Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Second Judicial region
CAUAYAN CITY, ISABELA

JANETH V. NAPOLES
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. C-56896

For:EJECTMENT(FORCIBLE ENTRY)

NOYNOY B. AQUINO
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully

submits this Position Paper in the above entitled case, and alleges

that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action for Forcible Entry and Damages commenced by

the Plaintiff Janeth V. Napoles against the Defendant Noynoy B.
Aquino before the Honorable Court. The subject matter of this action
is a piece of land identified as #129 Liwayway Street, Barangay San
Fermin, Cauayan City, Isabela containing an area of TWO (2)
HECTARES, more or less, and covered by Original of Certificate of Title
No. 2222 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cauayan City Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant through force, threat and intimidation
usurped the whole property and started tilling the land and putting up
fences. Defendant denied said allegation and interposed the defense
that he owns the land he inherited from his father, that the Plaintiff did
not suffer actual or moral damages,that Plaintiff should be made to
pay for the Attorney’s fees of the Defendant.
Both parties have presented their pieces of evidence. The case is
now submitted for decision before the Honorable Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That Plaintiff JANETH V. NAPOLES, of legal age, Filipino and is

residing at #106 Gumamela Street, San Fermin, Cauayan City
where she may be served with court order and other processes;

2. Defendant NOYNOY B. AQUINO, of legal age, Filipino and a

resident of #25,Times Square, Quezon City where he may be
served with summons, order and other court processes;

3. Plaintiff became owner of a certain parcel of land, by virtue of

Free Patent under Commonwealth Act 141 or otherwise known
as Public Land Act, evidenced by Certificate of Free Patent
issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). (Copy of the Certificate of Free Patent is
hereto attached as Exhibit “A”);
4. The parcel of land, is located at #129 Liwayway Street, Barangay
San Fermin, Cauayan City, Isabela containing an area of TWO (2)
HECTARES, more or less, and covered by Original of Certificate
of Title No. 2222 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cauayan
City;(Copy of OCT-2222 is hereto attached as EXHIBIT “B”);

5. Plaintiff had utilized the subject land for rice planting, for two (2)
cropping seasons every year, with a harvest of approximately
two hundred (200) cavans for the entire land;

6. On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff was feeding her cows when the

defendant, together with three (3) armed men encroached and
took possession of the whole land through force, threat and
intimidation;

7. Simultaneous to their unlawful entry, the defendant started

tilling the land and putting up fences on the subject land making
it impossible for the Plaintiff to make an entrance therein.

8. Defendant refuses to vacate the land notwithstanding repeated

demands to vacate the same and to desist from further acts of
dispossession. (Copy of the written demand is hereto attached
as Exhibit “C”);

ISSUES

1. Who has the prior possession of the land in issue?

2. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages.

 DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

I. Who has the prior possession of the land in issue?

Under the Rules of Court, where a person unlawfully deprives

another of his property, an ejectment for forcible entry case may be
filed against the usurper and according to the case of Nenita Quality
Foods Corporation vs. Galabo, et al., Gr. No 1741919, for it to prosper,
the plaintiff must allege and prove:

1. Prior physical possession of the property; and

2. Unlawful deprivation of it by the defendant through force,

intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth

In the same case it was also held that in a civil case, the burden of
proof lies with the complainant. It is therefore, the Plaintiff who must
show that the above mentioned requisites are present in this case.

Firstly, the Plaintiff was in the actual possession of the land before
this controversy arose. She actually used the land for rice planting for
two (2) cropping seasons every year, with a harvest of approximately
two hundred (200) cavans for the entire land; for almost 25 years or
since 1992 until the Defendant forcibly took possession thereof
(Judicial Affidavit of Janeth V. Napoles, Exhibit D)
 Plaintiff’s allegations of prior possession are corroborated by the
testimony of her brother, Mr.Tim Yap (Exhibit E). According to the
latter, he became a helper of the Plaintiff in planting rice to the subject
land since 2003 after Plaintiff’s husband died from lung cancer leaving
the Plaintiff inadequate manpower to till the land in issue, from then
on; he has been giving aid to the Plaintiff on harvesting the rice to
help her sustain the needs of her family.

Claim of possession by the Plaintiff is coupled with Certificate of

Free Patent issued by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). (Exhibit “A”) and Original of Certificate of Title No.
2222 issued by the Register of Deeds of Cauayan City; (EXHIBIT “B”).
These documents are indication of possession in the concept of an
owner duly issued and recognized by the abovementioned
government agencies.

Secondly, In Banez vs. Lutheran Church in the Philippines (475

SCRA 13), the Supreme Court held that “the words- by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, include every situation or
condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real
property to exclude another, who was in prior possession.” In Mediran
vs Villanueva (37 Phil 752, 756), it was held that “the act of going on the
property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies
the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is necessary.”
According to the Plaintiff, she was unlawfully deprived of the land in
issue through force, threat and intimidation when on December 8,
2017; the Defendant with the aid of armed men forcibly entered the
land and started putting up fences. Despite oral demands from the
Plaintiff who was at that time feeding her cows, the Defendant
threatened by saying “Lumayas ka, kung hindi babarilin kita” (Get out
or else I will shoot you with gun). Intimidated and threatened for her
life, Plaintiff thus immediately ran away from the premises and
miserably watched her land unlawfully occupied by the Defendant.

The employment of force, in this case, can be deduced alone from

respondent’s taking full control and possession of the subject property.
Stressing further the use of firearms by the Defendant and his men made
this case undoubtedly fall into the word FORCE, INTIMIDATION and
THREAT.

Sometime after the unlawful deprivation, the Plaintiff demanded to

vacate and to desist from further acts of dispossession, which the
Defendant refused to do. (Exhibit “C) Hence, this case was duly filed by
the Plaintiff.

II. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court states that a person

deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, 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.

Section 17 of the same rule further provides that if after trial the
court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render
judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum
justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the premises, attorney’s fees and costs. If it finds that said
allegations are not true, it shall render judgment for the defendant to
recover his costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render
judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs
as justice requires.
Article 20 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that
“Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same”. As a
result of the clandestine intrusion of the defendant, depriving the
plaintiff of his property hence the plaintiff suffered damages. He was
constrained to engage the services of a lawyer to protect his rights
and interest, hence defendant should be ordered to pay the amount
of P15,000.00 to the plaintiff by way of attorney’s fees.

Moreover, the provisions of Article 2200 of the Rules of Court

clearly state that, indemnification for damages shall comprehend not
only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which
the obligee failed to obtain. Illegal occupation by the defendant of the
premises of the property has deprived the plaintiff from the beneficial
use thereof and has resulted to actual damages in the form of lost
opportunity to harvest 200 cavans of palay for the dry season or One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 100,000.00);

RESERVATIONS

Plaintiff respectfully reserves its right to file supplemental

pleadings or adduce additional evidence in due course of the
proceedings whenever necessary and proper.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that, after the proceedings, judgment be
rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and ordering the Defendant and all
persons claiming rights under him to:

(a) Permanently VACATE the premises in question and give the

immediate right of possession to the Plaintiff;

(b) Pay Plaintiff the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00)

by way of attorney’s fees; Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) by
way of other litigation expenses; One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) by way of actual damages.

(c) Pay the cost of this suit.

Plaintiff also prays for such other remedies and reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable under the premises.
 January 25, 2018. Cauayan City, Isabela.

ATTY. JOZELE MARIZ P. DALUPANG

Counsel for Plaintiff
Cauayan City, Isabela
Roll of Attorneys No. 988964
IBP No. J-25469
PTR No. J- 855469
MCLE No. J-78954

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST NON- FORUM SHOPPING

I, JANETH V. NAPOLES, of legal age, after being duly sworn to in

accordance with law, depose and attest:

That I am the plaintiff in the above-titled case; that I have caused

the preparation of the foregoing position paper and understood the
contents thereof, and I hereby declare that all the allegations
contained therein are true and correct according to my knowledge
and belief.
 Furthermore, I hereby certify that I have not filed nor caused to
be filed any other similar case involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency and
that, should there be any other such case/s that may have been filed, I
hereby bind myself to inform the Court of such fact within five (5) days
from the discovery thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hand this 25th

day of January 2018, Cauayan City, Isabela, Philippines.

JANETH V. NAPOLES
Plaintiff
SSS ID NO. 22222
Issued On: May, 20 2017
Issued At: Cauayan City, Isabela

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Cauayan

25th day of January 2018, Cauayan City, Isabela, Philippines, affiant
having exhibited to me his Social Security Service (SSS) Identification
Card, issued at Cauayan City, Isabela, Philippines.
 ATTY. JOZELE MARIZ P. DALUPANG
Notary Public
Doc. No. _______; Until December 31, 2018
Page No. _______; PTR No. 0398716
Book No. _______; issued at Cauayan City
Series of 2018. on January 9, 2017
TIN 123-321-456-654