Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 69, Las Piñas City

MR. ANDREW F. MEDINA

Plaintiff

--versus--- Civil Case No: 62381

For: Unlawful Detainer

MS. EVA CARINO BRUTAL

Defendant

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Motion for
Reconsideration and averts that:

GROUND FOR THIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. MR. ANDREW M. MEDINA, the plaintiff, is a Filipino and a currently

resident of #75 Mango St., San Antonio, Las Pinas City;

2. MS. EVA CARINO BRUTAL, the defendant, is also a Filipino, of legal

age and a resident of #69 Hobart St., ABC Homes, Las Pinas City, where
he may be served with summons and other court processes.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

3. The aforementioned property was leased before to defendant since 2009

by a lease contract from Dec. 1, 2017 to November 30, 2018 by the former
owner Bobby Dela Cruz that had been expressed an obligation to pay a
monthly rental of P5,500.00 (Copy of Contract of Lease - Annex “A”).
Unfortunately, the contract was not renewed until it reached its termination
on November 30, 2018.
4. Upon the decision of the former owner to sell the property, wherefore,
the former owner executed a Deed of Sale on December 1, 2018 in the
amount of ₱1,000,000.00 (Copy of Deed of Absolute Sale - Annex “B”) thru
his agent Ma. Nita Isabel (Copy of Special Power of Attorney- Annex “C”)
wherein the plaintiff is already the new owner of a residential house and lot
covered by TCT No. 123456-R located in #69 Hobart St., ABC Homes, Las
Pinas City. This document had been signed by the respondent as
witness.

5. The plaintiff sent a notice to vacate property to the defendant on

December 2, 2018 affixed by a receiving copy but IGNORED and refused
to vacate in the exceeding period given in the said notice (Copy of Notice
to Vacate Property – Annex “D”).
6. Since the defendant did not vacate the property on the given date, the
plaintiff executed a new Contract of Lease as the new owner of the
property and had been expressed an obligation to pay the same monthly
rental of P5,500.00 (Copy of Contract of Lease - Annex “E”) from
December 7, 2018 until December 7, 2020. Unfortunately, the respondent
continuously lived the same without paying rent on the following month
period of the contract.
7. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff sent letter of notices that had been
signed as RECEIVED by the defendant in order to remind the latter to pay
for the rent of the said property such as dates January 6, March 26, June
30, October 30, all of year 2019, January 6, April 27, July 27, and October
30, 2020 (Copy of Demand to Overdue Rent – Annex F, Annex G, Annex
H, Annex I, Annex J, Annex K, Annex L, Annex M).
8. The plaintiff, as exhausted in keeping to notify the defendant to pay for
the rent, sent a final and last demand to vacate the property on January 3,
2021 but still the latter refused to do so (Copy of Notice to Vacate Property
2020– Annex “N”).
9. On January 13, 2021, the plaintiff decided to have mediation against the
defendant to Barangay to settle the problem but failed. The respondent
said that she refused to vacate the said property since she claims that she
has the right of first refusal to the property and will invalidate the deed of
sale if the plaintiff will file an ejectment case because she already obtained
a prior right against him. From that moment, as she added, she did not pay
the rent of the property since she insisted that the property should have
been offered first to her before offering to another person (Copy of
Certification to File an Action – Annex “O”).
10. The plaintiff demanded by this Court against the defendant to vacate
the said property, pay the necessary rental fee of the property with the net
total of ₱132,000 including its interest as provided by law, and other
necessary reliefs thereof.
11. The plaintiff, through his counsel, submitted its Complaint dated
January 17, 2021 and the defendant filed their Answer, through her counsel
dated on the same date. The evidences were cleared in the presence of
these documentary evidences that was shown during the time of pre-trial
dated January 20, 2021.

ISSUES

I
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO STAY IN
AFORESAID PROPERTY
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARGE FOR RENT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO
THE DEFENDANT IS VALID
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM OF RIGHT OF FIRST
REFUSAL BE A VALID DEFENSE
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT SHE CAN
INVALIDATE THE DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY THE FORMER
OWNER AND THE PLAINTIFF
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEDURES IN RULE 70 SECTION 1 OF
THE RULES OF COURT BE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT
VI
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEDURES IN RULE 70 SECTION 2 OF
THE RULES OF COURT BE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT
VII
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEDURES IN REPUBLIC ACT 9653
SECTION 9 LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
VIII
WHETHER OR NOT HARASSMENT OCCUR IN THE DEFENDANT AS
PER ACCORDANCE TO THEIR CLAIM
IX
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEDURES IN RULES OF SUMMARY
PROCEDURE BE GROUNDS TO DISMISS THE CASE
 X
WHETHER OR NOT MERELY ADMITTING TO THE FACTS OF THE
COMPLAINANT BE THE GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THIS
CASE
XI
WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES
AND EXPENSE OF THE LITIGATION

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

I.
THE DEFENDANT HAD NO
RIGHT TO STAY IN
AFORESAID PROPERTY

12. The defendant HAD NO RIGHT to stay in the said property. It had been
shown in several evidences that the plaintiff gave all notices by means of
consistently reminding needed for two years in order the respondent to
comply with the obligation to pay but still refused to do so. In these
aforementioned circumstances, the plaintiff had the right to demand against
the respondent to vacate the property.
In Joven Yuki Jr vs Wellington Co GR # 178527 November 27, 2009,
thecformal demands to vacate sent to petitioner, coupled with the
filing of an ejectment suit, are categorical acts on the part of
respondent showing that he is not amenable to another renewal of
the lease contract. Therefore, petitioner’s contention that his stay in
the subject premises is with the acquiescence of the respondent,
has no leg to stand on. (Emphasis ours)

II.
THE CHARGE FOR RENT
OF THE PLAINTIFF TO
THE DEFENDANT IS VALID

13. The defendant’s refusal to pay for the said rent on the ground of her
personal emotions in such way that she insisted that she should be the first
one to be offered regarding the selling of the house in which it is not a valid
defense for not paying for the said rent. It is merely obligation as the lessee
the pay the price of the lease in accordance to the terms as per mentioned
in Annex E.
In Article 1657 of the Civil Code that the lessee is obliged:
(a) to pay the price of the lease according to the terms stipulated
(b) to use the thing leased as a diligent father of a family, devoting it
to the use stipulated; and in the absence of stipulation, to that which
may be inferred from the nature of the thing leased, according to the
custom of the place
(c) to pay the expenses for the deed of lease (Emphasis ours)

14. Failure of such payment of rent to such property that had been leased
is subjected to proper action as deemed provided by law.
In Cetus Development Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals and
Ederlina Navalta GR #77647 August 7, 1989, the right to bring an
action of ejectment or unlawful detainer must be counted from the
time the defendants failed to pay rent after the demand therefor.
It is not the failure per se to pay rent as agreed in the contract,
but the failure to pay the rent after a demand therefor is made, that
entitles the lessor to bring an action for unlawful detainer. In
other words, the demand contemplated… is not a demand to
vacate, but a demand made by the landlord upon his tenant for
the latter to pay the rent due if the tenant fails to comply with
the said demand with the period provided, his possession
becomes unlawful and the landlord may then bring the action
for ejectment.(Emphasis ours)

III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
DEFENDANT’S CLAIM OF
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
BE A VALID DEFENSE

15. The claim of the defendant of the right of first refusal is not a valid
defense on the ground that the time opportunity given by the owner on the
period of ten years was not consummated by the respondent. The contract
of lease was not renewed between the respondent and the former owner,
Bobby Dela Cruz and no actions were filed in order to claim the valid
defense of right of first refusal.
In Joven Yuki Jr vs Wellington Co GR # 178527 November 27, 2009,
the right of first refusal, also referred to as the preferential right to
 buy, is available to lessees only if there is a stipulation thereto in
the contract of lease or where there is a law granting such right to
them (i.e., Presidential Decree No. 1517 (1978), which vests upon
urban poor dwellers who merely lease the house where they
have been residing for at least ten years, preferential right to
buy the property located within an area proclaimed as an urban
land reform zone). (Emphasis ours)

IV.
THE DEFENDANT CANNOT
INVALIDATE THE DEED OF
SALE EXECUTED BY THE
FORMER OWNER AND THE
PLAINTIFF

16. In connection with paragraph 15, the respondent cannot invalidate the
deed of sale executed by the former owner and the plaintiff because the
respondent had been aware. At the time when the plaintiff already claimed
the property and demanded for her to vacate it, she started not to comply
with the obligation which gave the ground to the plaintiff to file necessary
actions.
In Article 1409 of the Civil Code. The following contracts are
inexistent and void from the beginning:
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order or public policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the
transaction;
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal
object of the contract cannot be ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

V.
RULE 70, SECTION 1 OF
RULES OF COURT FAVORED
IN THE COMPLAINANT AND
NOT AS A VALID DEFENSE
17. As the law provides, “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.
(Emphasis ours)

18. In the case of bar, it was proven that the complainant was deprived of
the possession of the land located at #69 Hobart St, ABC Homes, Las
Piñas City. There were several circumstances as well as evidences
provided that the said defendant did not comply with the aforesaid Contract
of Lease (Annex E). The complainant did not rely only with the bountiful
notices of arrears of rent received by the defendant but it only shows that
without compliance in accordance to the contract the defendant already
strategized the possession by merely IGNORING Notices on Arrears of
Rent that was signed by defendant.

19. The complainant also complied with the said ruling. As a matter of fact,
this action was filed AFTER the expiration of the Contract of Lease dated
December 7, 2020 (Annex E). The prior actions were taken only as
evidentiary actions.

20. Therefore, the complainant has the right to file this certain action of
right of possession to the property provided and the said defendant is
already and standing admitting that by several evidences and
circumstances provided that the defendant was an unlawful detainer.

VI.

RULE 70, SECTION 2 IS

NOT AS A VALID DEFENSE

21. As the law cited, “Lessor to proceed against lessee only after
demand. — Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lesser 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 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. (2a)”
22. In the case at bar, it was proven that the complainant comply with the
conditions in accordance to the rules of court. As a matter of fact, the
complainant did not only gave 5 days to the defendant to vacate the
property but already 10 days after the complainant received the said notice
but again, as admitted by the defendant, ignored the said notice and still
did not vacate the property (Annex N – Final Demand to Vacate Property).

23. Therefore, this law cannot afford by the defendant as a valid defense
but merely trying to persuade the court in trying to dismiss the complaint.

VII.

REPUBLIC ACT 9653 SECTION 9 –

THE SWAYED MOVE OF THE
DEFENDANT TO MISLEAD
THE MAIN ISSUE OF UNLAWFUL
DETAINER

24. The law states that:

Grounds for Judicial Ejectment. - Ejectment shall be allowed on the

following grounds:

Assignment of lease or subleasing of residential units in whole or in

part, including the acceptance of boarders or bedspaces, without the
written consent of the owner/lessor;

Arrears in payment of rent for a total of three (3) months:

Provided, That in the case of refusal by the lessor to accept
payment of the rent agreed upon, the lessee may either deposit, by
way of consignation, the amount in court, or with the city or municipal
treasurer, as the case may be, or barangay chairman, or in a bank in
the name of and with notice to the lessor, within one (1) month after
the refusal of the lessor to accept payment.

The lessee shall thereafter deposit the rent within ten (10) days of
every current month. Failure to deposit the rent for three (3)
months shall constitute a ground for ejectment.

25. The complainant strongly did not refuse nor disagree to accept
payment due to the fact it is part of the obligation of the defendant to pay
for the rent. It was very unjusticiable already that the latter did not comply
not just only three months but almost 2 years of ignoring such notices given
quarterly as provided by the evidences. The complainant followed what
were the processes in the provisions of the lease that in the Civil Code.
This issue cannot be sustained as the complainant argued only regarding
the unlawful detainment of the defendant in the said property.
VIII.

”HARASS” AGAINST DEFENDANT

IS MERELY SPECULATIVE

26. HARASSMENT as defined by the legal dictionary:

HARASSMENT (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of

systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of
one party or a group, including threats and demands.

27. Serving notices as part of the obligation of the lessor to the lessee is
provided by lessor-lessee law. The complainant served notices in order to
remind the defendant for the obligation that needed to be faced off. Failure
to comply with the said obligation is a direct, unwillingly, and feloniously a
violation against the law. All of actions made by complainant were all part
of the process provided in accordance to the procedures. No negligence on
the part of the complainant had been seen in this case.

IX.

THE COMPLAINANT COMPLIED

WITH THE RULES OF SUMMARY
PROCEDURE IN ACCORDANCE
TO SECTION 18

28. The complainant, as per also the defendant was present at that time,
complied with this summary procedure provided. In the Annex O of the
Complaint, the defendant signed the aforesaid informations provided by the
that certain Certificate to File Action.

SECTION 18- Referral to Lupon– Cases requiring referral to Lupon

for conciliation under the provisions of PD 1508, where there is no
showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed
without prejudice, and may be revived only after such requirement
shall have been complied with. This provision shall not apply to
criminal cases where the accused was arrested without a warrant.

X.

ADMITTING TO THE FACTS

AND EVIDENTIARY ACTIONS CITED
IN THE COMPLAINT PROVED THAT
THE DEFENDANT ONLY “CITING”
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MADE
THE LATTER EXPOSED HER
NEGLIGENCE
29. As shown filed by the defendant in their answer and pre-trial brief, it is
very concluded that they already admitted several evidences that the
defendant did not comply with the aforesaid obligation as ground to expose
her negligence.

In the case of Fiorello R. Jose vs Roberto Alfuerto (GR No.169380

November 26, 2012), “in an unlawful detainer case, the
defendant’s possession becomes illegal only upon the plaintiff’s
demand for the defendant to vacate the property and the
defendant’s subsequent refusal”.

30. Again citing evidences that had been admitted and signed by the
defendant, in the date January 3, 2021 (Annex N-Final Demand to Vacate
Property), there was already a final notice to vacate the property due to the
fact that the Contract of Lease provided before was already expired dated
December 7, 2020 (Annex E-Contract of Lease). Therefore, the defendant
was already in the category of unlawful detainer on the ground of not only
strategized not to comply with the obligation as a lessee but moreover, did
not comply with the said rules of court to vacate property in aforesaid
evidences provided.

XI.

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
EXPENSE OF THE LITIGATION

31. Under Article 3308 of the Civil Code f the Philippines, attorney’s fees
can be recovered

a) When exemplary damages are awarded

b) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
incur expenses to protect his/her interest.
c) In action for the recovery of wages
d) In any other cases when the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fees and expense of litigation should be recovered.

32. The defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to hire the
services of a lawyer and shuld pay the amount of Seventy Five Thousand
Pesos (₱75,000) plus appearance fees of and other expenses of litigation.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that be noted and rendered judgment as follows:

1. To vacate the said property

2. To pay the necessary rental fee of the property with the net total of
₱132,000 including its interest as provided by law
3. To pay the costs for this suit plus damages

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

Las Piñas City, Philippines, January 25, 2021.

By:
ATTY. JERICO UMALI GODOY
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No: 0642517 (2021)
IBP No.:324687 (2021)
MCLE Compliance No.: III-5281095 (2021)
Roll No.: 845721

Copy furnished:

ATTY. RACEL JOYCE C. GEMOTO

Counsel for the Respondent
PTR No: A-1234557 (2021)
IBP No.:A-123456 (2021)
MCLE Compliance No.: A-123457 (2021)
Roll No.: A-123467
 Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
LAS PIṄAS CITY
Branch 69

ANDREW F. MEDINA
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 62381

For: EJECTMENT (UNLAWFUL
DETAINER)

EVA CARINO BRUTAL,

Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER

DEFENDANT, by Counsel, to this Honorable Court in compliance

with its order dated February 28, 2021, copy of which was received March
3, 2021 respectfully submits this position paper and in support thereof
alleges the following:

1. That the case before the bench is a complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed
by the Plaintiff, ANDREW F. MEDINA, against Defendant, EVA
CARINO BRUTAL. The Defendant respectfully prays for the dismissal of
this complaint, and ordering the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant Fifty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral Damages,
Fifty-Five Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) or more, as and by way of
Exemplary Damages, and attorney’s fees. Other reliefs just and equitable
under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
 PARTIES

1. That the Plaintiff, ANDREW F. MEDINA, is of legal age, Filipino

citizen, married, with residence and postal address at #75 Mango St., San
Antonio, Las Pinas City;

2. That the Defendant, EVA CARINO BRUTAL, is of legal age, Filipino

citizen, married, with residence and postal address at #69 Hobart St., ABC
Homes, Las Pinas City; and

3. That all parties have the capacity to sue and be sued; and
4. They can be served with this Court’s notices, subpoenas, orders and other
instruments at their above-cited addresses.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. The defendant, through her counsel, submitted Answer dated January 17,
2021 and the plaintiff filed their Complaint, through his counsel on the
same date. The evidences shown did not follow in accordance to the
procedures provided by the law that was shown during the time of pre-trial
dated January 20, 2021.

6. That the Defendant is the lessor of an apartment constructed on a land

located at #69 Hobart St., ABC Homes, Las Pinas City, owned by the
Plaintiff;

7. That by virtue of a contract executed by and between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant on December 1, 2017, the subject apartment was leased unto the
Defendant for a consideration of P5,500.00 a month as rental to be paid in
cash starting Dec. 1, 2017 until the expiration of the lease on November 30,
2018;

8. That the Defendant had no knowledge of an alleged demand letter dated

December 2, 2018 sent by Plaintiff which to this date never came to pass in
the hands of the Defendant;

9. That the Defendant received a Final Demand Letter January 3, 2021

ordering him to pay the rentals-in-arrears from December 1, 2017 until
November 30, 2018 and December 7, 2018 until December 7, 2020 and to
vacate the premises of the subject property within ten (10) days from
receipt thereof;

10. That on November 1, 2019 the Defendant paid the Plaintiff Fifty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) representing rental for the month of April 1,
2018 to October 1, 2018 proof of receipt of payment hereto attached as
EXHIBIT “I” - Official Receipt No. 123456 and made an integral part
hereof;

11. That on the same date, Defendant verbally notified the Plaintiff of its
intent to terminate the contract of lease effective December 2, 2018, The
Defendant also informed the Plaintiff that the one-month advance payment
shall be offset to cover the rental for February, 2019, and that the two-
months deposit paid shall be offset to cover the rental for March, 2019 and
April, 2019, as provided in their contract.

12. That the Defendant believed in good faith that said Plaintiff agreed to all
of this, there being no express or implied objection interposed by the
Plaintiff upon notice of the same;

13. That the Defendant has settled his arrears for the months of March 7,
2019 to November 30, 2019 thus was no longer in default by February
2019, and contrary to the allegations of the Plaintiff, still has a legal right to
stay in the premises until the end of December 7, 2020 as per agreement
and pursuant to the new contract of lease between the parties;

14. That by reason of the Plaintiff’s unfounded and malicious suit against
the Defendant, the latter suffered serious anxiety, mental anguish, social
humiliation, and sleepless nights for which he ought to be compensated in
an amount of no less than Fifty-Five Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00);
15. That as an example for public good, Plaintiff is ought to be penalized by
way of Exemplary Damages in an amount of no less than Fifty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00) to deter those who are similarly inclined to
wantonly disrespect the rights of others and maliciously drag them to
litigation; and

16. That due to the complaint filed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant was
constrained to engage the services of a counsel, for which he paid Fifteen
Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as acceptance fee and is bound to pay Three
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) per counsel’s appearance.
 ISSUES

17. The Defendant respectfully submits the following issues to be tried or

resolved by this Honorable Court:

a. Whether or not the Defendant has legal right to remain in

possession of the subject property prior to the agreed
termination date December 7, 2020; and

b. Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to receive moral,

exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for the wanton disrespect
by the Plaintiff of the Defendant’s rights and for dragging the
Defendant into a groundless suit causing serious anxiety, mental
anguish, social humiliation, and sleepless nights to him.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

18. Pertinent provisions in the Contract of Lease states:

DEPOSIT AND ADVANCE PAYMENT-

Upon signing of this contract, the LESSEE shall immediately pay

the LESSOR a deposit equivalent to two (2) monthly rentals and
an advance payment for the first month payable upon the signing
of this contract. Said deposit shall answer for the damages and
for utility bills or any unpaid obligations in relation to the
maintenance of the leased property such as, but not limited to,
electric and water bills, that may be caused by the LESSEE or his
representatives upon the leased property determinable upon the
expiration, termination, or cancellation of this lease. The said
deposit shall be returned by the LESSOR to the LESSEE, without
interest, upon expiration, termination or cancellation of this lease
after deducting therefrom whatever damages and/or utility bills
or other obligations as mentioned above which have been caused
upon the leased property, if any. The said deposit may be
used for set-off against any rental which may fall due.

TERMINATION and RENEWAL-

(b) The LESSEE cannot terminate this contract prior to its

expiration, unless the LESSOR agrees. The LESSEE shall
notify the LESSOR at least two (2) months before the
 date when the LESSEE decides to terminate the lease,
and the same shall surrender, without delay, the leased premises
at the termination of this contract. XXX
The following facts support that the Defendant has faithfully
complied with such terms of the contract:

a. That on December 2, 2018, the Defendant verbally notified the

Plaintiff of its intent to terminate the contract of lease effective
December 2, 2018;

b. That the Plaintiff agreed to the same, there being no objection,

express or implied, interposed by the Plaintiff upon notice of the
same by the Defendant and as witnessed by our neighbour, Kat P.
Asua, also a lessee of the Plaintiff at RYU Apartelle, who was present
with the Plaintiff and Defendant at that time as she was also settling
her monthly rental with the Plaintiff; and

c. That the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant was valid
and binding between them in so far as consent was given by the
Plaintiff and that the Defendant was able to give timely notice to the
Plaintiff as regards his intent to terminate the contract.

19. Other applicable laws in the New Civil Code provides:

1. Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of

law between the contracting parties and should be complied
with in good faith. (1091a)

2. Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be

allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract.

3. Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental

anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. XXX

4. Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by

way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

5. Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and

expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the

plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against

the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable
claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers,

laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and

employer’s liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a

crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable
that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be

reasonable.
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and
equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be
recovered.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered, dismissing the
complaint, and ordering the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as and by way of Moral Damages,
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or more, as and by way of Exemplary
Damages, and attorney’s fees.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.
    
January 28, 2021 Las Pinas City.

ATTY. RACEL JOYCE C. GEMOTO

Counsel for the Defendant
ABC Law Office
3rd Floor, Angeles St., Las Pinas City
PTR No: A-1234557(2021)
IBPNo.: A-123456(2021)
MCLE Compliance No.: A-123457(2021)
Roll No.: A-123467

Copy furnished:

ATTY.JERICO UMALI GODOY

PTRNo:0642517(2021)
IBPNo.:324687(2021)
MCLE Compliance No.: A-5281095(2021)
RollNo.:845721

Doc No.______
Page No._____
Book No._____
Series No._____