Republic of the Philippines

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Malolos City, Bulacan

MR. PEDRO
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO: 2015 - 0306
FOR: UNLAWFUL DETAINER
and moral damages.
-VERSUS-

MR. JUAN
Defendant.
X---------------------------X

POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT

COMES NOW, Defendant assisted by the Public Attorney’s

Office through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully submits his position paper:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This a civil case for UNLAWFUL DETAINER filed by the

Plaintiff against the Defendant for occupying a house located
San Juan City. Allegedly owned by the Plaintiff by virtue of a
Lease of Contract.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Defendant is a lessee of Mr. Pedro the known owner of

the land located at Brgy. Longos, Malolos City, Bulacan. He paid
an amount of Twenty Four Thousand Pesos (Php 24,000.00),
Philippine Currency, that shall serve as an advance payment for
twelve (12) months.

That sometime on December 2009, Mr. Juan approached

Mr. Pedro offering to lease the subject parcel of land. Mr. Juan
and Mr. Pedro agreed to the terms and made a Verbal
Agreement that the Contract of Lease shall commence on
January 1, 2010. At the end of January 2011, Mr. Juan failed to
pay the rent, the same situation happened two months
thereafter. Mr. Pedro was compelled to file the complaint
against Mr. Juan before the barangay. Mr. Juan insisted that he
had already paid the rents for January, February, and March,
but Mr. Juan failed to show proof of payments. This prompted
Mr. Pedro to terminate the Contract of Lease since he needs
the property. Mr. Juan left the barangay without waiting the
completion of the conciliation. Mr. Pedro engaged the services
of Atty. Santiago who sent a demand letter to Mr. Juan
demanding the latter to vacate the property within 30 days. Mr.
Juan did not leave the rented property. Mr. Pedro filed a case
for unlawful detainer asking the Court to order Mr. Juan to
vacate the property and pay for moral damages as well as
attorney’s fees.

ISSUES

Whether or not the court have jurisdiction over the case

filed.

Whether or not the lessee may be ejected from the lease

property based on the need of the lessor for personal use.

Whether or not the lessee is entitled for reimbursement

for the house he constructed on the property of the lessor

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

The Court has no jurisdiction

 The plaintiff has no sufficient cause of action against the
defendant for the fact that the case filed before the court was
premature and beyond the jurisdiction of the Honoroble Court.

The case at hand is cognizable by the Katarungan

Pambarangay and shall only cognizable after the Punong
barangay issues a certification that no agreement has been
made. In case that such conciliation before the barangay
proved to be unsuccessful, the Punong barangay shall not issue
certifying that the case be submitted for trial in court, but it is
mandatory for him to refer the case before the Lupon
Tagamayapa. The parties must first exhaust all administrative
remedies before the court shall take cognizance of the case.

In the case of Berba vs Pablo1, the court ruled that the

petitioner and the respondent Heirs of Carlos Palanca resided in
the City of Manila, albeit in different barangays. The dispute
between the petitioner and the respondent heirs was thus a
matter within the authority of the Lupon. Hence, the
petitioner’s complaint for unlawful detainer and the collection of
back rentals should have been first filed before the Lupon for
mandatory conciliation, to afford the parties an opportunity to
settle the case amicably.

A failure to sought the conciliation before the Lupon

Tagamayapa is futile as it is a condition that is mandatory prior
filing a case before the regular court. It is essential and
adherence to the rule is expected.2

Furthermore, it is the plaintiff Mr. Pedro who did not

participate with the conciliated proceedings conducted thereof.
He was not able to exhaust all administrative remedies set by
the rules as a precondition prior sending the case before the
court who has jurisdiction over the ejectment filed.

More importantly, it is well assailed that the monthly

rentals of the leased property has been religiously paid by the
1
Estela L. Berba vs Josephine Pablo et. al, GR No. 160032
2
Supreme Court, Administrative Circular No. 14-93
by Mr. Juan, as a matter of fact, he had paid in advance a rent
total of twenty four thousand pesos equivalent to Twelve
Months or One Year
.
Ejectment, prematurely filed.

It is important that the lessor shall be notified of the

intent of the lessor to repossess the property three (3) months
prior the intended date of repossession, if the reason for
repossessing is that the lessor shall need the property to be
used personally or for his immediate family members. 3 It is also
essential that the definite period of the contract of lease has
been terminated.4 The lessor failed to provide proof that the
property shall be used by the him or his family as a residential
unit, and further failed to observe the procedure set by law
prior a judicial ejectment may be filed. He was not able to send
demand letters stating the fact the same shall be used for his
personal use.

Moreover, there is no stipulation on the contract executed

by both parties that the lessee shall immediately vacate the
property in case that the lessor shall need the property for his
personal use. In fact, there is no written contract between
them, that it is a verbal agreement between the parties
involved.

Mr. Pedro also failed to identify the properties that are

subject of his complaint. Mr. Pedro may have erroneously
pointed on the property leased by Mr. Juan as there are many
other properties existing in the area, and the property of Mr.
Juan is just a portion of a big parcel of land. In a court of
action, it is essential that the subject properties are specifically
identified and pointed out by the person instituting the action,
so to serve the ends of justice for the lessor and lessee.

Lessee, entitle for reimbursement

3
Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, Sec. 5
4
ibid
 The construction of a house over the property of a lessor
gives rise to the right of the lessee to reimbursement over the
expenses he incurred in improving the property of the lessor.
Although, he is entitled to such, it is essential that the lessee
has committed the improvement in good faith and not in bad
faith. If he constructs a house or any structures on the
property that he do not own and without the consent of the
owner, he is entitled to any reimbursement. 5 However, the said
ruling is not final, as it depends upon the lessor if he shall
reimburse the lessee or choose to demolish the improvements
made by the lessee even if it shall destroy the property. 6

After a careful perusal of claims and defenses of both

parties the case pending before the Honorable Court is clearly a
question of whether the court has jurisdiction over the case.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed before this
Honorable Court that the case be dismissed for lack of
sufficient cause and filed prematurely before this honourable
court.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City, August 28, 2011.

5
Art. 1678 New Civil Code
6
Samuel Parilla et, al. vs Dr. Prospero Pilar GR No. 167680
 MR. JUAN
Defendant

ASSITED BY:

Department of Justice
Public Attorney’s Office
2 Floor Hall of Justice, Malolos, Bulacan
nd

ATTY. JOEL VINCENT SALAZAR

PUBLIC ATTORNEY II
ROLL NO. 51962
IBP NO. 666180 12/28/06 for 07

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. SANTIAGO
Santiago Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintiff
City of Malolos
Bulacan

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Position Paper was served upon

the Counsel for the Plaintiff by registered mail with return card
due to distance and lack of material personnel to effect
personal service.

ATTY. JOEL VINCENT SALAZAR