Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
xxxxxxxx

xxxx,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. xxxxx
For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER
-versus-

xxxxx,
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(FOR THE DEFENDANT)
DEFENDANT, through counsel, to the Honorable Court, respectfully
submit this Position Paper in support of the arguments in the Answer and the
documentary evidence attached therewith, thus:

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
At the onset it must be put into emphasis that the case at hand is the second
case filed against herein Defendant, involving the same property and
substantially the same parties. The former case having been final and executory.

The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that
parties ought not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once, that
when the right or fact has been judicially determined, the judgment of the court,
so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and
those in privity with them in law or estate1.

Thus, for res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action the following
requisites must concur: (l) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the
parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and, (4) there must be between
the first and second actions; (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of subject matter;
and (c) identity of cause of action2.

Important also to consider is the principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22

of the New Civil Code which provides, to wit:

There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains

a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains
money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

The main objective of the principle against unjust enrichment is to prevent one
from enriching himself at the expense of another without just cause or
consideration3.

II. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Defendant, by virtue of an agreement is currently occupying and/’or residing at

the half of the second floor of subject building particularly above xxxxxxxx
1. Attached as Exhibit “1” is the agreement of sublease and as Exhibit “2”
is the self made sketch of the building indicating what has been allegedly
leased by the Plaintiff;

1
Sarabia vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2 SCRA 54 (1961).
2
Ipekdjian Mercjandising Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 9 SCRA 72 (1963); Mangoma vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
241 SCRA 21(1995) ; Guevarra vs. Benito, 247 SCRA 570, 573(1995).
3
P.C. Javier & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 500 Phil. 419 (2005).
 2. While Plaintiff by virtue of the alleged Lease Agreement with Finca
Florencia Realty is claiming right over unit/block Nos. 345 and 347;

That on August 8, 2016, the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 28 (MTC Branch
28)of the City of Manila issued an order dismissing an earlier case filed by
xxxxxxxx docketed as Civil Case No. xxxx involving the same property that
herein Defendant is occupying. Attached as Exhibit “3” is a copy of the said
order;

III. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION AND ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff failed to first

avail of the Barangay
Conciliation
proceedings.

Presidential Decree No. 1508 is now incorporated in Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as The Local Government Code provides that:

SEC. 412. Conciliation.- (a) Pre-condition to filing of

complaint in court. No complaint, petition, action, or
proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the
lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other
government office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon
chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or
settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon
secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon
chairman or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has
been repudiated by the parties thereto.

While Administrative Circular No. 14-93,issued by the Supreme Court on July

15, 1993 states that:

xxx
 I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation
pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law [formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced
by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and
Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code of 1991], and prior
recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a
complaint in court or any government offices, x x x

The compulsory process of arbitration is a pre-condition for the filing of the

complaint in court. Where the complaint (a) did not state that it is one of excepted
cases, or (b) it did not allege prior availment of said conciliation process, or (c)
did not have a certification that no conciliation had been reached by the parties,
the case should be dismissed4.

There is no dispute herein that the present case was never referred to the
Barangay Lupon for conciliation before Plaintiff instituted the present case. In
fact, no allegation of such barangay conciliation proceedings was made in the
Complaint filed before the Honorable Court.

As admitted by Plaintiff, he is the husband of xxxxx the plaintiff in the above

mentioned civil case. Wherein in the said case, MTC Branch 28 found that the
plaintiff therein was occupying two rooms by administering them5. Hence,
Plaintiff with her wife is actually occupying the two rooms mentioned in the
kasunduan. Consequently, Plaintiff should have first availed of the Barangay
conciliation proceeding as mandated by law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed

that this position paper be given due consideration in the resolution of this
case and that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendants by DISMISSING

4
Agbayani vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183623, June 25, 2012.
5
Page 9. Order, MTC Branch 28, Civil Case No. 191056-CV
the complaint for lack of merit, and to award the defendants damages in such
amount as the court may deem reasonable.

Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

City of Manila, June 08, 2018.

xxxxx

VERIFICATION

I xxxxx, all of legal age, Filipinos, married and bonafide residents of

_____________________________, under oath, hereby depose and state as follows:

1. I am the defendants in the above-entitled Complaint;

2. i have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position Paper;

3. I 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 8th

day of June, 2018 at City of Manila.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of June, 2018 at

City of Manila. 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 2018.

Copy furnished via registered mail:

ATTY. ____________________

EXPLANATION: A copy of the foregoing Position Paper was duly furnished

_____________________in his given address via registered mail pursuant to Section
7, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court due to distance, time and expense to effect personal
service.