Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
Branch 1
City of Ilagan

CIVIL CASE NO. _________

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Plaintiff,

-versus- for

ANDRES BONI Recovery of Possession

Defendant. With Prayer for
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
x----------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits his Pre-Trial Brief, as follows:

I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SETTLEMENT

I.1 Subject to a proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal

manifestation of openness from plaintiff, defendant is open to the possibility of
amicably settling the dispute.

II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

II.1 Plaintiff ordering the defendant to demolish and/or to remove at the latter’s
expense whatever structure he caused to be constructed on Lot No. 1451-B
and also to demolish and/or remove the concrete fence constructed on the
South Eastern side of Lot No. 1451-B which is described under paragraph 3
of this complaint. Ordering the defendant his servants and those residing and
working under them to vacate Lot No. 1451-B and to deliver possession
thereon to the plaintiff and to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00 a month
until such time that the land Lot No. 1451-B is delivered to the plaintiff;

II.2 Defendant resists plaintiff’s claims based on the failure to state a cause of
action because of:

II.2.1 The Plaintiff was never the rightful owner of the subject land and
that failure of the defendant to register the same with the register of

Page 1 of 4
 deed does not render their right lost just because the subject lot was
already titled under the name of Plaintiff.

II.2.2 The deceased Plaintiff’s mother, Juanita Dela Cruz, the original
owner of the land, executed by means of public instrument a Deed
of Absolute Sale on the said subject land in favor of the Defendant
dated January 31, 1975. The Defendants failed to register the Deed
of Absolute Sale in the registry of Deeds. The defendants had been
in possession of the said property since 1975 and had constructed a
house thereat which can be proved by the owners of the adjacent
lots;

II.2.3 It is worthy of mentioning that the Defendant had already owned the
subject land by open, continuous, exclusive, adverse and notorious
possession for 30 years since 1975. The right of the Plaintiff to
assail the ownership of property and to recover the same had
already prescribed.

II.2.4 The Plaintiff had never demanded from the defendant to vacate the
said lot in 2012.

II.2.5 It must be emphasize that prescription, in general, is a mode of

acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights through the
lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law,
namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner,
public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription
is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription
requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years.
Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be
extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted adverse
possession for 30 years. (Heirs of Maningding v. CA, 342 Phil. 567
(1979))\

II.2.6 Worthy also to note that the subject property had already acquired
by the Defendant through acquisition of property by laches since
they occupied it, built fences, planted trees and used the same as
ingress and egress towards their house which was previously gutted
by fire. The Plaintiff knew all these but they did not lift a finger to bar
them from doing so. They waited for more than 30 years to oust
them.

II.2.7 Based on the aforementioned, the Plaintiff had no cause of action

against the Defendant since the action was already barred by
prescription. Also, such action is barred by laches which is defined as
the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained
length or time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable
defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the
discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society. (Vda. de

Page 2 of 4
 Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA
627).

II.3 Defendant also interposed a compulsory counterclaim of Fifty Thousand

Pesos (Php50,000.00) for Moral Damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00) for attorney’s fees.

III. FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES

III.1 Defendant only admits the facts stated in his Answer.

III.2 Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from

plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, defendant admits no other facts
from the Complaint.

IV. ISSUES TO BE TRIED

IV.1 Whether the Plaintiff was able to establish their ownership of the
subject property?

IV.2 Whether the Plaintiff’s cause of action is already barred by prescription

and laches?

V. EVIDENCE

V.1 Defendant intends to present the following documents:

V.1.1 The Deed of Absolute Sale entered by the plaintiff’s mother and
the defendant and attached in his Answer as “ANNEX I.”

V.2 Defendant intends to present the following witnesses:

V.2.1 Defendant himself, who will testify on the true circumstances

leading to the filing of the suit against him;

V.2.2 Carl De Madugas, owner of one of the adjacent lots of the

subject property who resides therein since 1973.

V.3 Defendant reserves the right to present any and all documentary evidence
which shall become relevant to rebut plaintiff’s claims in the course of trial as
well as any other witnesses whose testimony will become relevant to belie
plaintiff’s witnesses, if necessary.

VI. RESORT TO DISCOVERY

VI.1 Considering the relatively simple issues presented, defendant does not
intend to avail of discovery at this time.

Page 3 of 4
 VI.2 Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery
from plaintiff, defendant reserved the right to discovery before trial.

VII. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES

VII.1 It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial
conference to dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all the
parties.

Respectfully submitted.

March 13, 2019, Ilagan City.

RAGUINDIN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unit 324, Lighthouse Tower
Luna Street, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

By:
Atty. JOHN MARK B. RAGUINDIN
Roll of Attorney No. 98421
IBP No. 98765/8-15-11/Cagayan
PTR No. 12345/7-22-10/Cagayan

Copy Furnished:

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
Branch 1
City of Ilagan

Atty. IVY C. CABASAL

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Ilagan City, Isabela

Page 4 of 4