Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY
Branch 52
HON. ALLESANDRA APUYA
Presiding Judge
NICOLE B. GARCIA, Civil Case No. R-1047
Plaintiff-Appellee (Civil Case No. 1020)
-versus- -for-
JULMA A. RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants-Appellant FORCIBLE ENTRY
x x
MEMORANDUM
(For Defendant-Appellant)
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JULMA A. RODRIGUEZ,
through undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits this
memorandum:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1. This appealed case stemmed from an ejectment case filed by
plaintiffs Nicole B. Garcia (Plaintiff-appellee), which sought to
recover the material possession of a parcel of land and the award
of damages, against defendant Julma A. Rodriguez (Defendant-
appellant) with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Daraga
therein docketed as Special Civil Action No. 21-34
2. On June 3, 2021, the Municipal Trial Court rendered the
decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
3. Defendant-appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 8, 2021 and
was ordered by this Court to file a Memorandum of Appeal.
Hence, this Memorandum of Appeal for the defendant-appellant.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. The defendant and the plaintiffs entered into a contract to lease
the warehouse located in 24 M. Sagpon, Daraga, Albay owned
by the defendant with the stipulations that they leased and
occupied the said warehouse for a period of five (5) years, from
4 January 2016 to 4 January 2020, under the express obligation
of paying rent of Php 15,000.00 a month, payable in advance
within the first five (5) days of every month;
5. The lease contract stipulates that not less than sixty (60) days
prior to the end of the term of the lease, the lessee must inform
the lessor in writing of his intention to renew to lease;
6. The plaintiffs sent a letter of intent to renew the lease to the
defendant on November 15, 2020. In their reply, the defendant
sent a letter to the plaintiff dated November 20, 2020 stating that
he will agree to the renewal of the lease on the condition that the
rental fee will be increased by 10% of the current rate. The
defendant went to Canada to visit his relatives and stayed there
until Feb 1, 2021 and never heard of the plaintiff’s response
regarding his counter-offer. The parties did not come into an
agreement on the increase of the rent and no agreement was
concluded between the parties regarding the renewal of the lease
contract.
7. Hence, the lease of contract executed between defendant and
plaintiff effectively expired on January 4, 2021. However, the
plaintiffs continuously occupied the premises after the expiration
of the contract of lease and without the knowledge nor
permission of the defendant.
8. On February 1, 2021, the defendant returned to the Philippines
and found out that the plaintiff was continuously occupying the
subject premises despite the expiration of the lease. The
defendant approached the plaintiffs and questioned their
continuous occupation of the premises despite the expiration of
the lease. Several days have passed and the plaintiffs still
refused to vacate the premises prompting the defendant, on
February 4, 2021, to ask for assistance from his security guards
to fence the premises and prevent the plaintiff from entering
therein.
JUDGEMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT OF DARAGA
9. On June 3, 2021, the Municipal Trial Court rendered a decision
in favor of the plaintiffs ordering defendant-appellant to vacate
the subject property and surrender possession thereof to the
plaintiffs.
10. In its judgment, the MTC that the complaint's allegations
sufficiently established the jurisdictional facts required in
forcible entry cases.
11. That notwithstanding the expiration of the lease, the
plaintiffs can commence a forcible entry case against Defendant
because ownership is not in issue.
12. That the plaintiffs is not entitled to actual and moral
damages and attorney’s fees for failure to substantiate their
claims thereof.
13. And that, the ruling does not preclude the defendant, as the
lawful owner of the property, to recover its possession by
pursuing other more appropriate legal remedies.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. The trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs sufficiently
established the jurisdictional facts required for forcible entry.
II. The trial court erred in finding that defendant should avail of
other remedy to recover possession of the subject property
despite the admission that the defendant is the lawful owner
of thereof.
DISCUSSION
The trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs sufficiently established the
jurisdictional facts required for forcible entry
Prevailing jurisprudence has time and again pointed out four (4) requisites 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. As in any civil
case, the burden of proof lies with the complainants who must establish their
case by preponderance of evidence.1
Notably, the records reveal that plaintiffs have complied with the first and third
requisites. However, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish by
preponderance of evidence that the defendant unlawfully deprived them of
possession of the subject property.
It is axiomatic that under the Rules on Evidence a party who alleges a fact has
the burden of proving it. A mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges
has the burden of proving his allegation with the requisite quantum of
evidence.2
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by
preponderance of evidence, which means evidence which is of greater weight,
or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Here, the
plaintiffs failed to meet the required quantum of proof. Other than presenting
the self-serving affidavits of its witnesses who cannot substantially state the
specific circumstances of the alleged unlawful acts of the petitioner, plaintiff
has not adduced any other credible evidence to strengthen its cause of action.
1
G.R. No. 174191, Nenita Quality Foods Corporation v. Galabo, January 30, 2013
2
G.R. No. 193804, Spouses Ramos v. Obispo, February 27, 2013
Thus, the trial court erred in ruling for the plaintiff as the latter clearly failed to
establish its cause against defendant.
The trial court erred in finding that defendant should avail of other
remedy to recover possession of the subject property despite the admission
that the defendant is the lawful owner thereof.
The record reveals as alleged by the defendant and admitted by the plaintiff
that the defendant is the absolute owner of the subject property. The plaintiff
neither denies nor attacks the defendant’s right of ownership of the property.
Nonetheless, plaintiff instituted
the present action ultimately to recover possession of the property from the
lawful owner thereof, without any right based on contract or other source of
obligation to hold such possession as against the owner thereof.
The affirmative right of the defendant to enter into and take full possession of
the leased property based on its right of ownership is fatal to any action by the
plaintiff who has been ousted otherwise than judicially to recover possession as
the Supreme Court held in the following case: “The existence of an affirmative
right of action on the part of the landlord to oust the tenant is fatal to the
maintenance of any action by the tenant. Otherwise, the absurd result would
follow that a tenant ousted under the circumstances here revealed would be
restored to possession only himself to be immediately put out in a possessory
action instituted by the landlord.”3
Another consideration based upon an idea familiar to jurisprudence is equally
decisive. This is found in one of the implications of the familiar maxim, Ubi
jus ibi remedium, the converse of which is of course equally true, namely:
Nullum jus nullum remedium. Applying this idea to the case before us, it is
manifest that inasmuch as the plaintiffs right of possession has been destroyed,
the remedy is also necessarily taken away.
To restore possession of the premises to herein plaintiff, who was ousted under
the circumstances reflected above, would undoubtedly, certainly result to
absurdity.
PRAYER
3
G.R. No. L-16220, Apundar v. Andrin, November 19, 1921
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision of the trial
court be reversed and set aside and a new judgment be rendered
dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
Other reliefs deemed just, proper and equitable in the premises are
likewise most respectfully prayed for.
on this 9th day of June, 2021.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
, .
ALLAN V. ASUNCION JR.
ASUNCION LAW OFFICE
2/F Aquende Bldg.,
Old Roces Street, Legazpi City, Albay
Email:
[email protected] Mobile No. 63945123567
Attorney’s Roll No. 1029832
IBP No. 726392
PTR No. 6253921
MCLE Compliance No. 0 0 1 2 9 3
NOTICE
To The Hon. Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court,
Madam:
Kindly bring the foregoing MEMORANDUM to the immediate
attention of the Honorable Court.
ALLAN V. ASUNCION JR.
Copy furnished:
Atty. Alessandra B. Apuya
Counsel for Defendants
2F Arista Building
Karangahan
Boulevard Tabaco City
