Catbagan Position Paper

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Parañaque
Branch ____
EVELYN CATBAGAN,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No.
-versus- FOR: Unlawful Detainer
JOSE BARTOLAY.
Defendant.
x---------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
PLAINTIFF, by Counsel, to this Honorable Court by way of

compliance with the order dated ________________copy of which was
received on June 14, 2019, respectfully submits this position paper and in
support thereof alleges as follow:
1. The case before the bench is a complaint for an unlawful

detainer filed by the plaintiff, Evelyn Catbagan against defendant, Jose
Bartolay. Plainiff Evelyn Catbagan, however, died on ____________,
hence, she was substituted as plaintiff by her son, Marker Catbagan.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Marker Catbagan is of legal age, Filipino citizen,

married and with residence and postal address at 365/1503 (B) Parejo
St.,Sto. Niño De Culdesac, Sun Valley, Parañaque City where he may be
served notices and other court processes;
3. Defendant Jose Bartolay is likewise of legal age, Filipino, with
postal address at 365/1503 (A) Parejo St., Sto. Niño De Culdesac, Sun
Valley, Parañaque City, where he may be served with summons and other
court processes;
This action includes as defendants all persons claiming rights under

said defendant or any or all occupants of the subject property.
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. Plaintiff has been in actual and uninterrupted possession of the

subject lot since 1980 as evidenced by its membership with the Sto. Nino
Culdesac Sun Valley Neighborhood Association, Inc. duly registered with
the SEC.
5. Sometime in 1980, plaintiff constructed a house on the

aforementioned lot located at No. 365, now known as No. 1503 Pajero St.
Sto Nino Culdesac, Sun Valley, Paranaque City.
6. As the owner of the entire house and possessor of the house

and lot, the homeowners’ association known as Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun
Valley Neighborhood Association, Inc. has been collecting association dues
from the plaintiff, for which official receipts were issued to her. This is
evidenced by the official receipts issued to plaintiff, Evelyn Catbagan.
7. Sometime in 1995, plaintiff divided the house into three rooms

because her goddaughter, Lira Corcueva, needed a place to stay. She
allowed Lira to occupy the 3rd door.
8. In 2009, however, plaintiff discovered that Lira mortgaged the

said 3rd door to another. Hence, the plaintiff filed an ejectment case
against her in 2010 which was decided by the court in her favor. This is
evidenced by the Decision and Finality of Judgment issued by Branch 77 of
Regional Trial Court in Paranaque City.
9. Since then, plaintiff has been in peaceful and continuous

possession of the entire house. Until sometime in October 2017, defendant
approached and asked plaintiff to allow him to stay in the subject property
because according to defendant, he was forced out of the house by his
relative Aida.
10. Considering that defendant is plaintiff’s nephew, plaintiff

allowed defendant to stay in and occupy the subject property.
11. Sometime in October 2018, however, the son of plaintiff,

Marker Bartolay, needed to occupy the subject property. Thus, plaintiff
notified the defendant of her need of the property and asked defendant to
move out of the said house. But defendant refused and failed to vacate the
subject property despite the demand made by the plaintiff.
7. That defendant has continued to occupy the said house and lot
notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff has already sent him several
demands both oral and written, thus depriving the plaintiff of the use and
possession of the said house and lot.
8. Thus, on November 9, 2018, plaintiff sent defendant its final

and last letter of demand to vacate the subject property thru LBC, which
received by defendant’s wife Yolanda Bartolay on November 11, 2018 as
evidenced, by the Demand Letter dated November 9, 2018 and proof of
receipt of the same by defendant.
9. That defendant is unlawfully withholding the use and

possession of the subject house from the plaintiff despite several made by
plaintiff demand, to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff.
10. Before filing of this complaint, the dispute has been referred to
the Office of the Lupong Tagamayapa of Barangay Sun Valley the parties,
however, failed to arrive at an amicable settlement. Thus, a Certificate to
File Action was issued by the Office of Lupong Tagapamayapa, Brgy. Sun
Valley, Parañaque City.
Original Copy of the Certificate To File Action is hereto attached as

Exhibit “__”.
11.The continuous possession by the defendant and her refusal to
vacate the property has become illegal and unlawful, and plaintiff is now
entitled to the immediate possession of the same.
12.Due and for reason of the acts of the defendant, the plaintiff was
compelled to hire the services of counsel for which it is obliged to pay
the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 30,000.00) as Attorney’s
Fees to enforce its rights and protect its interest.
13.Because of the continued refusal of the defendants to vacate

despite notices, demands and commitment to vacate and turnover the
place, the defendants by way of damage is entitled to a monthly rental of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) per month effective from the last
demand until defendant and all persons claiming rights under them
physically vacate the property.
ISSUES
14. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action

15. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to its prayer.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
14. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action.
14.1. In Cabrera v. Getaruela,1 the Court held that a complaint

sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the
following:
(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 ofthe latter’s right of possession;
1
604 Phil. 59, 66 (2009).
(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.
14.2. In this case, the Complaint alleged the following:
a. Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by

tolerance of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that sometime in October 2017, defendant

approached and asked plaintiff to allow him to stay in the subject property
and considering that defendant is plaintiff’s nephew, plaintiff allowed
defendant to stay in and occupy the subject property. Clearly, the initial
possession of the property by defendant was by tolerance of the plaintiff.
As a matter of fact, it was admitted by defendant during the pre-trial

conference that he only transferred or occupied the subject property
sometime in October 2017.
Moreover, the tolerance given to defendant by the plaintiff is attested

by the Affidavit of plaintiff’s witness, which is hereto attached and marked
as Exhibit “__” and made an integral part hereof.
b. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by

plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s
right of possession.
The possession of defendant became illegal when sometime in

October 2018, plaintiff notified defendant to vacate the property because
her son, Marker Bartolay, needed to occupy the subject property, yet,
defendant refused and failed to vacate the subject property despite the
said demand made by the plaintiff.
Defendant admitted the fact of receipt of the demand letter dated

November 9, 2018 sent to him by plaintiff.
It has been held 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
them.2
c. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the

property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment
thereof.
The plaintiff was able to allege and prove by preponderance of

evidence that defendant has continued to occupy the subject house and lot
notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff has already sent him several
demands both oral and written, thus depriving the plaintiff of the use and
possession of the same.
14.6. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to

vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment.
On November 16, 2018, defendant received the final and demand

letter dated November 9, 2018. On January 31, 2019, plaintiff instituted
the instant complaint for ejectment.
Proof of receipt of the demand letter on November 16, 2018 issued

by the LBC is hereto attached as Exhibit “___”.
15. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to its prayer.
15.1. In the instant case, plaintiff was also able to allege and prove
by preponderance of evidence that she is the lawful possessor of the house
and lot and owner of the house. The plaintiff was able to prove its
possession having presented the following:
1) Official Receipts issued to plaintiff by the Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun

Valley Neighborhood Association, Inc. representing its payment of
the monthly association dues as a resident of
2
Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual, 128 Phil. 160 (1967).
Official Receipts are hereto attached and marked as Exhibit “A” to
“A-__”. The original copies marked are in the Court’s records.
2) Certification issued by the Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun Valley

Neighborhood Association, Inc. to prove that plaintiff has been a
resident of 1503, formerly known as 365, Pajero Street, Sto. Nino,
Culdesac, Sun Valley, Paranaque City for 18 years and 2 months.
As a matter of fact, the Certification was issued based only on the

personal knowledge of the President, Emily Cebu, that plaintiff has
been a resident of Sto. Nino Culdesac, Sun Valley, Paranaque City.
But actually, plaintiff has already been a resident of 365 Pajero
Street, Sto. Nino, Culdesac, Sun Valley, Paranaque City since
1980.
Certification is hereto attached and marked as Exhibit “___”.

The original copy marked is in the Court’s records.
3) Certification issued Mission Areas Development Office, Paranaque

City to prove that plaintiff Evelyn Catbagan was censused by said
office with Tag No. 343 (Block 17) at Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun
Valley Neighborhood Association, Inc.
4) Proofs of Billing or Statements of Account of Maynilad Water

Services, Inc. in the name of Evelyn Catbagan with a billing
address of the entire house. It was admitted that there was only
one water meter connected in the entire house and not per room
or unit.
5) Affidavit of witness, Jocelyn Bartolay Alcobendas, first cousin of

both Marker Bartolay, who substituted plaintiff and defendant Jose
Bartolay, to prove based on her personal knowledge that plaintiff
is the owner of the entire house and in possession of the lot since
1980. Plaintiff Evelyn Bartolay Catbagan, Adelina Bartolay, mother
of defendant and Josefina Bartolay, mother of the witness are all
sisters
6) The Decision dated November 17, 2011 and Finality of Judgment
dated January 22, 2014 to prove that in the said Decision, herein
defendant Jose Bartolay or Adelina Bartolay was never mentioned
as the possessor at that time of any of the three rooms or units
particularly Unit “A”.
15.2.

Catbagan Position Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catbagan Position Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Catbagan Position Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

PLAINTIFF, by Counsel, to this Honorable Court by way of

1. The case before the bench is a complaint for an unlawful

2. Plaintiff Marker Catbagan is of legal age, Filipino citizen,

This action includes as defendants all persons claiming rights under

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. Plaintiff has been in actual and uninterrupted possession of the

5. Sometime in 1980, plaintiff constructed a house on the

6. As the owner of the entire house and possessor of the house

7. Sometime in 1995, plaintiff divided the house into three rooms

8. In 2009, however, plaintiff discovered that Lira mortgaged the

9. Since then, plaintiff has been in peaceful and continuous

10. Considering that defendant is plaintiff’s nephew, plaintiff

11. Sometime in October 2018, however, the son of plaintiff,

8. Thus, on November 9, 2018, plaintiff sent defendant its final

9. That defendant is unlawfully withholding the use and

Original Copy of the Certificate To File Action is hereto attached as

13.Because of the continued refusal of the defendants to vacate

14. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

14. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action.

14.1. In Cabrera v. Getaruela,1 the Court held that a complaint

(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff

14.2. In this case, the Complaint alleged the following:

a. Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by

The plaintiff alleged that sometime in October 2017, defendant

As a matter of fact, it was admitted by defendant during the pre-trial

Moreover, the tolerance given to defendant by the plaintiff is attested

b. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by

The possession of defendant became illegal when sometime in

Defendant admitted the fact of receipt of the demand letter dated

c. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the

The plaintiff was able to allege and prove by preponderance of

14.6. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to

On November 16, 2018, defendant received the final and demand

Proof of receipt of the demand letter on November 16, 2018 issued

15. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to its prayer.

1) Official Receipts issued to plaintiff by the Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun

2) Certification issued by the Sto. Nino Culdesac Sun Valley

As a matter of fact, the Certification was issued based only on the

Certification is hereto attached and marked as Exhibit “___”.

3) Certification issued Mission Areas Development Office, Paranaque

4) Proofs of Billing or Statements of Account of Maynilad Water

5) Affidavit of witness, Jocelyn Bartolay Alcobendas, first cousin of

You might also like