REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGIONMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTBRANCH 36 QUEZON CITY

JOHNNY CEE,Plaintiff,Civil Case No. 24843For: Ejectment (Unlawful Detainer)-versus-

GIGI GIMENEZ,Defendant,x-----------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFFS POSITION PAPER

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, by way of compliance with the order dated February 26, 2015, copy of which was received February 27, 2015, respectfully submits this positions paper;

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is an action for unlawful detainer filed under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino Chinese, residing at No. 24 Malingap Street, Bgy. Sikatuna, Diliman, Quezon City. Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land together with improvements thereof, with an area of two hundred (200) square meters, more or less situated at No. 23 Malingap Street, Bgy. Sikatuna, Diliman, Quezon City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-209059 copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex A.

Defendant is likewise of legal age, Filipino and residing at No. 23 Malingap Street, Bgy. Sikatuna, Diliman, Quezon City. Defendant is a lessee of herein plaintiff, JOHNNY CEE, owner of the above mentioned property acquired by plaintiff by way of sale in December 1993. Defendant agreed to the Contract of Lease, copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex B, which she entered into with herein plaintiff sometime in February of this year that the former shall use the aforementioned property solely for residential purposes, and any breach of this condition can be a cause for the pre-termination of the contract.

Upon plaintiffs surprise inspection of the property last November 1, however, he learned that defendant has been using the apartment as a canteen catering to the tricycle and jeepney drivers, and its garage for her car wash business. Plaintiff immediately called the attention of Defendant to correct her practice but to no avail. Notwithstanding demands, defendant, without any justifiable nor valid reason, refused to vacate the premises, to the damage and prejudice of plaintiff.

In view of the unjustified refusal of defendant despite demands, to vacate the premises, plaintiff was constrained to file a complaint with the Office of the Barangay Captain and as a consequence, conciliation and mediation proceedings were conducted by the Lupong Tagapamayapa, Notice of Hearing and minutes of the meeting are hereto attached and marked as Annex C, C-1 and C-2. During the hearing before the Lupon, no amicable settlement was reached by the parties and as result thereof, a Certification to File Action was issued by the Barangay Captain of Barangay Sikatuna, dated December 14, 2014, copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex D.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

During the preliminary conference, plaintiff presented and requested the marking of the following documentary exhibits, to wit;

Exhibit A Certified copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-209059 issued by the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City

Purpose: To prove that plaintiff is the owner of the property subject of this case

Exhibit B Certified copy of Contract of Lease entered into by plaintiff and defendant

Purpose: To prove that defendant agreed to the terms and conditions stipulated therein by her and herein plaintiff

Exhibit C Notice of Hearing dated November 10, 2014 addressed to the defendant Exhibit C-1 Certified copy of Conciliation and Mediation proceedings conducted by the Lupong TagapamayapaExhibit C-2 Certified copy of Minutes of the Meeting of the Conciliation and Mediation proceeding conducted by the Lupong TagapamayapaPurpose: To prove that demand was made for defendant to vacate the premises but due to her deliberate refusal, plaintiff was compelled to raise the dispute to the Office of the Barangay Captain of Barangay Sikatuna, Quezon City

Exhibit D Certified Copy of Certification to File Action issued by the Barangay Captain of Barangay Sikatuna, Quezon City

Purpose:To prove that no amicable settlement was reached by herein parties

ISSUES

From the pleadings submitted by the parties, the following issues are raised for the resolution of the Honorable Court:

1.) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to eject of evict defendant; and2.) Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages including attorneys fees.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT

Section 1 of Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:SEC. 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. Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings.In the case at bar, it is established that the defendant is a tenant of the former owner with Contract of Lease. Plaintiff and defendant agreed that the latter shall use said premises leased by her solely for residential purpose, and violation of which shall cause the termination of the contract. Clearly, defendant violated the tenor of the contract entered into by her with herein plaintiff, and as such, the right to terminate the contract and eject the lessee therefrom is conferred upon the plaintiff. However, defendant deliberately refused to vacate said premises despite several demands by the plaintiff and, as a result thereof, the latter was compelled to file an ejectment complaint with the Honorable Court on December 20, 2014.

Upon the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court, the lessor, at any time within one (1) year after unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action to the proper inferior court. Herein plaintiff is the lessor of the property subject of action. Defendants possession of the premises became unlawful when demand was made by plaintiff for the former to vacate the place and she refused. In the case of Sarona vs. Villegas, 22 SCRA 1264, the Supreme Court held:If right at the incipiency defendants possession was with plaintiffs tolerance, we do not doubt that the latter may require him to vacate the premises and sue before the inferior court under Section 1 of Rule 70, within one year from the date of the demand to vacate. Because, from the date of demand, possession became unlawful. And the case is illegal detainer. (Underscoring supplied)In the instant case, plaintiff filed the complaint within one year from the date of demand. As alleged in the complaint, By reason of the unlawful act of defendant in refusing to vacate the premises, plaintiff could not use the property to lease to another lessees. PLAINTIFF JOHNNY CEE is compelled, in order to protect his rights, to secure the services of counsel. In addition, plaintiff, by reason of the wrongful act of defendant in contravening the terms of the tenor of the Contract of Lease and depriving him further use of his property, has been suffering from serious anxiety, worries, sleepless nights and great inconvenience. Defendants unlawful act should not be countenanced and she should be assessed moral damages in the amount of P100, 000.00 for the suffering incurred by plaintiff, exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to serve as public example. Moreover, in the process, plaintiff incurred expenses of litigation and agreed to pay attorneys fees in the amount of P50, 000.00 which should be charged against defendant.

PRAYERWHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered:1. Ordering defendant to immediately vacate the premises;

2. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 representing moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

3. Ordering defendant to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees plus P1,500.00 as counsels appearance fee, per court appearance;

4. Ordering the defendant to pay the cost of suit.

PLAINTIFF pray for other relief and remedies which the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, March 5, 2015.

RONNIL C. ROSILLO Counsel for Plaintiff PTR No. 1077517, 1/3/2014, QCIBP O.R. No. 491316, 1/3/2014, QC

Office Address: No. 49- E Mahinhin Street, Bgy. Teachers Village West, Diliman, Quezon City

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, JOHNNY CEE, of legal age, Filipino Chinese, after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say:

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;2. That I caused the preparation of the Position Paper and read and understood the contents thereof;

3. That the allegations contained in the Position Paper are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief;

In WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 3rd of March, 2015 in Quezon City, Metro Manila.

JOHNNY CEE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd of March, 2015 in Quezon City, Metro Manila.

Doc. No. 30Page No. 23 RONNIL C. ROSILLOBook No. 23 NOTARY PUBLICSeries of 2001 PTR No. 1077517 1/3/2014, Q.C IBP O.R No. 491316, 1/3/2014, Q.C Office Address: No. 49- E Mahinhin Street, Bgy. Teachers Village West, Diliman, Quezon City

6