Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 10, Manila City

LINO BARTOLOME,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case no. 123456

For: Unlawful Detainer
ACE CORPUZ,
Defendant.
xx-----------------------------xx

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, the PLAINTIFF, by the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully offers the following
documentary exhibits for the above titled case, to wit:

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PURPOSE/S

“A” Certificate of Lot  To prove that the subject

Award/ Transfer property is owned by the
Certificate of Title plaintiff and to disprove the
No. 123456 dated purported acquisition of
December 16, 1978 ownership by the defendant
by virtue of succession
and/or prescription.

“B” Joint Affidavit of Mr.  To corroborate the

Joselito Ibarra Castro testimony of Mr. Lino
and Mr. Juan Karlos Bartolome .
Enguillo  To attest to the fact that
defendant’s entry on and
possession of the subject
property was based on Mr.
Lino Bartolome’s
permission only
“B-1” Signature of Mr.  To prove that the witness
Joselito Ibarra Castro duly executed the affidavit
(Exh. “B”).

“B-2” Signature of Mr. Juan  To prove that the witness

Karlos Enguillo duly executed the affidavit
(Exh. B”).

“C”, “C-1” Letters of Demand to  To prove the cessation of

Vacate defendant’s right of
possession over the
property.
 To prove that there was
demand to vacate which is a
condition precedent before
a case for unlawful detainer
may prosper.
 To prove defendant’s
acknowledgment of receipt
of the letter by writing his
own name and signature.
“D” Certificate to File  To prove that plaintiff
Action attempted to amicably
settle with the defendant
before the Barangay Lupon
which is a condition
precedent before a case for
unlawful detainer may
prosper.
 To prove that no amicable
settlement was reached
upon by the parties due to
non-attendance of the
defendant.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed to this Honorable Court that the foregoing documentary
exhibits be admitted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

January 24, 2019, Manila City.

PATRICIA ANNE Q. FELIPE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-22: B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-22: B.C.
Roll No. 52110:5-10-21: Manila
8th Floor Pacific Star Building,
Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue corner Makati Avenue, Makati City

NOTICE

The Hon. Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 10, Manila City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Formal Offer for the consideration

and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
thereof.

PATRICIA ANNE Q. FELIPE

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. XXX FELIPE

Counsel for the Defendant
Unit 910 Manila Residences Tower,
321 Vito Cruz, Taft Ave., Malate,
Manila City

ACE CORPUZ
0181-A Fugoso St., Rizal Ave., Barangay 411 Sta. Cruz, Manila, Philippines
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, MIGUEL CARLOS, Filipino, of legal age, single and with

postal address at Unit 910 Manila Residences Tower, 321 Vito Cruz,
Taft Ave., Malate, Manila City, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state the following:

1. I am the messenger of ATTY PATRICIA ANNE Q. FELIPE, the

Counsel for the Plaintiff in the above-entitled complaint;

2. On January 23, 2019, I served the above-entitled Offer of

Evidence pursuant to Sections 5 and 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules
of Court by personal service to the following persons:

a. Defendant Ace Corpuz at 0181-A Fugoso St., Rizal Ave.,

Barangay 411 Sta. Cruz, Manila, Philippines. The Pre-Trial
Brief was received by the defendant himself.

b. The defendant’s counsel, Atty. XXX Felipe, at Unit 910

Manila Residences Tower, 321 Vito Cruz, Taft Ave., Malate,
Manila City. The Pre-Trial Brief was received by the office
secretary.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 24th

day of January 2019 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

MIGUEL CARLOS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24th day of January

2019 in the City of Manila, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his
Passport No. P5465782A issued in Manila on 13 August 2016.

Doc No: 5
Dianne T. Jalosjos
Page No: 1 Notary Public for Manila City
Book No: 1 2/F APT bldg., Filmore Street
Series of 2019 Barangay Palanan, Manila City
Until 31 December 2018 / Appointment no 175-2017
PTR No. 1726276/ 06 January 2018/ Manila City
Roll of Attorney’s No. 12647
IBP Lifetime No. 984736/ 12 January 2016/ Manila City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0004637 / 12 January 2017
 MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, LINO BARTOLOME, though the

undersigned Counsel, and unto this Most Honorable Court
respectfully alleges that:

I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a Civil Case filed by LINO BARTOLOME (“LINO” for

brevity) for Unlawful Detainer against ACE CORPUZ (“ACE” for
brevity) on December 3, 2018. On December 4, 2018, defendant
received summons issued by the Court to file an answer. On
December 7, defendant filed his Answer. On December 13,
preliminary conference was held in the presence of the plaintiff,
defendant, and their respective counsels. Accordingly, after
presentation of evidence, the Court ordered the parties to submit
their respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise,
the case is deemed submitted for decision.

II.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

LINO is the registered owner of a house and lot located at 0181-

A Fugoso St., Rizal Ave., Barangay 411 Sta. Cruz, Manila, Philippines.
This is evidenced by a Certificate of Lot Award issued by City of
Manila City Tenants Security Committee headed by then City Mayor
& Committee Chairman Ramon D. Bagatsing and Transfer of
Certificate of Title No. 123456 dated December 1978.
 In 1995, the house of ACE was demolished when Fugoso Street
in Santa Cruz, Manila was opened to public to become a street. Since
LINO and ACE were close friends, the former let the latter to live in
the subject property, and rent for free. Such possession was not by the
virtue of any contract but through plaintiff’s mere tolerance and
compassion.

On December 16, 2017, LINO started to demand the ACE to

vacate and return the property to him but ACE refused to do so after
the lapse of the period given to him to vacate.

LINO attempted to amicably settle the matter by filing a

complaint against the defendant before the Barangay on March 6,
2018. However, no amicable settlement was reached upon by the
parties. Defendant failed to appear and attend in three consecutive
hearings before the Barangay on March 10, 17, and 21, 2018. As a
result, the barangay issued a Certificate to File Action in favor of the
plaintiff.

Finally, on September 20, 2018, LINO sent the final demand

letter for ACE to vacate and return the possession of the subject
property within thirty (30) days but ACE unjustly refused and
retained his illegal possession of said property. The final demand
letter was received by herein defendant as evidenced by an
acknowledgement annotated in the left corner of the document, his
name and signature appearing therein. A photocopy of the demand
letter dated September 20, 2018 is hereto attached and marked as
Annex “D”;
 ACE unjustly refused to vacate the subject property despite
repeated demands. Up to the present, Ace is occupying the subject
property.
III. ISSUE

Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action for unlawful

detainer against the defendant.

IV. ARGUMENTS

1. The plaintiff has a cause of action for unlawful detainer against the
defendant.

2. Between the defendant’s unsubstantiated self-serving claim of

ownership and the plaintiff’s Certificate of Title, the latter must
prevail.

V. DISCUSSION

All the essential elements of an

unlawful detainer case are present
in this case

In unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds possession after

the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under
any contract, express or implied.1

1
Sec. 1, Rule 70, RULES OF COURT.
 In Cabrera v. Getaruela,2 the Court held that a complaint
sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites
the following:

(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.

Tolerance must be present right from the start of possession

sought to be recovered to be within the purview of unlawful detainer.
Mere tolerance always carries with it permission and not merely
silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance.3

In this case, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the

possession of the subject property by the defendant was by mere
tolerance and compassion of the plaintiff since at that time the house
of the defendant was demolished and the parties were then close
friends. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to rent the premises for
free. That the acts of tolerance have been present from the very start
of possession was corroborated by Joselito Ibarra Castro and Juan
Karlos Enguillo in their Joint Affidavit where they attested that had
they were present at the day when defendant moved in to the subject
property and during the time when the plaintiff and defendant
expressly and verbally agreed that the defendant may live in the
house for free.

2
604 Phil. 59, 66 (2009).
3
Carbonilla v. Abiera, et. al., G.R. No. 177637 (2010).
 The possession of defendant became illegal on December 16,
2017 when the plaintiff handed a letter of demand to vacate to the
defendant.

Despite several demands, the defendant remained in possession

of the property up to the time of filing of the complaint and even up to
this day, and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof.

Lastly, within one year from the last demand on defendant to

vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment. The first demand was made by the plaintiff on December
16, 2017 and the last demand was made on September 20, 2018. In
any case, the present complaint was filed within the one (1)-year
prescriptive period to file an ejectment case and it is, therefore, within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.

Plaintiff’s Certificate of Title

must prevail

Between the defendant’s unsubstantiated self-serving claim of

ownership and the plaintiff’s Certificate of Title, the latter must
prevail.

The Certificate of Title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and

incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein and such person is entitled to the possession
thereof.4

Neither will laches operate to deprive the registered owner of a

parcel of land of his right to recover possession thereof.5

4
Emasquel v. Coprada, G.R. No. 152423 (2010).
5
Sps, Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Assoc. Inc., 503 Phil. 751 (2005).
 Moreover, a Certificate of Title can only be attacked in a direct
proceeding and not by a collateral proceeding. In an unlawful
detainer case, the sole issue to be decided is possession de
facto rather than possession de jure. Hence, the collateral attack by
the defendant on plaintiff’s title is proscribed. An unlawful detainer
case only covers the issue of who has the better right of possession in
relation to the issue of disputed ownership of the subject properties.

VI. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court, after due hearing, judgment be rendered in
favor of the Plaintiff, by:

3.1. Ordering defendant ACE CORPUZ, his family, successors,

assigns and all those acting under him to VACATE the subject
property located at 0181-A Fugoso St., Rizal Ave., Barangay 411
Sta. Cruz, Manila, Philippines, and SURRENDER the
possession thereof to herein plaintiff LINO BARTOLOME.

3.2. Ordering defendant to pay the following to the plaintiff;

a. Actual Damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand

Pesos (P30,000) representing fair rental value since
the time of unlawful possession;

b. Moral Damages in an amount as maybe determined by

the Honorable Court;

c. Exemplary Damages in an amount the Honorable

Court in its wise discretion, may determine;
 d. Attorney’s Fees in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00);

e. Cost of this suit;

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

January 24, 2019, City of Manila, Philippines.

PATRICIA ANNE Q. FELIPE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-22: B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-22: B.C.
Roll No. 52110:5-10-21: Manila
8th Floor Pacific Star Building,
Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue corner Makati Avenue, Makati City

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. XXX FELIPE
Counsel for the Defendant
Unit 910 Manila Residences Tower,
321 Vito Cruz, Taft Ave., Malate,
Manila City

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Memorandum has been served by registered mail

to the counsel for the defendant as personal service cannot be availed
of in view of time and manpower restrictions.
ATTY PATRICIA ANNE Q. FELIPE
Counsel for Plaintiff