Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Branch ___ Lucena City
Juan
Ciil Case No! "#$%&#$ Plaintiff' ersus
Pe(ro' ,efen(ant! -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --
&for& )*ect+ent
PO.TION PAP)R /for the respon(ent0 Defe Defend ndan ant, t, thro throug ugh h coun counse sel, l, and and unto unto this this Hono Honora rabl blee Cour Courtt respectfully states: BAC12ROUN, O3 T4) CA.)
This is an ejectment case for unlawful detainer filed by petitioner Juan wherein the 1 meters of his land was allegedly occupied by !edro on which the latter"s comfort room stands#
.TAT)M)NT O3 3ACT.
!edro built built a house adjacent adjacent to the the lot of Juan# $fter $fter Juan secured secured geodetic sur%ey and found out that the ten &1' s(uare meters were allegedly illegally sei)ed by respondent !edro which led him to file a complaint for ejectment against the respondent where Juan is the registered owner# $llege $llegedly dly,, the comfort comfort room room of !edro !edro which which costs costs *, *, pesos pesos stands and encroached into the said ten &1' s(uare meters of Juan"s lot#
.TAT)M)NT .TAT)M)NT O3 T4) I..U) +hether or not !edro should be ejected and who has the better right o%er the disputed property
,I.CU..ION
The plaintiff in this case has no cause of action for an ejectment case for unlawful detainer# ne of the three .inds of action for the reco%ery of possession of real property is /accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding ### which may be either that for forcible entry & detentacion' or unlawful detainer &desahucio', which is a summary action for the reco%ery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior court#0 1 nstructi%e on this matter is Carbonilla v. Abiera 2 which reads thus: Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is reuired to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper. n the present case, petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against respondent# 2jectment case3unlawful detainer3is summary proceeding designed to pro%ide e4peditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property in%ol%ed# The only (uestion that the courts resol%e in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure# t does not e%en matter if a party"s title to the property is (uestionable# 5or this reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in fa%or of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property# 6ey jurisdictional facts constituti%e of the particular ejectment case filed must be a%erred in the complaint and sufficiently pro%en# $ re(uisite for a %alid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must ha%e turned unlawful only upon the e4piration of the right to possess# t must be shown that the possession was initially lawful7 hence, the basis of such lawful possession must be established# n this case, petitioner has not established when respondents" possession of the properties became unlawful 8 a re(uisite for a %alid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case# n Canlas vs. Tubil !, the 9upreme Court enumerated the elements that constitute the sufficiency of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as follows: 1 Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium I (7 th Rev. Edition, 27!. 2 ".R. #o. 177$%7, 2$ &ul' 21, $2 )CR* +$1 % ".R. #o. 1+2, 2 )eptem-er 2, $1 )CR* 1+7
+ell-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well as the court which has jurisdiction o%er the case are the allegations in the complaint# n ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes pro%ide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature# The complaint must show enough on its face to gi%e the court jurisdiction without resort to parol e%idence# nlawful detainer is an action to reco%er possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the e4piration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, e4press or implied# The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the e4piration or termination of the right to possess# n Corpu" vs. #pouses Agustin $, 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 plaintiff7 &;' e%entually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter"s right of possession7 &*' thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and depri%ed the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof7 and &<' within one year from the last demand on defendant to %acate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment# =ased on the abo%e, it is ob%ious that Juan has not complied with the re(uirements sufficient to warrant the success of his unlawful detainer Complaint against respondent !edro# $propos, $rticle >;? of the Ci%il Code presumes good faith, and since no proof e4ists to show that the mista.e was done by respondent !edro in bad faith, the latter should be presumed to ha%e built the house in good faith# =ased from the foregoing, it can be presumed that respondent !edro is a builder in good faith on the following reasons: 5irst, good faith is presumed on the part of the respondent# 9econd, petitioner Juan failed to rebut this presumption# Third, no e%idence was presented to show that petitioner opposed or objected to the encroachment of the property by the respondent# Conse(uently, it can be %alidly presumed that petitioner consented to the said infringement# 5urther, when a person builds in good faith on the land of another, $rticle <<@ of the Ci%il Code go%erns# 9aid article pro%ides: A%T. $$&. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to + "R #o. 1%22, &anuar' 1, 212.
appropriate as his own the wor's, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles ($) and ($&, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. *n such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fi+ the terms thereof. The abo%e-cited article co%ers cases in which the builders, sowers or planters belie%e themsel%es to be owners of the land or, at least, to ha%e a claim of title thereto# The builder in good faith can compel the landowner to ma.e a choice between appropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land# The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around# Howe%er, e%en as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to him, ne%ertheless, is preclusi%e# He must choose one# He cannot, for instance, compel the owner of the building to remo%e the building from the land without first e4ercising either option# t is only if the owner chooses to sell his land, and the builder or planter fails to purchase it where its %alue is not more than the %alue of the impro%ements, that the owner may remo%e the impro%ements from the land# The owner is entitled to such remotion only when, after ha%ing chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same# 5urthermore, respondent ha%e the right to be indemnified for the necessary and useful e4penses he may ha%e made on the subject property# $rticles >
<@ of the Ci%il Code pro%ide, $BT# ><@# 24penses for pure lu4ury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith7 but he may remo%e the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount e4pended#
Thus, the petitioner has the option to appropriate the house on the subject land after payment to the respondent of the appropriate indemnity or to oblige the latter to pay the price of the land, unless its %alue is considerably more than the %alue of the structures, in which case respondent shall pay reasonable rent# >
PRA5)R 64)R)3OR)' premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the foregoing !osition !aper be noted and considered in the resolution of this case# ther reliefs that are just and e(uitable under premises are li.ewise prayed for#
ay ;<, ;1<, Eucena City, !hilippines#
Bespectfully 9ubmitted $=2 # F$D Counsel for the %espondent orth -mployees illage, /rgy. 0ulang10ulang, ucena City Boll o# <*<1<, ay 1*, ;1< =! Eife Boll o# 1?G< !TB o# A*11;>, Jan# ;, ;1< CE2 Compliance o# -@GG 1;IAI1;
Notice of 4earin7 an( .erice of Copy8 TO8 $TT# !B92 C# TB $ssistant City !rosecutor ffice of the City !rosecutor Eucena City TH2 CE2B6 5 CBT unicipal Trial Court Eucena City
6indly ta.e notice that the undersigned is submitting the foregoing !osition !aper immediately upon receipt hereof to the Honorable Court for its consideration and appro%al# That by way of e4planation, a copy of this !osition !aper was ser%ed to the ffice of the City prosecutor through personal ser%ice# /rione0 v. aa-agdal, et al. "R #o. 1$$$ *ugu0t %, 21
$=2 # F$D
