Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Fifth Judicial Region
Branch 2
Naga City
AZUCENA P. GALAN, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO. 13740
- versus - For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

EDGARDO PASCUAL, SR.

Defendant.
x----------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the foregoing Position Paper
for the Plaintiffs:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case of Unlawful Detainer filed on March 20, 2019 by
plaintiffs against defendant who is occupying a portion of a parcel of land
and residential house covered by Tax Declaration Nos.
0801002600495-46, respectively.
Plaintiffs are the heirs of the late Rodolfo Galan who died in 2004.
Rodolfo is in turn the heir of Rosario G. Galan who died in 1993. The
deceased Rosario is the registered owner of the subject property
situated in Tinago, Naga City.
Defendant came to occupy the subject property sometime in 1967
when Rosario permitted defendant’s mother, Esperanza Pascual to
temporarily stay in the house. Despite repeated requests from Rosario’s
children for Esperanza and her family to find another place to stay, the
latter continued to stay therein. Defendant insisted on occupying the
subject property even after the death of her mother Esperanza. On
February 8, 2019, a Demand to Vacate was furnished defendant who
unjustifiably refused to vacate said premises anchoring his defense on
the allegation that the property is already transferred and registered
under the name Parsons Hardware, Co., Inc.
As per record, summons was served upon defendant on April 1,
2019 who filed his Answer April 10, 2019.

1
Mediation having failed, the Honorable Court set the Preliminary
Conference on July 12, 2019.
During the preliminary conference, defendant made the following
admissions:
1. He was furnished a Demand to Vacate dated February 8, 2019 by
plaintiffs;
2. A Certificate to File Action was issued the plaintiffs after the
parties failed to reach an amicable settlement in the barangay.
Upon marking of the parties’ respective exhibits on August 6, 2019,
they were directed to submit their respective Position Papers.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are the heirs of the late CONSOLACION AVERILLA
BELTRAN who died on February 2003. The deceased is the registered
owner of a parcel of covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 7772 1
situated at Sta. Cruz, Donsol, Sorsogon.
From the 1960s, Consolacion was in open, peaceful, physical and
continuous possession of said parcel of land. Before the martial law,
threatened by the presence of insurgents as well as threats received
from a former tenant in the area, Consolacion stopped going to Donsol,
Sorosogon. She resided and stayed in Nabua, Camarines Sur until her
death in February 2003. Residing almost a hundred kilometers away
from Sorsogon, Consolacion had no knowledge and information
regarding the status and condition of said land she left in Donsol,
Sorsogon.
Upon her death, Consolacion was survived by her children, herein
plaintiffs HENRIETTA B. ESPIRITU, STELA B. NEGLERIO,
GREGORIO A. BELTRAN, REYNALDO CASIANO BELTRAN and
NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ who partitioned said property and had Transfer
Certificates of Title issued in their names. Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-89182 was one such title registered in the names of herein
plaintiffs. The property covered by said TCT is that portion of the
property occupied by defendants.3
The subject property was previously declared for tax purposes in the
name of Consolacion and now in the name of plaintiffs who are regularly
paying the real property taxes over the lot.
Said heirs and herein plaintiffs resided and stayed in the United
States in the 1970s up to the present. Being away from the country, they
likewise had no knowledge and information regarding the status and
condition of said parcel of land situated in Sta. Cruz, Donsol, Sorsogon.

1 Exhibit “A”.
2 Exhibit “B”.
3 Commissioner’s Report dated December 19, 2018.

2
 Sometime on December 2016, plaintiff NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ
came back to the Philippines. She then visited said parcel of land in Sta.
Cruz and to her surprise, she discovered that herein defendants have
surreptitiously and forcibly entered and occupied said property through
strategy and stealth. Defendants erected residential structures therein
without the consent and knowledge of Consolacion or herein plaintiffs.
Plaintiff NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ thereby informed defendants that
she and her siblings are the owners of the land that they are occupying
and pleaded for them to vacate the property. Defendants, however,
refused to vacate and continued to occupy the same. They alleged that
they have either been permitted by the late Consolacion herself or a
certain Rosita Llamanzares, one of the tenants therein. They likewise
claim that they have been paying rental to a certain Zenaida Abrantes.
Plaintiffs, however, denies having any knowledge of such
arrangement. None of the alleged rental payments were received by
them or their late mother.
On June 5, 2017, plaintiffs furnished defendants with a Notice to
Vacate the property giving them thirty (30) days from receipt to
peaceably surrender possession of said property.4
Despite the lapse of the 30-day period, defendants unjustifiably
refused and continuously refused to vacate said property. This prompted
plaintiff NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ to file the instant case for ejectment
against defendants. Her co-heirs and plaintiffs herein HENRIETTA B.
ESPIRITU, STELA B. NEGLERIO, GREGORIO A. BELTRAN and
REYNALDO CASIANO BELTRAN executed a Special Power of Attorney
in favor of NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ to file and pursue the instant case
against defendants.5
ISSUES
I. Who is entitled to the possession of the subject property;
II. Whether or not defendant should be ejected from the subject
property;
III. Whether or not defendant should be required to pay plaintiffs an
amount for the use and occupation of the subject property,
damages, attorney’s fees and costs;
IV. Whether or not plaintiff has a cause of action.

DISCUSSION
I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
Plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of the owner of the property
Spouses Eleuterio and Rosario Galan. Plaintiffs are the children and
widow deceased of Rodolfo Galan, the son of Spouses Eleuterio and

4 Exhibits “G” to “TT” and derivatives.

5 Exhibits “C” to “F”.

3
Rosario. As such, plaintiffs are not only entitled to the ownership, but
also possession of the subject property.
Defendant, on the other hand, is a mere occupant of the property by
mere tolerance. Defendant’s mother Esperanza and his siblings were
allowed to temporarily stay in the property by Rosario in the 1960’s who
sporadically paid rentals during their stay. Defendant himself admitted
that he came to occupy the subject property when they rented a room
from Rosario.6
After some time, defendant stopped paying rent altogether. Being the
brother of plaintiff Azucena, his allowed to occupy the subject property
by mere tolerance.

II. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE EJECTED FROM THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY.
Under the Rules of Court, the remedies of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer are granted to 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. These remedies afford the
person deprived of the possession to file at any time within one year
after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, 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.7
For an unlawful detainer suit to prosper, the plaintiffs must allege and
prove:
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract
with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property
and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.8

6 Answer, par. 6.
7 RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, Sec. 1.
8 Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odones, 661 Phil. 676 (2011).

4
 1. POSSESION BY CONTRACT OR TOLERANCE
In the instant case, plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest, the late
Rosario only permitted defendant together with his mother Esperanza
and siblings to temporarily stay in the property. This fact is even
admitted by defendant himself in his Answer. The payment of rental was
sporadic and irregular. This was further corroborated by defendant’s
sister, Lolita Pascual Candelaria who lived with them in the same
house.9
From the foregoing, it is clear that defendant’s possession of the
property was at first by contract and later on by mere tolerance upon
failure to pay rentals.

2. POSSESSION BECAME ILLEGAL UPON NOTICE BY

PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT OF THE TERMINATION OF THE
LATTER’S RIGHT OF POSSESSION
As early as 2004, upon the death of Rodolfo, Rodolfo’s siblings
decided to eject defendant and his mother Esperanza from the subject
property. Plaintiff Azucena informed defendant of said decision but
defendant ignored the same.
In 2005, the siblings of deceased Rodolfo filed a complaint in the
barangay for ejectment. Defendant, however refused to vacate the
property. Over the years, defendant was repeatedly requested to leave
the subject property but to no avail.
The most recent demand for defendant to vacate the property was
made on February 8, 2019 which was done after a complaint for
ejectment in the barangay was filed. This matter was even admitted by
defendant during the preliminary conference.10
From such time of demand, defendant’s possession became illegal.

3. DEFENDANT REMAINED IN POSSESSION OF THE

PROPERTY AND DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFF OF THE
ENJOYMENT THEREOF
Despite being demanded to vacate the property, defendant continued
to occupy the same up to the present.

4. ACTION WAS FILED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE TIME
OF LAST DEMAND TO VACATE THE PROPERTY

9 Exhibit “O”, Sinumpaang Salaysay of Lolita Pascual Candelaria, par. 5, 6 and 7.

10 Preliminary Conference Order dated July 12, 2019.

5
 The last Demand to Vacate was furnished the defendant on
February 2018 via courier.11 The receipt of the Demand to Vacate was
like part of defendant’s admissions during the preliminary conference.
The case of Unlawful Detainer was filed on March 20, 2019 or within the
one-year period.
The aforementioned requisites being present, defendant should be
ejected from the subject property.
III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY FOR THE
OCCUPATION AND USE OF PROPERTY, DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S
FEES AND COSTS.
The Rules of Court states 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, attorneys fees and costs.12
The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases thus
refer to rents or the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the premises or fair rental value of the property and
attorneys fees and costs.13

III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

DEFENDANT.
SUMMARY
The plaintiffs were able to prove the following:
(1) Actual prior possession of the subject property through their
tenant Rosita Llamanzares and former tenant Reynaldo Locito and
the execution of the Deeds of Mortgage involving the subject
property;
(2) Dispossession of the subject property by defendants through
stealth an strategy, defendants taking advantage of the fact that the
property was left unattended by Consolacion who was residing in
Nabua, Camarines Sur and herein plaintiffs who are permanently
residing in the US;
(3) Filing of the Forcible Entry Case within one-year from discovery
of the dispossession. The case was filed on December 8, 2017 or
within one (1) year from the time of discovery of defendants’
occupation of the subject property by plaintiff NOEMI B.
RODRIGUEZ sometime on December 2016.

11 Exhibits “F” and “G”.

12 RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, Sec. 17.
13 Herrera v. Bollos, G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002, 374 SCRA 107.

6
 Having categorically proven the following facts, plaintiffs have
established a cause of action against defendants, namely, the alleged
unlawful entry into the leased premises out of which three (3) reliefs
arise: (a) the restoration of the possession of the premises to plaintiffs;
(b) the claim for actual damages due to the losses suffered by plaintiffs
which consists in the deprivation of the use of the premises causing loss
of expected profits; and, (c) the claim for attorneys fees and costs of suit.
FORMAL OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS WITH MOTION TO MARK EXHIBITS

Plaintiffs, through counsel unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully submit this Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits for the
aforementioned case:
EX. DOCUMENT PURPOSE
A Original Certificate of Title No. To prove that the subject property was
P-7772 previously registered in the name of
Consolacion A. Beltran;
To prove that the lot was mortgaged
by Consolacion to PNB to
demonstrate prior actual possession
thereof.
B Transfer Certificate of Title No. To prove that the lot was already
T-8918 transferred in the name of herein
plaintiffs upon the death of
Consolacion A. Beltran.
C Special Power of Attorney executed To prove that Noemi B. Rodriguez
by Henrietta B. Espiritu was authorized by her co-owners to
file the instant case.
D Special Power of Attorney executed To prove that Noemi B. Rodriguez
by Stela B. Neglerio was authorized by her co-owners to
file the instant case.
E Special Power of Attorney executed To prove that Noemi B. Rodriguez
by Gregorio A. Beltran was authorized by her co-owners to
file the instant case.
F Special Power of Attorney executed To prove that Noemi B. Rodriguez
by Reynaldo Casiano Beltran was authorized by her co-owners to
file the instant case.
G Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Randy Ombao was furnished and received by
defendants.
G-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Randy Ombao was furnished and received by
defendants.
G-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Randy Ombao was furnished and received by
defendants.
H Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to William Melitante was furnished and received by
defendants.

7
H-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to William was furnished and received by
Melitante defendants.
H-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to William Melitante was furnished and received by
defendants.
I Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Felipe Malto was furnished and received by
defendants.
I-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Felipe Malto was furnished and received by
defendants.
I-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Felipe Malto was furnished and received by
defendants.
J Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Elsa Dongon was furnished and received by
defendants.
J-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Elsa Dongon was furnished and received by
defendants.
J-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Elsa Dongon was furnished and received by
defendants.
K Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Menchu Palima was furnished and received by
defendants.
K-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Menchu was furnished and received by
Palima defendants.
K-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Menchu Palima was furnished and received by
defendants.
L Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Leonardo Cruz was furnished and received by
defendants.
L-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Leonardo Cruz was furnished and received by
defendants.
L-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Leonardo Cruz was furnished and received by
defendants.
M Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Renante Ombao was furnished and received by
defendants.
M-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Renante was furnished and received by
Ombao defendants.
M-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Renante Ombao was furnished and received by
defendants.

8
N Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Henry Melitante was furnished and received by
defendants.
N-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Henry was furnished and received by
Melitante defendants.
N-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Henry Melitante was furnished and received by
defendants.
O Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Malen Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
O-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Malen Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
O-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Malen Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
P Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Melchor Samson was furnished and received by
defendants.
P-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Melchor was furnished and received by
Samson defendants.
P-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Melchor Samson was furnished and received by
defendants.
Q Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Mauricio was furnished and received by
Napucao, Sr. defendants.
Q-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Mauricio was furnished and received by
Napucao, Sr. defendants.
Q-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Mauricio Napucao, Sr. was furnished and received by
defendants.
R Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Arnold Pandaan was furnished and received by
defendants.
R-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Arnold was furnished and received by
Pandaan defendants.
R-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate Arnold Pandaan was furnished and received by
defendants.
S Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Amparo Palima was furnished and received by
defendants.
S-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Amparo was furnished and received by
Palima defendants.

9
S-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Amparo Palima was furnished and received by
defendants.
T Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Armando was furnished and received by
Balonzo defendants.
T-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Armando was furnished and received by
Balonzo defendants.
T-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Armando Balonzo was furnished and received by
defendants.
U Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Eleanor Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
U-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Eleanor Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
U-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Eleanor Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
V Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Marissa Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
V-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Marissa Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
V-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Marissa Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
W Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Ariel Papina was furnished and received by
defendants.
W-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Ariel Papina was furnished and received by
defendants.
W-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Ariel Papina was furnished and received by
defendants.
X Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Marites Flores was furnished and received by
defendants.
X-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Marites Flores was furnished and received by
defendants.
X-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Marites Flores was furnished and received by
defendants.
Y Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Alven Balonzo was furnished and received by
defendants.

10
Y-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Alven Balonzo was furnished and received by
defendants.
Y-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Alven Baonzo was furnished and received by
defendants.
Z Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Romulo Jimenez was furnished and received by
defendants.
Z-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Romulo was furnished and received by
Jimenez defendants.
Z-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Romulo Jimenez was furnished and received by
defendants.
AA Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Nida Mollasgo was furnished and received by
defendants.
AA-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Nida Mollasgo was furnished and received by
defendants.
AA-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Nida Mollasgo was furnished and received by
defendants.
BB Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Jerry Persia was furnished and received by
defendants.
BB-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Jerry Persia was furnished and received by
defendants.
BB-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Jerry Persia was furnished and received by
defendants.
CC Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Joel Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
CC-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Joel Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
CC-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Joel Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
DD Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Delsa Lozano was furnished and received by
defendants.
DD-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Delsa Lozano was furnished and received by
defendants.
DD-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Delsa Lozano was furnished and received by
defendants.

11
EE Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Diego Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
EE1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Diego Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
EE-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Diego Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
FF Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Arnel Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
FF-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Arnel Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
FF-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Arnel Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
GG Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Emelie Jimenez was furnished and received by
defendants.
GG-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Emelie was furnished and received by
Jimenez defendants.
GG-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Emelie Jimenez was furnished and received by
defendants.
HH Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Susan Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
HH-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Susan Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
HH-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Susan Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
II Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Mary Grace was furnished and received by
Musa defendants.
II-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Mary Grace was furnished and received by
Musa defendants.
II-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Mary Grace Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
JJ Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Junie Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
JJ-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Junie Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.

12
JJ-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Junie Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
KK Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Salvacion Alves was furnished and received by
defendants.
KK-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Salvacion was furnished and received by
Alves defendants.
KK-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Salvacion Alves was furnished and received by
defendants.
LL Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Jose Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
LL-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Jose Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
LL-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Jose Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
NN Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Nemesio Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
NN-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Nemesio was furnished and received by
Losito defendants.
NN-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Salvador Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
OO Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Salvador Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
OO-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Salvador Llago was furnished and received by
defendants.
OO-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Celeste Pandaan was furnished and received by
defendants.
PP Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Celeste Pandaan was furnished and received by
defendants.
PP-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Celeste was furnished and received by
Pandaan defendants.
PP-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Celeste Pandaan was furnished and received by
defendants.
QQ Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Arnold Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.

13
QQ-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Arnold Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
QQ-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Arnold Losito was furnished and received by
defendants.
RR Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Mauricio was furnished and received by
Napucao, Jr. defendants.
RR-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Mauricio was furnished and received by
Napucao, Jr. defendants.
RR-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Mauricio Napucao, Jr. was furnished and received by
defendants.
SS Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Felecitas Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
SS-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Felecitas Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
SS-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Felecitas Musa was furnished and received by
defendants.
TT Demand to Vacate dated June 5, To prove that a Demand to Vacate
2017 addressed to Elias Lozano was furnished and received by
defendants.
TT-1 Registry Receipt of Demand to To prove that a Demand to Vacate
Vacate Addressed to Elias Lozano was furnished and received by
defendants.
TT-2 Registry Return Receipt of Demand To prove that a Demand to Vacate
to Vacate to Elias Lozano was furnished and received by
defendants.

Further, plaintiffs move for the marking of the following exhibits

which are already attached to the records for the purposes stated
therein:

EX. DOCUMENT PURPOSE

UU Sworn Statement of Noemi B. To prove that defendants entered the
Rodriguez dated March 10, 2018 subject property without the
knowledge and consent of
Consolacion A. Beltran or plaintiffs.
To prove that Rosita Llamanzares and
Zenaida Abrantes were never given
authority to allow defendants to
occupy the subject property and
receive rental payments, respectively.
To prove that no rental payment was
received by Consolacion A. Beltran or

14
 plaintiffs from defendants.
VV DAR Notice of Mediation To prove that Reynaldo Losito was a
Conference dated June 7, 1978 former tenant of Consolacion A.
Beltran.
XX Pinagkasunduan dated June 22, To prove that Reynaldo Losito was a
1978 signed by Reynaldo Locito and former tenant of Consolacion A.
Consolacion Beltran Beltran.
YY Receipt dated July 15, 1978 signed To prove that Reynaldo Losito was a
by Reynaldo Locito former tenant of Consolacion A.
Beltran.
ZZ Receipt dated September 9, 1978 To prove that Reynaldo Losito was a
signed by Reginaldo Locito former tenant of Consolacion A.
Beltran.
AAA Affidavit of Reynalo Averilla dated To prove that plaintiffs appointed
March 20, 2018 Reynaldo Averilla as administrator of
the property on June 2017.
BBB Letter dated September 29, 2017 To prove that plaintiffs appointed
addressed to Nemesio Losito Reynaldo Averilla as administrator of
the property on June 2017.
BBB-1 Registry Receipt of Letter dated To prove that plaintiffs appointed
September 29, 2017 to Nemesio Reynaldo Averilla as administrator of
Losito the property on June 2017.
CCC Letter dated September 29, 2017 To prove that plaintiffs appointed
addressed to Arnold Losito Reynaldo Averilla as administrator of
the property on June 2017.
CCC- Registry Receipt of Letter of Letter To prove that plaintiffs appointed
1 dated September 29, 2017 Reynaldo Averilla as administrator of
addressed to Arnold Losito the property on June 2017.
DDD Commissioner’s Report dated To prove that the areas covered by
December 19, 2018 Clusters 2 and 3 are private property
of plaintiffs and should therefore be
vacated by defendants occupying the
same.
EEE Subdvision Plan of Lot 72, To prove that the areas covered by
Pls-765-D Clusters 2 and 3 are private property
of plaintiffs and should therefore be
vacated by defendants occupying the
same.
FFF Sketch Plan of Lot 72-A, To prove that the areas covered by
Gsd-05-000031 (AR) Clusters 2 and 3 are private property
of plaintiffs and should therefore be
vacated by defendants occupying the
same.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that THE:
1. Submission of the foregoing Memorandum be NOTED;

15
 2. Aforesaid exhibits be admitted in evidence for plaintiffs for the
purpose or purposes for which they are being offered and further the
aforementioned exhibits be so marked;
3. Judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiffs ordering defendants
under Cluster 2 and 3 to vacate said property and peacefully and
voluntarily surrender possession thereof to plaintiffs and requiring
defendants to pay the following amounts:
a. P50,000.00 as moral damages;
b. P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
c. )P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P10,000.00 per court
appearance;
d. Monthly rental of P1,000.00 for the use and occupation the
property;
e. Costs.

Plaintiffs pray for such other relief as may be just and equitable
under the prevailing premises.

Naga City for Donsol, Sorsogon. February 13, 2019.

IRENE C. CUNANAN-ESTRELLADO
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unit ST5, Dona Elena Bldg., J. Miranda Avenue,
Concepcion Pequena, Naga City
Roll No. 54671
IBP A.R. No. 0354- 01/14/2019
PTR No. 0419146- 01/14/2019
MCLE Compliance No. VI- 0003349- 10/12/2017
Contact Nos. 09177938399/09399160827

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. DULCISIMO A. MARANA, JR.

Counsel for the Defendants
Public Attorney’s Office
Pilar District Office, Pilar, Sorsogon

16
 VERIFICATION

I, NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ, after having been sworn in accordance with law

hereby depose and say THAT:

1. ) I am one of the plaintiffs and the attorney-in-fact of my co-plaintiffs in the

instant case;

2.) I have caused the foregoing Memorandum to be prepared and that I have
read the same and the allegations therein are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and based on authentic records;

3.) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency;

4.) No such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency;

5.) If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, we hereby undertake to notify this
Honorable Court within five days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my hand this day of

______ day of February 2019 at Naga City, Philippines.

NOEMI B. RODRIGUEZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me at Naga City, Philippines,

this ____ day of February 2019.

Page No. _____

Doc. No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2019.

17