendant offered to the
plaintiffs that the sale will include her house erected in
the subject land if the purchase price will be changed to
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00), hence,
the plaintiffs agreed. Likewise, plaintiffs will testify that
plaintiffs and defendant agreed to the said proposal,
hence, plaintiff ensued in paying the house and lot.
Plaintiffs and defendant thereafter agreed that payment
will be given to defendant and the defendant will remit
the same to the owner of the property Jose Flores.
Plaintiff will also testify that, thru Virginia Martin,
plaintiffs gave the initial payment of One Hundred Forty
Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Five Pesos (Php140,
725.00) and an amount of Seventy Six Thousand Nine
Hundred Thirty Eight Pesos (Php76,938.00) was
succeedingly given to the defendant, hence, the total
amount of Two Hundred Seventeen Thousand Six
Hundred Sixty Three Pesos (Php217, 663.00) was given
to the defendant.

Along with the aforementioned, plaintiff will also testify

that defendant purposely did not remit the
aforementioned amount to Jose Flores and due to
defendant’s conniving act directly plaintiffs decided
transacted to Jose Flores. Further, plaintiff will testify
that they already paid an amount of Two Hundred Two
Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (Php202, 800.00) to Jose
Flores, hence, a handwritten Deed of Sale was executed.
Additionally, Plaintiffs after payment made to Jose Flores
demanded the defendant to vacate the subject property,
but the defendant refused to vacate the same thereby
plaintiffs are constrained to file an ejectment case against
the defendant. Moreover, the amount of Two Hundred
Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Three Pesos
(Php217, 663.00) was never returned by the defendant to
the plaintiffs. Lastly, plaintiff will testify that even the
heirs of the deceased Jose Flores acknowledge that the
subject property was already bought by the herein
plaintiffs.

2. THERESA E. FLORES – Witness Theresa e. Flores will

testify to the circumstances pertaining to the sale
Page | 7
 between Jose Flores and plaintiffs. She will also testify as
to the right, ownership, and claim of the plaintiffs in Lot
10 (PSD – 01 – 03 – 032162) with an area of 534 square
meters.

3. JOMA SEPTIE MANALILI – Witness Manalili will support

and corroborate the testimony of Rodolfo Manalili and
Theresa E. Flores. He will also testify as to the refusal of
the defendant to vacate the subject property.

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF POINTS OF LAW AND

CITATION OF AUTHORITIES

The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to

exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (Article 429 of
the New Civil Code)

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the

right of possession which should be brought in the proper
regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more
than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine
the better right of possession of realty independently of title.
(Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco, represented by their attorney-in-fact,
Teodoro K. Yusingco, petitioners, vs. Amelita Busilak, Cosca
Navarro, Flavia Curayag and Lixberto Castro, respondents, GR
No. 210504, January 24, 2018).

It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of

proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence (Luxuria
Homes, Inc. vs Court of Appeals, G.R. no. 125986, January 28,
1999, 302 SCRA 315, 325; Coronel vs Court of Appeals, G.R.
no. 103577, October 7, 1996, 263 SCRA 15, 35). In civil cases,
the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no
evidence is given on either side (Pacific Banking Corporation
Employees Organization vs Court of Appeals GR no. 109373,
March 27, 1998, 288 SCRA 197, 206). The parties must rely on
the on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the
weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. Needless to
say, the extent of the relief that may be granted can only be so
much as has been alleged and proved with preponderant
evidence required under Section 1 of Rule 133 (Rafaela
Almeda, et al, vs. Heirs of Ponciano Almeda, et al, GR no.
194189, September 14, 2017). The concept of preponderance
Page | 8
of evidence refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or
more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it: at
bottom, it means probability of truth (Jison vs Court of
Appeals, 350 Phil 138 (1998).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

City of Malolos, Bulacan, October 16, 2020.

ATTY. AL JOSEPH T. JAVIER

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Provincial Legal Office, 2nd floor,
Provincial Capitol Building, Malolos City, Bulacan
Attorneys Roll No. 71550
IBP No. 100712// 01-03-2020/ Bulacan
PTR No. 4836639/ 06 -18 – 2020/Bulacan
TIN No. 405-714-214
Cellphone No. 0995 – 186 - 1343
Email Address: attyaljosephjavier@gmail.com

ATTY. KRISTAL N. MANGAHAS

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
0046 San Isidro, Hagonoy, Bulacan
Attorneys Roll No. 69000
IBP No. 100711/January 03, 2020/ Bulacan Chapter
PTR No. 2215067/01 – 03 – 2020/ Paranaque City
MCLE Compliance No. VI – 0009040/ 06 June 2018
Tin No. 501 – 859 – 279 – 000
Cell Phone No: 0917 – 6446 – 629
Email address: mangahaskristal@gmail.com

Page | 9
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AND EXPLANATION

I, ROBERT ADRIAN M. DE RUEDA, of legal age, Filipino, with

office address at Provincial Legal Office, Capitol Building, Capitol
Compound, Guinhawa, City of Malolos, Bulacan, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. That on October 16, 2020, I served the copy of the Pre – Trial Brief,
via registered mail in accordance with Sections 7 & 15 Rule 13 of
the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure , to:

ATTY. JAIME P. BATALLA

Counsel for the defendant
# 3 James St., Jordan Parkhomes
Commenwealth, Quezon City.

by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, address to

the parties and counsel in their address of record with postage fully pre –
paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (10) days if undelivered, as evidenced by the registry
receipt attached/clipped/stapled in page ___ of the foregoing Pre – Trial
Brief.

2. The Pre – Trial Brief was served upon the parties via registered
mail because of the distance between the parties, and the lack of
sufficient transportation due to Covid – 19 pandemic.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ________

day of October 2020 in _______________, Philippines.

ROBERT ADRIAN M. DE RUEDA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, a notary public in

and for Malolos City, Bulacan this 16th day of october 2020. Affiant
personally came and appeared with Driver’s License ID No. CO7-14-09900
which will expire on March 19, 2025 bearing her photograph and signature
as proof of her identity.

Doc. No._____;
Page No._____;
Book No._____;

Page | 10
Series of 2020.

Page | 11