REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Baguio City
Branch ___
STEPHANIE JOY ABARCAR,
Plaintiff,
-versus___
ANGELICA FAUSTINO,
Ejectment
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------x

Civil

Case

No.
For:

MEMORANDUM

COMES

NOW,

Defendant

ANGELICA

FAUSTINO,

through

the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil case for Ejectment specifically Unlawful Entry filed by the
herein Plaintiff STEPAHNIE JOY ABARCAR on January 14, 2011 against the
herein defendant ANGELICA FAUSTINO. The defendant filed an Answer with
Counter Claim.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Plaintiff STEPHANIE JOY ABARCAR, is a Filipino citizen, of legal age
and residing at Gibraltar, Baguio City. She is also the owner of STEP ONE

Apartments covered by Transfer Title No. 5678, Registry of Deeds of Baguio

City which is located at 15 Gibraltar, Baguio City.
Herein Defendant ANGELICA FAUSTINO, a Filipino citizen, of legal age
and residing at Room 132-B of STEP ONE Apartments being leased since
November 10, 2009. Such term of lease is for a period of two (2) years until
November 11, 2011.
The said room was rented in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P10,000.00) a month. The plaintiff alleged that the room being rented was
not paid for a period of seven months.
Also, it was alleged that the plaintiff sent a demand letter to the
defendant on November 12, 2010 because a sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P70,000.00) was left unpaid.
Due to continuous oral and written demands of the plaintiff without any
compliance from the defendant, this caused the former to refer the case to
the Katarungang Pambarangay. However, no settlement has arrived. In order
to institute a civil action, this instant case was elevated to the municipal trial
court.

ISSUE/S
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO
VACATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT FOR
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

III.
WHO AMONG THE PARTIES HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.

ARGUMENT/S
The crux of this matter occurs from the action of Ejectment (Unlawful
Detainer) under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
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.
Sec. 16. Resolving the defense of ownership.

When

the

defendant

raises

the

defense

of

ownership in his pleadings and the question of

possession cannot be resolved without deciding the
issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
As this issue of unlawful detainer was being raised by the parties, it
could be said that defendant (lessee) has the right to acquire possession
since she is being deprived by the lessor upon demanding her to vacate the
said apartment. Despite the fact, that she pays the monthly rentals of the
said premise. The defendant raises the defense that she lawfully holds the
property in compliance with the terms of the contract. Thus, in this case the
issue of ownership needs not to be resolved for the obvious reason that the
defendant has the right to possess the property.
Nevertheless, it is right to state that the plaintiff (lessor) has no right to
institute this action and has no cause to demand from the defendant to
vacate her current occupation.
With all due respect, the conflicting interest of the parties involved
arose from a Contract of Lease. They entered into this obligation on
November 10, 2009. Hence, this brings to a legal basis provided by the New
Civil Code:

ARTICLE 1642. The contract of lease may be

of things, or of work and service.

The Civil Code provisions go on to state that the consideration for a

lease contract is a price certain, to wit:

ARTICLE 1643. In the lease of things, one of

the parties binds himself to give to another the
enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain, and
for a period which may be definite or indefinite.
However, no lease for more than ninety-nine years
shall be valid.
xxx

As a matter of fact, defendant expressly recognized his obligation to

pay under the contract of lease, when he made a partial payment to the
plaintiff. What makes this issue to stir up is the fact that a remaining balance
of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS was left unpaid. In which the defendant
denied that she did pay such amount. Indeed, it was the brother of the
plaintiff who received the money for the period of seven months. Plaintiff
believed that she paid the rentals in good faith and to the rightful and
authorized person.

Article 1232. Payment means not only the delivery

of money but also the performance, in any other
manner, of an obligation.

Article

1234.

If

the

obligation

has

been

substantially performed in good faith, the obligor

may recover as though there had been a strict and
complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the
obligee.

Article 1241. Paragraph (2). Payment made to a

third person shall also be valid insofar as it has
redounded to the benefit of the creditor. Such
benefit to the creditor need not be proved in the
following cases:
x

3.) If the creditors conduct, the debtor has been

led to believe that the third person had authority
to receive the payment

In this case, prior to the payment, plaintiff introduced her only brother
to the defendant. Since there is no other successor-in-interest that could
receive the payment, defendant gave her monthly rentals to plaintiffs
brother. Plaintiff said that she was out of town most of the time. For this
reason, defendant complied with her obligation to pay.
It can also infer that the payment made was beneficial to the creditor
(plaintiff) because she was the breadwinner of her family. She provides for
the needs of her brother, including his educational finances. Her brother
admitted that he used the money to pay his tuition fee in school.
Thus, there is no reason for the defendant to vacate the room she
rented.
From the answer she has made, she denied that the room she had
occupied was Room 132-B and not Room 123-B as alleged in the complaint.
She also stated the occupant of the Room 123-B who did not pay his
monthly obligations. It can be proved by the act of such occupant when he
absconded the Philippines.

The claims for damages must be resolved in favor of the

defendant. From the pieces of documentary evidence duly submitted on
record, it is quite apparent that the PLAINTIFF was well aware all this time of
the invalidity and nullity of her claim. Yet, she maliciously filed and instituted
this instant case and unnecessarily forced or practically dragged the
DEFENDANT into litigation, for which she suffered damages.
As alleged in her Answer, due to the filing of the patently baseless
complaint, defendant has suffered sleepless nights, wounded feelings,
mental anguish, for which plaintiff should be made liable to pay her
P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. The award of moral damages are
warranted and expressly provided for in the Civil Code of the Phillipines, to
wit:

Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is

necessary

in

order

that

moral,

nominal,

temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages,

may be adjudicated. The assessment of such
damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the
discretion

of

circumstances

the

court,
of

according

each

to

the

case.

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered

in the following and analogous cases:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(8) Malicious prosecution;

xxx

xxx

xxx

Moreover, due to the malicious filing of the instant case, the

DEFENDANT was forced to litigate and constrained to hire the services of the
undersigned counsel for the protection of their rights, for which they paid the
amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 30,000.00) as Acceptance
Fees and TWO THOUSAND PESOS (Php 2,000.00) per court appearance,
as Appearance Fees, all by way of Attorneys Fees which should be
reimbursed by the PLAINTIFFS. The award of Attorneys Fees in favor of the
DEFENDANTS are likewise warranted and expressly provided for under Article
2208 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit:

Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation,

attorney's fees and expenses of litigation,
other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:
(1)

When

exemplary

damages

are

awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission
has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest;
(3)

In

criminal

cases

prosecution against the plaintiff;

of

malicious

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil

action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross
and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable
claim;
xxx

xxx

xxx

(11) In any other case where the court

deems it just and equitable that attorney's
fees and expenses of litigation should be
recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after hearing, judgment be

rendered ordering the DISMISSAL of the instant case, for lack of merit.
Moreover, PLAINTIFF should be ORDERED to pay the DEFENDANT the
following:

A.

The amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) by

way of Moral Damages;

B.

The amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 30,000.00) plus

the amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P 2,000.00) per

appearance, by way of Attorneys Fees; and
C.

Litigation expenses and cost of the suit.

DEFENDANT further prays for such other relief as may be just and
equitable under the premises.

City of Malolos, Bulacan. February 25, 2011.

VIVAS LAW OFFICE

City of Malolos, Bulacan
ATTY. ANGELICA VIVAS
Counsel for the Defendant
IBP No. 123456, 1/5/2010, Malolos, Bulacan
PTR No. 654321, 1/10/2010, Malolos, Bulacan
Roll of Attorneys No. 101010

Copy Furnished:
(via personal service)

ATTY. STEPHANIE JOY ROLUSTA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Gibraltar, Baguio City