REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 10, TAGUIG CITY

RAMEY MALEYK,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 1212
For: Unlawful Detainer
-versus-

GALILEO GALILEO,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x

FORMAL OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE with MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, through counsel, hereby manifest to this Honorable Court

that he is formally offering in evidence the following documentary exhibits:

Exhibit Description Purpose

“A” Condominium To prove the fact that

Certificate of Title plaintiff is the real
indicating Ramey owner of the
Maleyk as condominium unit
condominium unit subject of the case.
owner issued by the
Registry of Deeds for
City of Taguig under
the Land Registration
Authority

“B” Most recent Official Another proof that

Receipt of Real Estate plaintiff is the owner of
Tax O. R. No.: the condominium unit.
UI12345678-P

“C” Notice of Real Estate Another proof that

Tax Common Area plaintiff is the owner of
issued by the the condominium unit.
management of the
condominium unit.

“D” Demand letter To prove that plaintiff

served a notice to
defendant for the latter
 to vacate the
condominium unit.

“E” Certificate to File To prove that plaintiff

Action issued by the was willing to effect
Lupong amicable settlement of
Tagapamayapa for the differences with
Barangay of Jupiter defendant.

All the foregoing documentary exhibits are likewise offered as part of

the testimonies of plaintiff Ramey Maleyk and witnesses Jessie Maleyk and
Ed Maleyk which are all attached and made integral parts of this formal
offer.

Upon the admission of the foregoing documentary exhibits and the

oral testimonies of the witnesses, plaintiff Ramey Maleyk rests his case
against defendant, Galileo Galileo.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that all the foregoing

exhibits be admitted for the purpose for which they are offered.

It is likewise prayed that, in view of the manifestation above, the

case be now submitted for decision of the Honorable Court.

Taguig City, January 24, 2019.

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Ramey Maleyk, through counsel, unto the Honorable Court,

hereby submits his memorandum seeking the leave of court for the filing of
the same.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Ramey Maleyk allowed defendant Galileo Galileo to occupy one

of the former’s condominium units by mere tolerance. When his demands
for the defendant to vacate said condominium unit remained unheeded,
plaintiff filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Taguig City a case for
unlawful detainer and damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1212.

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The antecedent facts are as follows:

 Plaintiff Ramey Maleyk is the absolute owner of a condominium unit
located at Rhapsody, Taguig City, now occupied by the defendant Galileo
Galileo.

On or about August 1, 2017, Galileo Galileo, who got evicted from

his apartment and was having financial difficulties, met with Ramey Maleyk
and asked the latter for help.

Galileo Galileo, being a close friend of Ramey Maleyk and out of pity
and tolerance, was allowed by the latter to occupy a unit in the same
condominium building wherein the latter resides and of which the latter is
the lawful owner.

On or about February 1, 2018, Ramey Maleyk’s parents, Jessie

Maleyk and Ed Maleyk, together with their grandchildren, all US citizens,
came home to the Philippines and needed a place to stay at for a year.

Consequently, Ramey Maleyk needed the other unit occupied by

Galileo Galileo to accommodate his family. Hence, on February 4, 2018,
Ramey Maleyk asked Galileo Galileo to vacate the condominium unit,
considering that the latter already had ample time of six months of free
accommodation of the former’s unit, to save money and look for a new
place to stay at. Galileo Galileo agreed to vacate but did not do so.

On February 10, 2018, Ramey Maleyk personally handed a letter of

demand to Galileo Galileo demanding the latter to immediately vacate the
condominium unit. Galileo Galileo, despite the letter of demand, refused to
vacate the unit.

On February 15, 2018, Ramey Maleyk referred the matter to the

barangay for mediation and conciliation but to no avail. As a result, on
February 15, 2018, a copy of the Certificate to File Action was issued by the
Lupong Tagapamayapa.

III. ISSUE

1. Whether or not defendant should be evicted from the subject

property, and the plaintiff may recover physical possession thereof
and claim damages.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the possession of defendant of the

former’s condominium unit was merely tolerated by the former. As such,
the occupancy of defendant carried with it the implied obligation to vacate
the premises upon demand.

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

 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 unlawfully withheld after the
expiration 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
(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.

Concomitantly, Section 2 of the same rule provides:

SEC 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. – Unless

otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only
after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to
vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such
demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice
on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to
comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days
in the case of buildings.

In Caniza v Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 110427, February 24, 1997, it

is settled that in an action for unlawful detainer, it suffices that the
defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff, and a
complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that the
withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful without
necessarily employing the terminology of the law. It was further held by the
Court, to wit:

“The argument is arrant sophistry. Caniza’s act of allowing the

Estradas to occupy her house, rent-free, did not create a permanent and
indefeasible right of possession in the latter’s favor. Common sense and the
most rudimentary sense of fairness clearly require that the act of liberality
be implicitly, but no less certainly, accompanied by the necessary burden
on the Estradas of returning the house to Caniza upon her demand. More
than once has this Court adjudged that a 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. The situation is not much different from that
of a tenant whose lease expires but who continues in occupancy by
tolerance of the owner, in which case there is deemed to be an unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession as of the date of the demand to
vacate. In other words, one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a
deforciant illegally occupying the land or property the moment he is
required to leave xxx
The Estradas’ possession of the house stemmed from the owner’s
express permission. That permission was subsequently withdrawn by the
owner, as was her right xxx Thus, at the time of the institution of the action
of desahucio, the Estradas had no legal right to the property, whether as
possessors by tolerance or sufferance, or as owners xxx”

In French v Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 220057, July 12, 2017, the Court
enumerated the requisites needed in filing an action for unlawful detainer.
Thus, a complaint for an action for unlawful detainer is sufficient if the
following allegations are present:
1. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with
or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter’s right to possession;
3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and
deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
4. within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

All the foregoing requisites are present in the case at bar. Likewise, the
pertinent rules under the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence cited square
with the facts obtaining in this case. Defendant shall therefore be evicted
from plaintiff’s condominium unit property, and plaintiff shall recover
possession thereof and shall likewise be entitled to damages.

V. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to grant the motion for leave for plaintiff to file
attached memorandum.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

24 January 2019, Taguig City.

CHRISTINA MARIE MOLINA BARAO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
888 Freddy Building, Gaga street, Rhapsody, Taguig City
Roll of Attorneys No. 8988; 01-05-2011
IBP No. 09889; 01-21-2011
MCLE Compliance No. V-00004321; 03-21-2014

COPY FURNISHED:

State Prosecutor
Taguig City
 VERIFICATION

I, Ramey Maleyk, thirty (30) years old, Filipino citizen and with postal
address at Taguig City, declare under oath that:

1. I am the plaintiff in the above-titled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing memorandum, the
contents of which I affirm as true and correct based on my own
personal knowledge and on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24 January

2019 in Taguig City, Philippines.

RAMEY MALEYK

Affiant