Republic of the Philippines

_________________________
_____________________
________________
____ City

ABC Corporation,
Plaintiff
-versus –
Mr. Jerry Latorre,
Defendant

I. POSITION PAPER.

THE PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states:

II. PROPERTY INVOLVED.

The property subject matter of the instant ejectment case is a one storey
commercial building and lot located at Colon, Toledo City, with an area of ____
sq. m. and covered by TCT No. xxx registered in the name of Ms. Lourdes Limbaga,
one of the board of directors of the plaintiff in the instant ejectment case.

Attached as Annex “A” hereof is a certified true copy of the said TCT No. xxx to
prove the ownership in fee simple by Ms. Lourdes Limbaga, one of the board of
directors of plaintiff ABC Corporation of the subject property.

III. EJECTMENT COMPLAINT.

The verified complaint for ejectment (unlawful detainer) filed by the herein
plaintiff ABC Corporation, thru their former counsel, Atty.Tura, prayed for a
judgment in favor of the said plaintiff and against the defendant Mr. Jerry Latorre.
Directing the latter to (a) Vacate the aforesaid one storey commercial building and
lot and to peacefully surrender the same to herein plaintiff; (b) Pay the plaintiff
in the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 450,000.00) for
actual damages sustained as a result of non-remittance of sale amounting to
P400,000 and P50,000 for the unaccounted amount Mr. Latorre incurred when he
was still manager; (c) Pay the plaintiff in such amounts representing for the
payment of moral and exemplary damages, as this Honorable Court, in its wise and
sound discretion, may determine; (d) Pay the plaintiff in the amount of
Php25,000.00 and Php2,000.00 per court appearance as Attorney’s fees; and (e)
Pay the cost of the suit.

The allegations of the ultimate facts of the instant ejectment complaint are
quoted herein below:
“x xx.
1. That plaintiff is a Filipino corporation, whose main
corporate office is located at Cebu City where it
may be served with summons and other processes
of this Honorable Court;
2. That defendant Mr. Jerry Latorre, 40 years old and
presently unlawfully residing at a one-storey
commercial building located at Colon, Toledo City
and may served with summons and other legal
processes therein by this Honorable Court;
3. Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the one-storey
commercial building and the parcel of land owned
by Ms. Lourdes Limbaga, one of ABC Corporation’s
board of directors situated in the Toledo City,
Province of Cebu evidenced by Transcript of
Certificated of Title No. xxx issued by the Register
of Deeds of xxx City, Metro Manila and more
particularly described as: X xxxx.
4. It was solely out of the trust and tolerance of the
plaintiff, ABC Corporation which enabled the
defendant to continue residing at aforementioned
property located at Colon, Toledo City;
5. It was understood by both parties in the Consignment
Agreement that Mr. Latorre shall be provided by ABC
Corporation with Motorcycles to sell at P50,000 and
to continue residing at the aforementioned one-
storey commercial building by tolerance and rent-
free,;
6. After 3 years of operation, Mr. Latorre cannot
account for sales of motorcycles amounting to
Php100,000;
7. ABC Corporation continued to trust Mr. Latorre
despite of the inaccountability and continued to
provide motorcycles to sell and allowed Mr.
Latorre to reside in the aforementioned address;
8. The continued trust on Mr. Latorre has resulted to a
Php450,000 unaccountable sales;
9. Frustrated by the way things are going, ABC
Corporation decided to take over the business in
April 1, 2007 while Mr. Latorre was away. X xx.
10. ABC Corporation forced opened the building and
took away the remaining motorcycles;
11. On an effort to settle the matter, plaintiff
through the undersigned counsel transmitted
through registered mail with return card a “Final
Demand Letter to Vacate” dated 25June 2007
addressed to the defendant to vacate the premises
 within FIFTEEN (15) days from receipt of the
demand letter. x xx.
13. During the mediation proceeding,mr.Latorre said
that he will not vacate the said building;
14. Defendants, who have been unlawfully occupying
the subject building and parcel of land, and
despite due notice and demand to vacate the
same, unjustifiably failed and refused and
continue to fail and refuse to vacated the said
premises. Thus, due to defendant’s wanton
disregard and deliberate violation of the plaintiff’s
right to enjoy the rightful possession of their
property, herein plaintiff has suffered and
continuously suffers sleepless nights, serious
anxiety and other similar sufferings from which
entitle the corporation and Ms. Limbaga to the
recovery of damages in such amount as this
Honorable Court, in its wise discretion, may
determine;
16. By reason of the gross and evident bad faith of the
defendant when he deliberately refused to vacate
the aforesaid premises and by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral damages, plaintiff herein is duly entitled for
the payment of exemplary damages in such
amount, as this Honorable Court, in its wise
discretion, may determine;
17. Due to defendant’s refusal to vacate the premises,
plaintiff was constrained to engage the services of
a legal counsel to protect her own rights, interests,
and for whose services she agreed to pay the
amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(Php25,000.00) as attorney’s fees plus
Php2,000.00 per court appearance.
X xx. “ (end of quote)
The herein plaintiff adopts into this position paper, by incorporation and reference,
all of the foregoing allegations in her verified Answer.

In controverting the instant ejectment complaint, the defendantMr. Latorre.raised

the defense that plaintiff, ABC had allegedly demolished his house without his
consent, and that ABC took away his motorcycles and that he is an employee of
ABC Corporation.

X xx.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed that after due hearing judgment be rendered as to
the principal cause of action:
 a) Ordering defendant to vacate the building
and lot located at Colon, Toledo City and
covered by the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
xxx of the registry of Deeds of xxx City;
b) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the
following amount:
i) P300,000.00, as moral damages;
ii) P200,000.00, as exemplary damages;
iii) P100,000.00, as attorney’s fees; and
iv) To pay the costs of suit:
In the alternative, judgment be rendered:
a) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the
following sums:
i) P450,000 representing reimbursement to the
plaintiff for the unaccounted motorcycle sales,
plus legal interest thereof from the date of the
filing of the complaint:
ii) P100,000.00, as attorney’s fees.
Plaintiff prays for such other relief as may be just and
equitable in the premises.
X xx. (end of quote).

IV. EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

IN THE INSTANT EJECTMENT CASE

In addition to the aforementioned Title of the herein plaintiff (TCT No. xxx,
marked as Annex “A” hereof, supra), the plaintiff respectfully submits to this
Honorable Court the following documentary evidence in support of her ejectment
complaint against the defendants:
1. Annex “B” - Letter (re: Final Demand Letter To Vacate), dated June 25,
2007, addressed to Mr. Latorre signed by Atty. Tura, former counsel for
ABC Corporation.

2. Annex “C” – “Consignment Agreement”, signed by both ABC Corporation

President and Mr. Latorre.

V. APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE

The person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or
permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy against him. (Barrientos vs. Rapal, 654 SCRA 165).

An ejectment case is designed to restore the physical possession of any land or

building to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession (Heirs of
AgapitoT. Olarte and Anglea A. Olartevs.office of the President of the Philippines,
652 SCRA 123).The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings
is who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the
possession de facto and not to the possession de jure (Barrientos vs. Rapal, 654
SCRA 165).

VI. CONCLUSION

It is an established principle in law that one who comes in equity must come
with clean hands. (Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 137533, 22 November 2002, 392 SCRA 506). “One who
seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean
hands”. He or she who has done inequity shall not have equity. The courts may
deny equitable relief on the ground that the conduct and actions of a party are
inequitable, unfair, dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful. (Miller vs. Miller, G.R.
No. 149615, 29 August 2006; Abacus Security vs. Ampil, G.R. No. 160016, 27
February 2006, 483 SCRA 315.)

VII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that instant ejectment

suit be decided in favor of the plaintiff ABC Corporation and against the defendant
Mr. Jerry Latore, ordering the defendant to VACATE and SURRENDER the de
facto/material possession of the subject property to the plaintiff or her duly
authorized legal representative/s, with awards of damages, litigation expenses,
and costs of suit, as duly proved by the various documentary evidence attached to
this Position Paper.

Cebu City, January 9, 2008.