ABQs Conflict of Laws

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

12TH Judicial Region
BRANCH 4, ILIGAN CITY
ABC,
Plaintiff,
-versus- Civil Case No. 112233

For: EJECTMENT
XYZ,
Defendant.
X----------------------------------------------X
POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT
Defendant, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court respectfully
states:
THE CASE
The instant case is for Unlawful Detainer filed by the plaintiff, ABC, against
defendant, XYZ, involving a portion of a property, specifically 80 sqm (160
sqm in the contract), allegedly being withheld by the defendant.
THE FACTS
1. The plaintiff, ABC, of legal age, single, and residing at Macapagal
Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City is a co-owner of a property a portion of
which is being leased to the defendant;
2. The defendant, XYZ, of legal age, married, and is residing at Purok
Riverside II, Mahayahay, Iligan City, is the lessee of the portion of the
property being leased by the plaintiff. He maintains a Vulcanizing and
Battery Shop at the said premises;
3. The defendant has been leasing the said property since 2013, the
amount of which was previously Php 2,500. But later on became Php
5,000, exclusive of the electric and water bills;
4. Notwithstanding the undue demands of the plaintiff, the defendant was
forced to still occupy the premises because of the improvements he
already made and the good will of their business;
5. In addition to the abuse already mentioned, the plaintiff was
consistently asking for advanced payments as shown by the Summary
of Cash paid to the plaintiff herein attached as Exhibit 1. These
payments are also shown by the various receipts attached herein as
Exhibit 2 to Exhibit-M;
6. The plaintiff even employs threats in making such demands, bringing
with him scissors, wood, bolo, and the likes. As a matter of fact, the
defendant was constrained to report to the authorities one incident, the
Police Blotter of which is attached here as Exhibit 3. Not only that, the
plaintiff also gives threats in the form of letter attached as Exhibit 4;
7. Sometime in 2016, the defendant was able to know that the plaintiff
was not the owner of the property. That a certain Juan owns it and the
latter pays its Real Property Taxes, and that a Certificate of Title was
issued to him;
8. Because of defendant’s discovery, he opted to renew the contract of
lease not with the plaintiff but with Juan;
9. Consequently, the plaintiff allegedly referred the matter to the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Tubod. To the surprise of the defendant,
he was told that he have failed to appear for three (3) consecutive
times, considering that his place can easily be located and that he was
always around. The defendant felt he was deprived of his opportunity
to be heard in the said process;
10. The plaintiff instituted this case in order to eject the defendant.
ISSUE
Whether or not the defendant XYZ should be ejected from the the property.
DISCUSSION
The Defendant should not be ejected from the property and the instant
case should be dismissed due to the fact that there was no valid
compliance with Barangay Conciliation process under Section 412 of the
RA 71601, to wit:
Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action,
or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be
filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for
adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties
before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or
settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat
secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the
settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.
xxx
In Heirs of Vinzon vs CA2, citing Peñaflor vs Panis3:
Lupong Barangay is with jurisdiction under PD 1508 to pass upon an
ejectment controversy where the parties are residents in the same
barangay or in barangays within the same city or in barangays adjoining
each other.
1
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
2
G.R. 111915 September 30,1999
3
117 SCRA 953 (1982)
Equally helpful in this case is Royales vs Intermediate Appellate Court4
where the Court ruled that:
Non-compliance with the condition precedent prescribed by PD 1508 (as
repealed by RA 7160) could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of
action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack
of cause of action or prematurity.
The fact that the defendant was deprived of his opportunity to attend the
conciliation makes the Certificate to File Action defective. Hence, the
instant case should be dismissed due to lack of cause of action or
prematurity.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, 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 the defendant by
DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit and for failure to state a cause
of action or prematurity; to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant Php
12,000 as payment of net cash advances made; to award the defendant
Php 50,000 by way of moral damages; and other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.
(Counsel for the Defendant)
4
G.R. L-65072, January 31, 1984
VERIFICATION
I, XYZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and bona fide resident of Purok
Riverside II, Mahayahay, Iligan City, under oath, hereby depose and state
as follows:
1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled complaint;
2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position paper;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts as stated therein are true
and correct based on personal knowledge and on authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed our signatures this 8th
day of March, 2019 at the City of Iligan.
XYZ
Defendant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of March, 2019 with
the Affiant exhibiting his Driver’s license No. 446335123 issued on January
2, 2017.
(Notary Public)

ABQs Conflict of Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABQs Conflict of Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABQs Conflict of Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

-versus- Civil Case No. 112233

POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT

Defendant, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court respectfully

defendant, XYZ, involving a portion of a property, specifically 80 sqm (160

sqm in the contract), allegedly being withheld by the defendant.

1. The plaintiff, ABC, of legal age, single, and residing at Macapagal

Avenue, Tubod, Iligan City is a co-owner of a property a portion of

which is being leased to the defendant;

2. The defendant, XYZ, of legal age, married, and is residing at Purok

Battery Shop at the said premises;

5,000, exclusive of the electric and water bills;

4. Notwithstanding the undue demands of the plaintiff, the defendant was

forced to still occupy the premises because of the improvements he

already made and the good will of their business;

5. In addition to the abuse already mentioned, the plaintiff was

consistently asking for advanced payments as shown by the Summary

of Cash paid to the plaintiff herein attached as Exhibit 1. These

payments are also shown by the various receipts attached herein as

6. The plaintiff even employs threats in making such demands, bringing

defendant was constrained to report to the authorities one incident, the

plaintiff also gives threats in the form of letter attached as Exhibit 4;

8. Because of defendant’s discovery, he opted to renew the contract of

lease not with the plaintiff but with Juan;

9. Consequently, the plaintiff allegedly referred the matter to the Lupong

Tagapamayapa of Barangay Tubod. To the surprise of the defendant,

to be heard in the said process;

compliance with Barangay Conciliation process under Section 412 of the

Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action,

filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for

adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties

before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or

settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat

secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the

settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

In Heirs of Vinzon vs CA2, citing Peñaflor vs Panis3:

Lupong Barangay is with jurisdiction under PD 1508 to pass upon an

ejectment controversy where the parties are residents in the same

barangay or in barangays within the same city or in barangays adjoining

where the Court ruled that:

Non-compliance with the condition precedent prescribed by PD 1508 (as

repealed by RA 7160) could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s cause of

of cause of action or prematurity.

conciliation makes the Certificate to File Action defective. Hence, the

instant case should be dismissed due to lack of cause of action or

WHEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed

case and that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendant by

of action or prematurity; to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant Php

12,000 as payment of net cash advances made; to award the defendant

under the premises.

(Counsel for the Defendant)

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled complaint;

and correct based on personal knowledge and on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed our signatures this 8th

day of March, 2019 at the City of Iligan.

You might also like