Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABC
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.
12345
XYZ
Defendant.
x------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE DEFENDANT)
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant XYZ has been in possession of the portion of the
property since 2013, specifically 80sqm but 160 sqm as appearing
in the contract. The said lot was used as a Vulcanizing and Battery
Charging Shop. From 2013 to February 2016, the monthly rental for
the portion of the property was only Two Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (Php 2,500.00). Starting March 2016, the same was rapidly
increased to Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) without prior
notice to Defendant XYZ. Said rent was also exclusive of electric
and water bills.
Moreover, since 2013, Defendant XYZ not only pays his own
electric bill but including that of the Plaintiff. This, the Defendant did
not bother since it is only of minimal amount. However, starting
March 2016, Plaintiff started to rent out the portion of the property.
Since there was only one electric connection for the entire property,
Defendant XYZ was once again compelled to pay the entire bill
including that of the Plaintiff’s lessee, otherwise, Defendant will
suffer the consequences of disconnection which will affect his
business operation. A copy of the ILPI receipt is hereto attached as
Annex “5”.
Since the lease contract with Plaintiff was to expire on March 29,
2017, Defendant went to the office of Juan to confirm the issue on
ownership. Upon confirming the same, an agreement to renew the
contract with the rightful owner was under negotiations. Defendant
also manifested that even though the lease contract is only until
March 2017, the total advances made by the Plaintiff already
covers rental payments until February 2018. This predicament of
Defendant was understood by the rightful owner; hence, they
agreed that starting March 2018, the lease will already be between
Defendant and the rightful owner.
On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Honorable
Court against Defendant for unlawful detainer claiming prior
possession and ownership of the subject property and that the
Defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the subject land
from the Plaintiff despite last and final demand to vacate. However,
said complaint was filed without proper compliance with Barangay
Conciliation proceedings. Hence, the instant case should be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity.
II. ISSUES
III. ARGUMENTS
The Defendant cannot be ejected by the Plaintiff.
In the case at bar, the Defendant is not illegally withholding the possession of
the subject property. The express contract executed by and between the
parties may have only been effective until March 29, 2017, however, the life
of their lease agreement continued by virtue of an implied contract between
the Defendant and the Plaintiff. The implied contract was formed from the
time the Defendant made advance payments to the Plaintiff upon the
Plaintiff’s hostile demands. Such advance payments, evidenced by the
receipts issued by the Plaintiff himself, is competent proof to their implied
agreement as it is reflected in the said receipts that the payments were to be
applied to rentals for months after March 2017. The receipts in this case,
support the existence of an implied contract to extend lease contract. Hence,
the Defendant is not unlawfully withholding possession of the subject
property.
Defendant is not liable for damages and other reliefs prayed for by the
Plaintiff.
Given the foregoing, the Defendant is not liable for any damages or other
reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff. Instead, it is the Plaintiff who shall be made
liable to the Defendant for moral damages since the latter suffered extreme
anxiety, stress and sleepless nights not only from the time of the
commencement of this suit but also from the time the Plaintiff began to harass
and threaten the Defendant for payments 4 years ago. Also, Defendant’s
reputation in the community, despite his earnest efforts to maintain noble
even after every threat from the Defendant, had been tainted by reason of the
plaintiff’s baseless or unfounded allegations. Thus, defendant is liable for
moral damages in the amount of at least Php 50,000.00.
IV. PRAYER
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Hall of Justice
Carbide Village, Tubod, Iligan City
By:
Martha A. Lugay
Public Attoryney I
Roll of Attorneys No. 6789
IBP No. 6789; Mis Or Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. 6789
Valid Until April 14, 2022
Copy Furnished: