Republic of the Philippines
Municipal Trial Court
Branch 1
City of Malolos
WOLVERINE
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 1234
- versus- FOR:UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
DOCTOR X
Defendant
x --------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
For the Defendant
COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits
and presents this position paper in the above-titled case and aver
that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a Complaint for Ejectment
against herein defendant.
On June 5, 2014, preliminary conference was held in the
presence of the plaintiff, defendant, and their respective counsels.
Accordingly, after preliminary conference, the Honorable Court
ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda ten days
(10) days from notice, otherwise, the case is deemed submitted for
decision.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The plaintiff owns a parcel of land located Barangay Longos,
Malolos City, Bulacan covered by TCT No. 7635. On January 1, 2010,
plaintiff leased the parcel of land to Defendant for five (5) years with a
monthly rental of P 10,000 for every month as stated in the contract of
lease (Exhibit 1), advance payments as security as well as refundable
deposit were likewise delivered in favour of plaintiff.
Defendant failed to pay the required rent for the months of
September, October and November 2013. For this Reason, plaintiff
demands that the Defendant vacate the property and pay the arrears.
Defendant then fully paid the arrears the following month
evidenced by receipt dated December 5 2013 (Exhibit 3). Rent for
December was also paid and fully acknowledged by plaintiff.
THE ISSUE
Whether or not the plaintiff has cause of action to eject the
defendant on the premises.
ARGUMENT
The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing the ejectment
case against the defendant.
DISCUSSION
It is necessary to emphasize that defendant leased the property
owned by plaintiff. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court deals with unlawful
detainer which provides:
“...a lessor, vendor, vendee, ot other person against whom
the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration of 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 year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper
MTC against the person or persons unlawfully withholding
or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming them, for the reconstitution of such possession,
together with damages and cost.”
In the case of Ocampo vs Tirona, April 6, 2005, unlawful detainer
cases are summary in nature. The elements to be proved and resolved
are the facts of lease and expiration or violation of its terms. The main
issue of unlawful detainer is possession de facto.
It is worthy to note that the facts on record fail to show proof that
plaintiff demanded the payment of the rentals when the obligation
matured. In the leading case of Cetus Development vs.Court of
Appeals the court stated:
Thus, for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two
requisites must concur, namely: (1) there must be failure to pay rent or
comply with the conditions of the lease and (2) there must be demand
both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in
Section 2, Rule 70, namely 15 days in case of lands and 5 days in
case of buildings. The first requisite refers to the existence of the
cause of action for unlawful detainer while the second refers to the
jurisdictional requirement of demand in order that said cause of action
may be pursued.
It is very clear that in the case at bar, no cause of action for ejectment
has accrued. There was no failure yet on the part of private
respondents to pay rents for three consecutive months. As the terms
of the individual verbal leases which were on a month-to-month basis
were not alleged and proved, the general rule on necessity of demand
applies, to wit: there is default in the fulfillment of an obligation when
the creditor demands payment at the maturity of the obligation or at
anytime thereafter. This is explicit in Article 1169, New Civil Code
which provides that "(t)hose obliged to deliver or to do something incur
in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands
from them the fulfillment of their obligation." Petitioner has not shown
that its case falls on any of the following exceptions where demand is
not required: (a) when the obligation or the law so declares; (b) when
from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it can be inferred
that time is of the essence of the contract; and (c) when demand
would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his
power to perform.
The Defendant however, even without the demand still made
tender and payment, which plaintiff accepted as evidenced by the
receipt (exhibit 3). The plaintiff further accepted payment of rent the
following month of January. Hence, when plaintiff’s counsel sent the
demand letter dated January 2, 2014 asking Defendant to vacate for
failure to pay rent was pre mature because there was no failure to
speak of as Defendant was updated in all his payments of rent.
Further, plaintiff avers that Defendant must vacate because
plaintiff now has need of property has no basis in law. Defendant
legally acquired possession over the property for five years
commencing from January 1, 2010 evidenced by the contract of lease
(Exhibit 1) this much is undisputed. There can be no unlawful detainer
case when it is the Defendant who is the lawful possessor of the
property.
CONCLUSION
With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the defendant,
through his counsel believes that the plaintiff has no cause of action in
filing the suit based on fictitious lease contract.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant respectfully
prays to the honorable court that judgment be rendered in his favor as
follows:
1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court dismissing
the Complaint for lack of cause of action;
2. Judgment be rendered declaring Defendant the lawful
possessor of the subject land covered by TCT 7635.
3. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the
neccessary as Attorney’s Fees and to pay cost suit.
Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and
equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Malolos City, June 11, 2014
ABC LAW OFFICE
Counsel of the
Defendant
ABC Building,
Malolos City, Bulacan
By:
Atty. Juan Dela Cruz
Roll No. 1234
IBP O.R. No. 5678
Bulacan Chapter
PTR No. 1910
DOCTOR X
Copy Furnished:(By Registered Mail)
Atty. Maria
Counsel of the Plaintiff
4th Floor, DEF Building,
Malolos City
