Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

12th Judicial Region
Branch 4, Iligan City

ABC
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.
12345

-versus- For: Ejectment

XYZ
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE DEFENDANT)

DEFENDANT, through the Public Attorney’s Office, by the undersigned

counsel, to the Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Position Paper in
support of the arguments in the Answer and the documentary evidence attached
therewith, thus:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant XYZ has been in possession of the portion of the
property since 2013, specifically 80sqm but 160 sqm as appearing
in the contract. The said lot was used as a Vulcanizing and Battery
Charging Shop. From 2013 to February 2016, the monthly rental for
the portion of the property was only Two Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (Php 2,500.00). Starting March 2016, the same was rapidly
increased to Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) without prior
notice to Defendant XYZ. Said rent was also exclusive of electric
and water bills.

Left with no choice as Defendant XYZ has already put up a make

shift storage area for the materials needed for his business and he
already has regular customers in the said location, he was
compelled to agree despite the arbitrary and exorbitant increase in
rental fees.

For the entire duration of the lease, Plaintiff was consistent in

asking for advance payments with a demand to immediately give
the same. A summary of Cash paid to Mr. ABC from April 2015 to
October 2017 is hereto attached as Annex “1” to “1-A”. Various
receipts evidencing payment to Plaintiff are hereto attached as
Annex “2” to Annex “2-M”.
Worse, such demands were accompanied by threats. For the past
four (4) years, Defendant XYZ, his wife and his workers have lost
count of the instances where the Plaintiff armed with scissors,
wood, bolo and the like visits the shop with the intention of asking
for advance payments. Appalling as it may appear, Defendant XYZ
not wanting to undergo the troubles tangled with any legal
controversy, chose the noble path of understanding the
circumstances of the Plaintiff. Defendant XYZ, however, managed
to report one incident to the Police authorities. A copy of the Police
Blotter is hereto attached as Annex “3”. A copy of the letter of
threatening nature is hereto attached as Annex “4”.

Moreover, since 2013, Defendant XYZ not only pays his own
electric bill but including that of the Plaintiff. This, the Defendant did
not bother since it is only of minimal amount. However, starting
March 2016, Plaintiff started to rent out the portion of the property.
Since there was only one electric connection for the entire property,
Defendant XYZ was once again compelled to pay the entire bill
including that of the Plaintiff’s lessee, otherwise, Defendant will
suffer the consequences of disconnection which will affect his
business operation. A copy of the ILPI receipt is hereto attached as
Annex “5”.

Sometime in 2016, Defendant XYZ also learned that a certain Juan

owned the property he is leasing. In fact, Juan was paying the Real
Property Taxes thereof and a Certificate of Title was issued in his
favor.

Since the lease contract with Plaintiff was to expire on March 29,
2017, Defendant went to the office of Juan to confirm the issue on
ownership. Upon confirming the same, an agreement to renew the
contract with the rightful owner was under negotiations. Defendant
also manifested that even though the lease contract is only until
March 2017, the total advances made by the Plaintiff already
covers rental payments until February 2018. This predicament of
Defendant was understood by the rightful owner; hence, they
agreed that starting March 2018, the lease will already be between
Defendant and the rightful owner.

On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Honorable

Court against Defendant for unlawful detainer claiming prior
 possession and ownership of the subject property and that the
Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the subject land
from the Plaintiff despite last and final demand to vacate. However,
said complaint was filed without proper compliance with Barangay
Conciliation proceedings. Hence, the instant case should be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity.

II. ISSUES

The issues to be resolved in this case are as follows:

a.) Whether or not the Defendant can be ejected by the Plaintiff.
b.) Whether or not the Defendant is liable for damages and other
reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff.

III. ARGUMENTS
The Defendant cannot be ejected by the Plaintiff.

Unlawful Detainer involves the person’s withholding from another of the

possession of real property to which the latter is entitled, after the expiration
or termination of the former’s right to hold possession under the contract,
either expressed or implied (Republic vs. Luriz,). Possession by the
defendant of the property is originally lawful but becomes illegal by virtue of
the termination of his right of possession under his contract with the plaintiff,
either expressed or implied, ( Tirona vs. Alejo).

Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.- Subject to the
provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the
possession of any land or building is withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
expressed or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year
after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action
in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming
under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and
costs.

In the case at bar, the Defendant is not illegally withholding the possession of
the subject property. The express contract executed by and between the
 parties may have only been effective until March 29, 2017, however, the life of
their lease agreement continued by virtue of an implied contract between the
Defendant and the Plaintiff. The implied contract was formed from the time
the Defendant made advance payments to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s
hostile demands. Such advance payments, evidenced by the receipts issued
by the Plaintiff himself, is competent proof to their implied agreement as it is
reflected in the said receipts that the payments were to be applied to rentals
for months after March 2017. The receipts in this case, support the existence
of an implied contract to extend lease contract. Hence, the Defendant is not
unlawfully withholding possession of the subject property.

Defendant is not liable for damages and other reliefs prayed for by the
Plaintiff.

Given the foregoing, the Defendant is not liable for any damages or other
reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff. Instead, it is the Plaintiff who shall be made
liable to the Defendant for moral damages since the latter suffered extreme
anxiety, stress and sleepless nights not only from the time of the
commencement of this suit but also from the time the Plaintiff began to harass
and threaten the Defendant for payments 4 years ago. Also, Defendant’s
reputation in the community, despite his earnest efforts to maintain noble
even after every threat from the Defendant, had been tainted by reason of the
plaintiff’s baseless or unfounded allegations. Thus, defendant is liable for
moral damages in the amount of at least Php 50,000.00.

IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, 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 Defendant XYZ by DISMISSING the complaint
for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity, and to award Defendant XYZ
damages in the amounts stated above.

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

Iligan City, August 30, 2018.

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Hall of Justice
Carbide Village, Tubod, Iligan City
 By:
Martha A. Lugay
Public Attoryney I
Roll of Attorneys No. 6789
IBP No. 6789; Mis Or Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. 6789
Valid Until April 14, 2022

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. LOUISE LAGCAO

Door 3, Lopez Building, Mahayahay, Iligan City