Republic of the Philippines

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
BRANCH I
San Fernando City, La Union

LITO T. TOLENTINO
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 1234

-versus-

ROCCO TOCINO and DODONG

GO FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Defendants.

X-----------------------------------X

POSITION PAPER

PLAINTIFF, thru counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

submit his POSITION PAPER in the above-entitled case, to wit:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Unjust enrichment exits, according to Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc. (G.R.

No. 156364, September 3, 2007), “when a person unjustly retains a benefit
at 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 prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public
policy of the State, for Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that
“every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the
latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”

It is well to note that Article 22 “is part of the chapter of the Civil
Code on Human Relation, the provisions of which were formulated as basic
principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings
and for the stability of the social order which is designed to indicate certain
norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience, guides for the
human conduct that should run as golden threads through society of the end
that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and dominance
of justice.”

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land including the building erected
therein subject matter of the instant complaint by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale between the Plaintiff and Mario Maroon, in favor of the
former. Although at the time of the execution of the contract of sale, there
are subsisting lease contracts between Mario with defendants, nevertheless,
the plaintiff, being the new owner is not precluded to exercise his rights over
the building as provided for by the law.
On May 15, 2019, a demand letter (Exhibit “C”) was sent to the
defendants directing them to vacate the building for their failure to pay their
rent for the months of February to May. Although, it is admitted that the
plaintiff has received several payments from the defendants, such payments
do not avoid the demand to vacate the building, being an act of empathy of
the plaintiff to the defendants. The plaintiff merely tolerates their temporary
possession of their respective stall units until they were able to vacate the
building.
On May 29, 2019, a final letter of demand (Exhibit H) was sent to the
defendants reiterating its previous demand letter and to pay their outstanding
dues. In response thereto, defendant Rocco Tocino manifested his
willingness to pay the plaintiff, however, he refused to vacate the building
due to the subsisting Lease contract which is valid for a period of 5 years
from the date of execution thereof.
During the Pre-trial Conference, the parties agree on the following
stipulations of facts:
1. Contract of Lease executed by Rocco Tocino and Mario Maroon, the
former owner of the property in favour of the defendant;
2. That a letter of demand was made by the plaintiff on May 15, 2019
informing the defendant of its ownership;
3. The defendant admit as to the existence of another demand letter
dated December 15, 2019;
4. That in response to the letter of the plaintiff’s counsel, defendant
signified his willingness to pay the plaintiff;
 5. That the defendant stopped paying rentals to plaintiff beginning
January 2020 up to the present in favour of the plaintiff rather
continued paying the same to Mario Maroon;
6. The Contract of lease is valid for a period of 5 years from date of
execution

ISSUE
The only issue in this case is…
“WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS MAY NOW BE
EJECTED ON THE LEASED PREMISES FOR NON-PAYMENT
OF RENTALS TO THE NEW OWNER .”
DISCUSSION

A complaint for an action for unlawful detainer is sufficient if the following

allegations are present:

1. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract

with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

2. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff

to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;

3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and

deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and

4. within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

In the case at the bar, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff is the owner of
the subject building. There is no issue with respect to the notice and demand
to vacate the building. The question before us, as strongly claimed by the
defendants, is the existence of a cause of action. They contend that Plaintiff
collected rents prior to the filing of this case which will bar him from
asserting non-payment of rent as a ground to eject them from the building. In
order to ascertain whether there is a cause of action for unlawful detainer,
we must determine whether the possession of the defendants became illegal
after the plaintiff sent a notice and demand to vacate the subject building.
To begin with, Article 1657 of the New Civil Code states:

“Article 1657. The lessee is obliged:

(1) To pay the price of the lease according to the terms
stipulated;”
The defendant did not pay any rentals since February to May 2019.
Although he admitted that the payments of rentals were made to Mario, no
payment was made to the plaintiff until a final demand letter was issued by
the plaintiff on December 15, 2019. Clearly, the plaintiff has no intention to
lift the demand to vacate the building even though payment was tendered
thereafter.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff as follows:
a) Ordering the defendant to vacate the property in question;
b) Ordering the defendant to pay accrued outstanding dues until the
premises are finally vacated;
c) To reimburse plaintiff payment of attorney’s fee equivalent to 25% of
the amount payable; and
d) To pay the cost of suit
Other reliefs just and equitable under the above premises are likewise
prayed for.
San Fernando City, La Union, September 1, 2020.

PATALO ng PATALO & BY:

ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICES Atty. Jeffrey Buena
Counsel for the Plaintiff Notary Public-La Union
# No. 5 Pocsidio Compound, Until December 31, 2019
Brgy Lingsat, San Fernando Roll No.12342, June 20, 2016
City, La Union IBP No. 097506, January 3, 2019
072-700-4295 PTR No. 1341480, January 3, 2019
Notarial Commission No. 003-2018
MCLE No: VI-0004072, Nov. 21, 2017
TIN NO. 273-629-567
C.P. No. 09985659659
Jeffrey_buena@yahoo.com
Republic of the Philippines )
Province of La Union )
San Fernando City )

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, Lito Tolentino, of legal age, marriage, Filipino citizen, and a resident of

#8 Happy St. Lingsat San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines, having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Position
Paper;
3. I have read and understood the factual and material allegations therein
contained and that the same are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and are based on authentic records and documents;
4. This pleading is filed not harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
5. The factual allegations herein have evidentiary support or, will
likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery;
6. I have not commenced, nor to the best of my knowledge there is no
pending any action/proceeding involving the same issue in the
Supreme court, Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; and
should I learn that a similar action/proceeding has been filed or
pending before any such bodies, I shall within five (5) days therefrom
inform the court/agency wherein the original pleading or sworn
certification contemplated herein has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

September 1, 2020 in the City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines.

Lito Tolentino
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn before me this June September 1, 2020 in the

City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines. Affiant is personally known to
me.

PATALO ng PATALO & BY:

ASSOCIATES LAW Atty. Jeffrey Buena
OFFICES
Notary Public-La Union
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Until December 31, 2019
# No. 5 Pocsidio Compound, Roll No.12342, June 20, 2016
Brgy Lingsat, San Fernando
IBP No. 097506, January 3, 2019
City, La Union
PTR No. 1341480, January 3, 2019
072-700-4295
Notarial Commission No. 003-2018
MCLE No: VI-0004072, Nov. 21, 2017
TIN NO. 273-629-567
C.P. No. 09985659659
Jeffrey_buena@yahoo.com