Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Fifth Judicial Region
Branch X
________________

ABC,
Plaintiffs,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. 123
XYZ, For: Forcible Entry with Damages
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(For the Plaintiffs)

PLAINTIFFS, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

submit this Position Paper, and in support thereof set forth:

I
The Case

The present case arose from a complaint for forcible entry with
damages filed by plaintiffs, spouses ABC (plaintiffs for brevity), against
herein defendants, spouses XYZ (defendants for brevity), seeking the
recovery of possession of Lot XXX situated at
______________________ which plaintiffs owned after acquiring the
said property by way of sale from its previous owner. Defendants, by
means of force and intimidation, prevented and deprived plaintiffs
from entering the subject property.

In their answer, defendants denied said claim by asserting

ownership over the subject property, the same having been allegedly
inherited from their ancestors. Defendants further claimed that they
are in possession of Lot XXX since 1984.

II
The Parties

A. Spouses XYZ, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, are

husband and wife, both of legal age, Filipino citizens and residents of
______________________. They may be served with notices and other
processes of this Honorable Court through their counsel Atty. OOO.
POSITION PAPER
CIVIL CASE NO. 5711
SPS. AJERO VS. SPS. CERVANTES
Page | 2

B. Spouses XYZ, defendants in this case, are married to each

other, both of legal age, Filipino citizens, and are residents of
__________________where they may be served with notices and other
processes of this Honorable Court.

III
Statement of Facts

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are the owners of Lot XXX situated at

_______________________ and covered by Tax Declaration No.
_________________ with an area of ___________________. A copy of
the said tax declaration is hereto attached and marked Annex “A”.

2. Plaintiffs were able to purchase the said property on

September 12, 2014 from its former owner __________by virtue of a
Deed of Absolute Sale and possession of the said property was
transferred to plaintiffs by said vendor immediately after the
execution of the deed of sale on September 12, 2014.
____________________, who in turn, have acquired the subject
property by way of succession from its primitive owner,
___________________, and waiver from the other co-heirs. Copies of
the Deed of Absolute Sale and Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate with Waiver of Rights are hereto attached and marked
Annexes “B” and “C”, respectively.

3. After plaintiffs took possession of Lot XXX, which is a

vacant lot, they caused its boundaries to be relocated based on the
approved Sketch Plan given to them by the vendor. Copy of the
approved Sketch Plan is hereto attached and marked Annex “D”.

4. Sometime in July 2015 when plaintiffs were about to re-

enter the property for the purpose of putting up a fence, they were
threatened by defendants, who reside in the adjoining lot, telling
them not to fence or enter the subject property claiming that it is
owned by them.

5. Plaintiffs reported the matter for mediation to the

Barangay Authorities of ________________ but instead of
participating in the same peaceful process, defendants on July 23,
2015, by means of force and intimidation, started to put up a fence
enclosing the perimeter of Lot XXX thereby depriving and preventing
plaintiffs from entering their property. When requested by plaintiffs
POSITION PAPER
CIVIL CASE NO. 5711
SPS. AJERO VS. SPS. CERVANTES
Page | 3
to stop putting up such fence, defendant XYZ would become violent
and would intimidate plaintiffs by showing his bolo.

6. Plaintiffs brought the matter to the Lupon Tagapamayapa

of _________________ for conciliation and mediation but no
settlement was reached because of the intransigence of defendants
who totally disregarded the proceedings therein and in fact a
Certificate to File Action was issued by the said office. Copy of the
Certificate to File Action is hereto attached and marked Annex “E”.

7. Having been deprived of their physical possession over

the subject property through force and intimidation, plaintiffs were
compelled to litigate to enforce their rights and engage the services of
counsel. Plaintiffs were also deprived of the reasonable compensation
of their property as they could have easily leased the same to willing
lessees if not for the continue possession by defendants of Lot XXX to
the damage and prejudice of plaintiffs.

IV
Issues

The following issues are presented to this Honorable Court for

adjudication, to wit:

1. Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action

against herein defendants?

2. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs prayed

for in the Complaint?

V
Arguments/Discussion

To begin with, Lot XXX, the property subject matter of the

instant case, was owned by its primitive owner ________________.
From the time of her ownership of the subject land, the same was
declared in her name for taxation purposes as evidenced by the tax
declaration1 in her name presented by plaintiffs. When Leoncia
Banania died, Lot XXX was passed on to her heir ________________
by way of succession and waiver from the other co-heirs. Registration

1
Copy of the tax declaration in the name of Leoncia Banania is hereto attached and marked
Annex “F”
POSITION PAPER
CIVIL CASE NO. 5711
SPS. AJERO VS. SPS. CERVANTES
Page | 4
of the subject property for taxation purposes was also transferred in
the name of ________________ as the new owner thereof.

Prior to the acquisition of plaintiffs of Lot XXX from its former

owner Santos B. Añonuevo, the same is a vacant lot as no structure or
fence was put up enclosing the perimeter of the said property.
Contrary to defendants’ baseless claim that it was their predecessors
who possessed subject lot and introduced improvements thereon and
that the ownership of Lot XXX was later transferred to them, it was in
fact _________________ that possessed and cultivated the subject
property prior to the transfer of ownership of it in favor of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs clearly traced the basis of their ownership and

possession of Lot XXX from the time it was originally owned by
Leoncia Banania, who upon her death passed on the subject land to
Santos B. Añonuevo by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate with Waiver, and the valid transfer of ownership of it from the
former owner Santos B. Añonuevo in favor of plaintiffs as evidenced
by a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the said parties. Plaintiffs
likewise presented Tax Declaration No. ______________ in the name
of _________________ showing that it was the latter who was paying
for real property taxes of Lot XXX prior to the transfer of ownership
of the same to plaintiffs. From the documents presented by plaintiffs,
it clearly proved two facts: first, that __________________ is the
former owner of the Lot XXX; and second, plaintiffs validly acquired
the subject property by way of sale from said _________________.

Being the owners of the subject property, plaintiffs have the

right to occupy the said property and to exercise all powers of
dominion over it to the exclusion of all others. To prove that plaintiffs
indeed exercised dominion over the said property, plaintiffs
immediately took possession of the subject property after the sale by
causing its boundaries to be relocated based on the approved sketch
plan given to them by _______________ for the purpose of putting up
a fence around the property. In fact, plaintiffs have already put up a
fence on one side of the property to serve as boundary between said
property and Lot XXX, which property is also owned by plaintiffs.
However, when plaintiffs were to re-enter the property in order to
finish putting up the fence to the other side, they were prevented by
defendants, who are residents of the adjoining Lot XXX, through
force and intimidation, claiming that they are the owners of Lot XXX.

There is also the testimonies from ___________________ 2, the

son of the alleged predecessors of defendants, XYZ and
2
Copy of his affidavit is hereto attached and marked Annex “G”
POSITION PAPER
CIVIL CASE NO. 5711
SPS. AJERO VS. SPS. CERVANTES
Page | 5
__________________3, incumbent Barangay Chairman of Barangay
_______________ and long-time resident of said place, who both
corroborated plaintiffs claim and testified that Lot XXX was
previously owned by __________________, who acquired said
property by inheritance from its primitive owner and the latter’s
great grandmother, ____________________. It was
_____________________ that possessed and cultivated the subject
property until he sold it to plaintiffs. Both witnesses likewise belie the
assertion of defendants that they were in possession of Lot XXX prior
to that of plaintiffs. The subject property is in fact a vacant lot prior to
the acquisition of plaintiffs as no one is residing therein. Moreover,
the property that is being occupied by defendants is a portion of Lot
XXX where their residential house is built, but not on Lot XXX.

Aside from failure to establish their prior physical possession,

defendants even miserably failed to prove their legitimate claim over
the subject property. Except for their bare contention that the subject
lot was inherited from their grandparents, ________________ and
__________________, no document was presented by defendants to
prove their claim that Leoncia Banania, the primitive owner of Lot
XXX, sold the same in favor of defendants alleged predecessors.
Defendants’ evidence of ownership of the subject property is simply
the testimonies of witnesses who claim to be long-time residents of
__________________ and having known defendants’ alleged
predecessors. A claim of ownership cannot be based simply on the
testimonies of witnesses alone, self-serving as they are. The
testimonies of defendants’ witnesses cannot prevail over the
documents presented by plaintiffs undoubtedly proving their
ownership of the subject property.

Furthermore, as defendants’ residential house is built on Lot

XXX and not on Lot XXX, the same will prove the fact that
defendants have never once upon a time have been in possession or
have cultivated the subject property prior to plaintiffs possession of
it. Again, the claim that defendants alleged predecessors had been in
possession of the said property since 1950, is a naked claim,
unsupported by any evidence. Defendants failed to trace the
successive transfer of ownership of Lot XXX that eventually led to
them. This being so, by failing to prove ownership of the subject
property of their alleged predecessors, the latter cannot thus have
transferred anything to defendants. No one can give what he does
not have — nono dat quod non habet.4

3
Copy of his affidavit is hereto attached and marked Annex “H”
4
Bautista vs . Bautista, et.al., G.R. No. 160556, August 3, 2007 citing Segura vs. Segura, G.R. No.
L-29320, September 19, 1988, 165 SCRA 368
POSITION PAPER
CIVIL CASE NO. 5711
SPS. AJERO VS. SPS. CERVANTES
Page | 6
As aptly held by jurisprudence, to acquire jurisdiction over a
forcible entry case, it is enough that the complaint avers the
jurisdictional facts, i.e. that the plaintiff had prior physical possession
and that he was deprived thereof by the defendant through force,
intimidation, threats, strategy and stealth.5 Based from the evidence
presented by plaintiffs, they have sufficiently proven that they are the
rightful and prior possessor of Lot XXX and that the act of defendants
in preventing them from entering the subject land which the latter
owned deprived plaintiffs of their right to make use of the subject
land and enjoy whatever rights which may be accruing from their
lawful possession of it.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that this Position Paper be
ADMITTED in compliance with its Order and consequently,
judgment be rendered:

a. Directing the defendants, and all those claiming rights under

them, to vacate the subject property and peacefully turn-over
the same to the plaintiffs;

b. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs the following:

(i) PhP2,000.00 per month, computed from July 23,

2015 until the defendants fully vacate the subject
property, as Reasonable Rentals;
(ii) PhP30,000.00 as Attorney’s Fees;
(iii) Reasonable amount which may be determined by
the Honorable Court as Moral Damages;
(iv) Costs

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

Legazpi City, April ____, 2016.

___________________
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

5
Spouses Tirona vs. Hon. Alejo, 419 Phil. 285 [2001].
POSITION PAPER
CIVIL CASE NO. 5711
SPS. AJERO VS. SPS. CERVANTES
Page | 7

Copy furnished:

___________________

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Position Paper are filed to this

Honorable Court and served upon the above-named addressee by
registered mail with return card, due to lack of office personnel to
effect personal service.

XXX