Republic of the Philippines

_________________________
_____________________
________________
____ City

ABC Corporation,
Plaintiff

-versus –

Mr. Jerry Latorre,

Defendant

POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT

COMES NOW, Defendant thru counsel unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits his position paper:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a civil case for EJECTMENT filed by the PLaintiff against the Defendant
vacate the aforesaid one storey commercial building and lot

FACTS OF THE CASE

Defendant is the care taker of Ms. Lourdes Limbaga on her lot in Toledo City,
wherein he constructed for his living arrangements a small house. Plaintiff, rented
the said lot to become a motorcycle store. With the offer and arrangements made by
ABC Corporation to take him in as the manager of a motorcycle store, plaintiff
demolished a portion of his small house in the lot and constructed a one-storey
building. Despite such, defendant continued to live at the portion of his house that
was not demolished.
 Sometime in April 1, 2007, while defendant was away, plaintiff forcely opened
the building and took away 3 of defendant’s personal motorcycles. Despite demand,
plaintiff refuses to return the aforementioned and demands that defendant vacate
the property alleging that they were the ones who constructed the building.

The defendant has continued to stay in the house which he has constructed and
has not been paid by plaintiff of the demolition they caused on his house.

ISSUE

Whether or not the plaintiff has the right to compel defendant to vacate the
building.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are two distinct actions defined in
Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In Forcible Entry, one employs force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive another of physical possession of
the land (Montanez vs Mendoza, 392 SCRA 541). Possession by the defendant of the
subject property is unlawful ab initio.

On the other hand, Unlawful Detainer involves the person’s withholding from
another of the possession of real property to which the latter is entitled, after the
expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold possession under the contract,
either expressed or implied (Republic vs Luriz, 513 SCRA 140). Possession by the
defendant of the property is originally unlawful but becomes illegal by virtue of the
termination of his right of possession under his contract with the plaintiff, either
expressed or implied (Tirona vs Alejo, 367 SCRA 17)

The plaintiff has no sufficient cause of action against the defendant for the fact
that the case involves a question of OWNERSHIP and DEFENDANT admits that he is
not paying any rental of the lot and building, since the property (lot) has been his
residence since the plaintiff has demolished his house and has not compensated him
in any way for its destruction.

Even before the filing of the complaint, plaintiff asserts that they are one who
constructed the one storey building and by this reason alone claims the right of such
property. However, defendant has not occupied the one storey building and has
been living in the portion of his house that was not demolished by plaintiff. Further,
the three (3) motorcycles that he has stored inside the building was for safekeeping
since he was away and due to the demolition done by the plaintiff, defendant had no
further recourse but to take advantage of the building’s security for his personal
property which he can not protect due to his demolished house.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed before this

Honorable Court that the ejectment suit be denied, in favor of the defendant,
ordering the plaintiff to return the three (3) motorcycle, pay the defendant for the
damage VACATE and SURRENDER the de facto/material possession of the subject
property to the defendant or er duly authorized legal representative/s, with awards
of damages, litigation expenses, and costs of suit, as duly proven.

Cebu City, January 7, 2008.