REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court

10th Judicial Region
Branch 101, Surigao City

MAR KULAFU AND LENI KULAFU,

Plaintiffs,
-versusSPS JUAN AND MARIA,
Defendants,
x---------------------------------x

Civil Case No. H-12346

For: PETITION FOR
CANCELLATION OF
TITLE, EJECTMENT
(UNLAWFUL DETAINER)

POSITION PAPER
Comes now respondent SPS JUAN AND MARIA, thru counsel unto
this Honorable Court most respectfully files their Position Paper and avers
that;
I
THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER
1.1

On May 10, 2016, Complainant filed a letter complaint against

respondent spouses with the Regional Trail Court (RTC) for Petition
of Cancellation of Title and Ejectment (Unlawful Detainer), wherein it
was categorically alleged that;

a.

the plaintiff jointly owned the lot by succession from their

parents; which was a share from their grandparents.

b.

the said lot was entrusted to their cousin Beero as caretaker and
to guard against trespassers, when the plaintiffs went to Jolo;

c.

Beero fraudulently acquired title of the said lot as against to the

provisions of property registration law and other land related
laws;

d.

the construction of the residential house and the introduction of

other improvements on the property by the defendants were by
tolerance of the plaintiff;

e.

the possession of Land Title of the defendants came to the

knowledge of the plaintiff only after their return to Surigao City
last December year 2015;

1.2

Respondent Spouses, filed their Answer on May 12, 2016 alleging

among others that;

1.2.a Plaintiffs contention that the real property at bench is

jointly owned by succession from their parents which was a
share from their grandparents is bereft of merit. The 100 sq. m.
lot having been bought by the respondents from Maestra
Teequila in 1980, who originally bought it from Senor Beero as
early as in 1960, a purchaser in good faith and for value. As
such, respondents who derived their title from Maestra Tequila,
should also enjoy the presumption of a buyer in good faith and
for value, thus, plaintiffs cannot nullify their title thereto by
simply claiming that they were allowed to possess the subject
property by mere tolerance. The acquisition and registration of
the purchased lot wherein respondents were issued a Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 1014 cancelling TCT 1070 of the vendor
Maestra Tequila is a constructive notice to the plaintiff. They
could not claim that they just came to have knowledge of the
possession of Land Title in December last year 2015.
Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to the

ownership of the land described therein. Tax declarations and

tax receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title which is an
incontrovertible proof of ownership. An original certificate of
title issued by the Register of Deeds under an administrative
proceeding is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under
judicial proceedings. The extra judicial settlement and partition
of the estate as presented by the plaintiff cannot and should not
have included the 100 sq.m. portion possessed and owned by
the respondents in the absence of proof of ownership thereto
and considering that the said property had been transferred
and successfully registered in the name of the herein
respondents.

1.2.b Indubitably, respondents possession is not by mere

tolerance, for it is clear that they are possessing the lot in
question in open, public, lawful and continuous possession in

concept of an owner. The alleged possession of the plaintiffs

parents prior to their death in 1957 is immaterial.

1.2.c. Plaintiffs claim that Senor Beero fraudulently acquired

title of the said lot as against the provisions of property
registration law and other land related laws has no leg to stand
on in our judicial system. Fraud, as ground for cancellation of
annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance
of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact
which must be proved.

1.2.d. Consequently, an Unlawful Detainer Case will not

prosper. The concept of possession by tolerance in unlawful
detainer cases cannot be successfully claimed by the plaintiff. It
may be noted that based on the facts of the case, the acquisition
of the lot in question is through an absolute sale. Granting for

the sake of argument that there was indeed a possession by

tolerance, but it might be applicable in so far as Senor Beero
might be concerned, but such principle cannot be applied as
against the respondents, because the latter is a purchaser in
good faith and for value. In the absence of contrary evidence,
justice and fairness dictates that such principle is not applicable
in the case at bench because, laches and estoppel had set in on
the part of the plaintiff, and they cannot claim otherwise
because from the facts of the case, it is clear that respondents
possessed the property in a concept of an owner by reason of
their purchase of the subject lot from Maestra Tequila.

1.2.e. On the issue on jurisdiction, Section 19 of Batas Pambansa

Blg 129, provides for the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts to hear and decide civil cases;
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

xxxx

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or

possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
xxxx
1.2.e.

On the other hand, Section 33 of the same Batas

Pambansa Blg. 129 also provides for the jurisdiction of the

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxxxx
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question 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.
xxxxxx
Based on the foregoing, the instant case should have been
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Clearly, the case for Petition
for Cancellation of Title and Unlawful Detainer should have
been filed separately, they being governed by separate rules, the
latter being governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure and
under Section 19, Rule 70 while the former is governed by
Ordinary Rules of Procedure and this is fatal on the part of the
plaintiff because lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived or subject
the agreement of the parties.

1.2.f. Consequently, had the allegations of fraud in the

acquisition of Mr. Beero of the assailed property were true,
Vino Kulafu, parents of the complainants should have initiated
an action to recover the same considering that there was actual
possession of Maestra Tequila since 1960. Granting for the sake
of argument that there is actually fraud applied by Senor Beero
in acquiring the property at bar, however, the aggrieved party

slept on their rights for the timely recovery of the property from
Mr. Beero, his heirs, assigns or to anyone who stepped in into
his shoes. Laches and estoppel had set in, and the complainants
were now barred from asserting their right; It is a well-settled
rule that a possessor of a property in bad faith requires that he
possesses the property for more than thirty (30) years. Facts of
the case provides that respondents took possession of the
assailed property since 1980. Plaintiffs, his heirs and assigns
allowed thirty five years (35) more or less to pass before they
initiated the action to recover the property. They are now
barred from asserting their right through laches and estoppel.

In the case of Regalado, Laches is defined as the "failure or

neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could
or should have been done earlier, it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an

action when a party knowingly failed to claim or enforce
a legal right at a proper time.

1.2.g The complaint should also be dismissed for the adverse

counsels non-compliance with the mandate provided under Bar
Matter No. 19221 dated June 3, 2008 which as a matter of
procedure provides, that:
"Bar Matter No. 1922. Re: Recommendation of the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Board to Indicate in All
Pleadings Filed with the Courts the Counsels MCLE Certificate
of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption. The Court
Resolved to NOTE the Letter, dated May 2, 2008, of Associate
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Chairperson, Committee
on Legal Education and Bar Matters, informing the Court of the
diminishing interest of the members of the Bar in the MCLE
requirement program.
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
Committee

on

Legal

Education

and

Bar

Matters,

to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all

pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the
1

Bar Matter 1922

number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of

Compliance
applicable,for

or

Certificate
the

of

immediately

Exemption,
preceding

as

may

be

compliance

period. Failure to disclose the required information would

cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records.

Adverse counsels failure to indicate his MCLE compliant as a

mandatory requirement under the foregoing rules is fatal to his
cause, hence, should suffer the dismissal of the instant case and
the expunction of the pleadings from the records as a penalty
thereof.
II
ISSUES
2.1 Did the Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the instant case;
2.2 Whether or not estoppel by laches had set in;
2.3 Did the respondents considered a purchaser and holder of the lot
in question in good faith and for value;
2.4 Did Senior Beero applied fraud in the acquisition of the land in
question;

2.5 Whether or not the failure of the complainants counsel to include

in his pleading his MCLE compliant certificate a fatal defect to his cause.
III
DISCUSSIONS
3.1 It has been the strong conviction of the herein respondents that
the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Well
settled is the rule that cases for unlawful detainer and forcible entry is
governed by Summary Rules and is therefore, it is improper for the
complainant to join in his action the petition for cancellation of title in the
unlawful detainer case, the former being governed by the ordinary rules.
Jurisdiction cannot be waived and is not subject to the agreement by the
parties. The failure of the complainant to file the case in the Court of
competent jurisdiction would warrant the dismissal of his case;
3.2 Verily, the complainants inaction to institute action for the
recovery of the lot allegedly divested by Senior Beero from their parents is
not meritorious. Facts of the case revealed that the lot was duly titled and
from the Original certificate of Title, there were subsequent applications for
transfer certificate of title by virtue of a notarized deed of absolute sale.
From this alone, it can be established that there were enough notice to the
whole world affecting the lot in question, yet, complainants merely slept on
their right to take appropriate action to recover the property, if indeed it
was fraudulently taken from them. The law provides that for acquisitive
prescriptions to set in, the lapse of 10 years for good faith and 30 years for
bad faith on adverse claims for real properties is enough. In the instant
case, there was a lapse of more than 35 years more or less.
3.3 Respondents were purchaser in good faith and for value, having
derived their title to the lot from Maestra Tequila who is a purchaser in

good faith and for value. More so, from the facts of the case, it was clearly
established that respondents were not aware of any flaw or defect on the
title of Maestra Tequila on the lot purchased until the demand and
subsequent filing of the complaint.
3.4 Fraud is a fact and to prove its existence, the complainant should
have induced evidence to support what they had alleged. The burden of
proof lies with the complainant to prove what he alleged. Finding such
allegation in the complaint, adverse party not merely failed to prove what
he alleged, but did not introduce evidence to prove fraud and from this
standpoint of view, the instant complaint should have been dismissed
outright.
3.5. As consistently argued in our Answer, such failure of the
complainants counsel to include in his pleading his MCLE compliant
certificate is fatal and will cause the dismissal of his case.
IV
PRAYER
4.1 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that the instant case be dismissed for utter lack of
merit.
4.2 Respondent prays for such other reliefs deemed just and equitable
under the circumstance.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Surigao City, Philippines
June 28, 2016

ATTY. SHERALYNE DAZ-PEQUINA

Roll No. 12345
IBP No. 23221
PTR No. 3245A
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. 98757

V
VERIFICATION
I, SPS JUAN AND MARIA, of legal age, married and a
resident of #4 Rizal Street corner kaimo Street, Washington, Surigao
City, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and say that;
1. I am the respondent in the instant case and I caused the
preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper;
2. I have read the contents of the Position Paper and all the
allegations therein are true and correct to my personal
knowledge and based on authentic documents;
Witness my hand, this 29 of June 2016 in Surigao City,
Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of June 2016 in

Surigao City, Philippines, after affiant exhibited to me their drivers license,
bearing their pictures and signatures, serving as competent evidence of
their identity. I further attest that I have personally examined the affiants
who confirmed to me that they executed the foregoing Position Paper freely
and voluntarily and that they have read and understand the contents of the
same.

VI
COPIES FURNISHED

MAR KULAFU AND LENI KULAFU/

ATTY. JEFFREY S. TORCAL - Counsel