Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

REGION 44
BRANCH 1
CITY OF DAVAO

FERNAN JOSHUA A. BANTIDING,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No.
24843

-versus- For: Forcible

Entry
and
Damages

KATRENA ANN R. ABRASALDO, BONG

R. ABRASALDO, and MARIE R. ABRASALDO,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE DEFENDANTS

The Defendants, KATRENA ANN R. ABRASALDO, BONG

R. ABRASALDO, and MARIE R. ABRASALDO, through the
undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this position paper
and state that:

PREFARATORY STATEMENT

This is an action for forcible entry filed under Rule 70 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure and governed by the Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The property in question, located at Barangay Baracatan,

Toril, Davao City, is currently under the lawful possession of
the Defendants, who hold legal title to the property and have

1 of 6
a legal right to occupy the premises as covered by TCT No.
T-42006, under the name of Rodrigo F. Abrasaldo, the
deceased father of the Defendants.

While the Plaintiff alleged that the defendant forcibly entered

the property without legal authority and seeks to hold the
Defendants liable for various damages, the Defendants
assert that the allegations are unsubstantiated,
exaggerated, and based on false premises. The Defendants
stress that the entry was authorized, peaceful, or based on a
legal right, which the Plaintiff continually fails to
acknowledge.

DISCUSSIONS

No Forcible Entry Occurred

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides when an

action for forcible entry, and unlawful detainer, is proper:

SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.

— Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
section, 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 may at any time within one (1)
year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession, bring 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.

Under this provision, for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the

Plaintiff must allege and prove (1) prior physical possession
of the property and (2) unlawful deprivation of it by the
defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or
stealth. In other words, forcible entry requires not only
physical entry into the property but that the entry was done
by means of force or threats.

2 of 6
In the case at hand, the Defendants’ entry did not involve
any form of physical force or threats.

On July 7, 2024, the Defendants engaged in discussions with

the Plaintiff, as well as other workers present on the
property, concerning their ownership of the subject property
and their intent to take possession thereof.

On July 19, 2024, the Defendants entered the property

through the main gate after talking to the personnel
manning it. At no point did the defendant engage in any
violent or intimidating actions toward the Plaintiff or any of
the workers on the premises.

On August 17, 2024, the Defendants, after talking to Leo A.

Bantinding, brother of the Plaintiff, regarding the
unwarranted actions of the latter’s brother, went back to the
property to put no trespassing signages and notices that the
property belonged to the Abrasaldo Family.

Verily, the Defendants’ actions do not meet the legal criteria

for forcible entry as defined by law.

Lack of Evidence of Forcible Entry

The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant

forcibly entered the property. In this case, the Plaintiff has
failed to provide any substantial evidence that the
Defendants’ actions were unlawful.
The Plaintiff's complaint merely alleges an unlawful entry but
does not provide any convincing proof to demonstrate that
the conduct of the Defendants meets the legal definition of
forcible entry.

The Plaintiff's testimony is uncorroborated, and no physical

evidence supports the claim of forcible entry. No police
reports, witness statements, or photographs have been
produced to substantiate the claim that force was used. The
Plaintiff has provided no credible evidence that physical
force was used or that the defendant acted unlawfully in
entering the property.

Without evidence that physical force or unlawful threats

were used, the Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed.

Defendant’s Legal Right to the Property

3 of 6
The Plaintiff’s claim of forcible entry fails to address or
challenge the Defendants’ legal standing and their
established rights concerning the property in question.

The Plaintiff was the most trusted and principal confidant of

their father, the deceased Rodrigo F. Abrasaldo, who was
entrusted with the management and oversight of the
property on his behalf.

On the other hand, the Defendants are the children of the

late Rodrigo F. Abrasaldo, the registered owner of the parcel
of land described in TCT No. T-42006, which spans an area of
63,888 square meters and is located in Barangay Baracatan,
Toril, Davao City. A copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title is
attached as Annex "1."

The Civil Code provides:

ARTICLE 776. The inheritance includes all the property,

rights, and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death.

ARTICLE 777. The rights to the succession are

transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent.

It bears emphasizing that the death of Rodrigo F. Abrasaldo

on July 2, 2024, is the operative fact that triggered the right
of the Defendants to enter and occupy the property. Being
the remaining legal heirs, the Defendants acquired the
subject property by virtue of succession. This is further
supported by the extrajudicial settlement agreement made
in their favor. A copy of the Notarized Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of Rodrigo Luisita is attached as
Annex "2."

PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE TO DEFENDANTS FOR DAMAGES

This complaint filed by Plaintiff is malicious and pure

harassment intended only to put to shame and
embarrassment to the Defendants. With this unfounded suit
by the Plaintiff and attempting to dispossess the Defendants
of their lawful possession of the subject property, the
Defendants suffered sleepless nights, anxieties, and undue
stress. Thus, entitles them to be compensated for moral

4 of 6
damages in the amount to be determined by the Honorable
Court.
The Defendants were constrained to secure the services of
an attorney. The Defendants are entitled to attorney's fees
and cost of suit.

PRAYER

In light of the facts, legal arguments, and absence of any

substantial evidence of forcible entry, the Defendants
respectfully request that the court dismiss the case in its
entirety and award the Defendants damages in such amount
as the court may deem reasonable.

Wherefore, the Defendants specifically pray that the Court:

1. Dismiss the complaint for forcible entry filed by the

Plaintiff;

2. Recognize the defendant's lawful right to occupy and

enter the premises;

3. An Award for Legal Costs and Attorney’s Fees incurred

in defending against this baseless claim; and

4. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and

proper.

ATTY. JUAN W. DELA CRUZ

Counsel for the Defendants
Roxas Avenue,
City of Davao, Davao del Sur
Roll No. 46359
PTR No. PGI 5968029/03-03-2025
IBP Receipt No. 962910/1-09-2025
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0024732
Valid from 1-29-2025 until 04-14-2025
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005915
Valid from April 15, 2024 to April 14, 2025

VERIFICATION

5 of 6
 We, KATRENA ANN R. ABRASALDO, BONG R.
ABRASALDO, and MARIE R. ABRASALDO, all of legal age,
Filipinos, and bona fide residents of Barangay Ma-a, Davao
City, under oath, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. We are the defendants in the above-entitled

Complaint;
2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the
foregoing Position Paper;
3. We have read the contents thereof and the facts as
stated therein are true and correct and based on
authentic records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our

signatures this 22nd day of November, 2024 at Davao City,
Philippines.

KATRENA ANN R. ABRASALDO

Affiant

BONG R. ABRASALDO
Affiant

MARIE R. ABRASALDO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day

of November, 2024 at Davao City, Philippines. I hereby
certify that I personally examined the affiants and I am
satisfied that they have read and understood the contents of
their Position Paper and they attested that the same is a
product of their own free will. Affiants have individually
exhibited to me their Identification Card bearing their picture
and signature as competent proof of their identity.

Doc No._____;
Page No.____;
Book No.____;
Series of 2025.

6 of 6
Copy furnished via registered mail:

ATTY. JANE E. DELOS SANTOS

Counsel for the Plaintiff
#49 VMG Bldg., City Road,
Davao City, Philippines

7 of 6