Position Paper - Pinohan

Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

10th Judicial Region
---------
City of Malaybalay
RHEA RIZZA P. MELLIZA, Civil Case No. 2364

Represented by her Attorney-
in-fact RHONA LYN
MELLIZA-OCAB
Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
SPOUSES CONCORDIO FORCIBLE ENTRY AND

PINOHAN AND EPPIE LIPAY- DAMAGES WITH PRAYER
PINOHAN, REX GABAT, FOR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY
members of their household, MANDATORY INJUNCTION
relatives, heirs, assigns, and AND TEMPORARY
several JOHN DOES who have RESTRAINING ORDER AND
entered the property belonging STATUS QUO ANTE
to the Plaintiff upon the instance
of the named Defendants or acting
in their behalf
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER OF THE DEFENDANTS
COMES NOW, the Defendants, assisted by the

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers:
PREFARATORY STATEMENT
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that in

forcible entry- one is deprived of physical possession of any
land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth. Thus, in a case where plaintiffs were not
deprived of any physical possession or when there was no entry
in the actual occupation/possession of the plaintiffs, there
would be no legal basis for Forcible Entry.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

When this case was called for Preliminary Conference, the
Plaintiffs and Defendants, together with their respective
counsels appeared. Notwithstanding earnest efforts exerted,
parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Herein Defendants received the Pre-Trial Order of this

Honorable Court dated January 02, 2020 only on February
06, 2020 ordering the Parties within which to submit the
judicial affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence,
together with their Position Papers, hence, this Pleading.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs alleged that they acquired title over the property

by virtue of a Deed of Sale from the defendant Concordio
Pinohan which is described as Lot No. 72, Gssm-10-0004
containing an area of 29,800 square meters embraced and
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-8756 in the name
of Concordio Pinohan. Plaintiffs further alleged that they were
in actual physical possession over the subject land since 1979
after having bought the subject property from Concordio and
his wife. Plaintiffs complained that sometime on the last week
of March 2019 to April 2019, Defendants Spouses Pinohan and
Rex Gabat through force, intimidation, threat, stealth and
strategy, entered the subject property.
Defendants, on the other hand, maintained that spouses

Concordio and Eppie Pinohan were the lawful owners of the
whole parcel of land since the certificate of title covering the
subject land is in their name and the same was not transferred
nor encumbered in any manner to anyone. The defendants
were never dispossessed from the subject land and they have
been in possession of the same for more than fifty (50) years.
Herein Plaintiifs now filed this case alleging that the
fencing of the Defendants and other actual occupants to
protect their possession is an act of forcible entry.
ISSUES
I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS FORCIBLE ENTRY
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED

TO DAMAGES
III. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO THE
POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT LOT.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
I. THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS DO NOT

CONSTITUTE FORCIBLE ENTRY
Plaintiffs alleged that they acquired title over the above-

described property and Plaintiffs further alleged that they were
in actual physical possession over the subject land since 1978
after having bought the same from Concordio and Eppie
Pinohan.
Plaintiffs was not and never the possessor of the subject

parcel of land. As stated in its Complaint, Rhea Rizza P. Melliza
is a resident of Iloilo City. Ms. Melliza was never in possession
of the subject land. Even her attorney-in-fact Rhona Lynn
Melliza-Ocab was also not in possession of the same. It is basic
in forcible entry cases that there should have been previous
actual occupation by the complainant. In this case, however,
there was no proof that the complainant or her representatives
ever possessed the subject land, or they were in possession
prior to the alleged forcible entry. It cannot also be denied that
there was no proof that indeed that there was force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth that was committed by
the defendants. Any, some, or all between force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth must be present before there can be
forcible entry in the first place. In forcible entry cases, it is the
plaintiff who has the burden of proving that there is forcible
entry. There must be preponderance of evidence in the
plaintiffs’ favor. Absent any proof that indeed there was forcible
entry, the present complaint must be outrightly dismissed.
The judicial affidavits submitted by the defendants clearly

show that they have been in possession of the subject land and
they were never dispossessed of the same. THERE WAS
NEVER AN INTRUSION IN THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF
THE PLAINTIFFS.
II. THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE

POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Based on the arguments adverted to by the defendants,
the defendants are entitled to the possession of the
subject property since there was no forcible entry to speak
of in the first place. Added is the fact that the true and
rightful owners of the subject land are Concordio and
Eppie Pinohan. Not the plaintiff.
III. THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
Herein Defendants replead their arguments above to form

part of their claim for damages.
The defendants have been in possession of the subject

parcel of land for nearly half a century already and suddenly
the plaintiffs filed this forcible entry case arguing that the
subject parcel of land was sold to them. Worthy to note that,
assuming arguendo that the Deed of Sale is valid, the plaintiffs
did not mind to have the certificate of title representing the
subject parcel of land, or at the very least annotated the Deed
of Sale in the Concordio Pinohan’s certificate of title. Plaintiff
did not mind explaining why she failed and neglected
transferring the title of the subject lot to her name. Plaintiff is
not an ignorant woman who would not know the basics of
ownership and property, or at the very least, plain logic.
The reputation of the Defendants who were good citizens

were besmirched and mired because of the filing of this very
malicious case. Defendants, although ordinary citizens, deserve
that they be awarded moral damages since their peaceful
possession over the subject property is disturbed by this
unsubstantiated complaint and therefore should be awarded
Php 50,000.00 as moral damages.
Finally, the acts of the Plaintiffs are contemptuous which

they should be slapped for exemplary damages in the amount
of Php 100,000.00.
Worthy to mention, these damages were stated in the

counterclaim which the Plaintiffs did not even bother to
answer.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that above mentioned case against the
defendants be dismissed based on the above stated arguments
and that Plaintiffs be ordered by this Honorable Court to pay
actual damages in the amount of PhP, Moral damages in the
amount of PhP and exemplary damages in the amount of PhP.
Other relief just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
City of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, May 12, 2017.
LCGV LAW OFFICE

Attorneys-At-Law
2nd Floor, Jamstar Bldg., corner Judge Carillo-San Isidro
St.,
Brgy 5, Poblacion ,Malaybalay City, Bukidnon
Counsel for the Defendants
By:
ALBERTO R. LAGAMON
Until December 31, 2018
PTR No.5436148: 1-11-2017
IBP Lifetime No. 08176
ROLL of Atty’s No. 52899
TIN 106-037-743
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon
MCLE Compliance No. V- 0009310
Copy furnished:
Atty. RAYMON CHARL O. GAMBOA

RR:___________________
GAMBOA LAW OFFICE
West Poblacion, Kalilangan, Bukidnon

Position Paper - Pinohan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Position Paper - Pinohan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Position Paper - Pinohan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

RHEA RIZZA P. MELLIZA, Civil Case No. 2364

SPOUSES CONCORDIO FORCIBLE ENTRY AND

POSITION PAPER OF THE DEFENDANTS

COMES NOW, the Defendants, assisted by the

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that in

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

Herein Defendants received the Pre-Trial Order of this

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs alleged that they acquired title over the property

Defendants, on the other hand, maintained that spouses

I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS FORCIBLE ENTRY

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED

I. THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS DO NOT

Plaintiffs alleged that they acquired title over the above-

Plaintiffs was not and never the possessor of the subject

The judicial affidavits submitted by the defendants clearly

II. THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE

III. THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

Herein Defendants replead their arguments above to form

The defendants have been in possession of the subject

The reputation of the Defendants who were good citizens

Finally, the acts of the Plaintiffs are contemptuous which

Worthy to mention, these damages were stated in the

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

LCGV LAW OFFICE

Atty. RAYMON CHARL O. GAMBOA

You might also like