Pre-trial-brief-final.doc

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Second Judicial Region Branch 1 City of Ilagan CIVIL CASE NO. _________ JUAN DELA CRUZ Plaintiff,

-versus-

for

ANDRES BONI Defendant.

Recovery of Possession With Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

x----------------------------------x PRE-TRIAL BRIEF Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits his Pre-Trial Brief, as follows: I.

WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SETTLEMENT

I.1 Subject to a proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, defendant is open to the possibility of amicably settling the dispute. II.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

II.1 Plaintiff ordering the defendant to demolish and/or to remove at the latter’s expense whatever structure he caused to be constructed on Lot No. 1451-B and also to demolish and/or remove the concrete fence constructed on the South Eastern side of Lot No. 1451-B which is described under paragraph 3 of this complaint. Ordering the defendant his servants and those residing and working under them to vacate Lot No. 1451-B and to deliver possession thereon to the plaintiff and to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00 a month until such time that the land Lot No. 1451-B is delivered to the plaintiff; II.2 Defendant resists plaintiff’s claims based on the failure to state a cause of action because of: II.2.1

The Plaintiff was never the rightful owner of the subject land and that failure of the defendant to register the same with the register of Page 1 of 4

deed does not render their right lost just because the subject lot was already titled under the name of Plaintiff. II.2.2 The deceased Plaintiff’s mother, Juanita Dela Cruz, the original owner of the land, executed by means of public instrument a Deed of Absolute Sale on the said subject land in favor of the Defendant dated January 31, 1975. The Defendants failed to register the Deed of Absolute Sale in the registry of Deeds. The defendants had been in possession of the said property since 1975 and had constructed a house thereat which can be proved by the owners of the adjacent lots; II.2.3 It is worthy of mentioning that the Defendant had already owned the subject land by open, continuous, exclusive, adverse and notorious possession for 30 years since 1975. The right of the Plaintiff to assail the ownership of property and to recover the same had already prescribed. II.2.4 The Plaintiff had never demanded from the defendant to vacate the said lot in 2012. II.2.5 It must be emphasize that prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. (Heirs of Maningding v. CA, 342 Phil. 567 (1979))\ II.2.6 Worthy also to note that the subject property had already acquired by the Defendant through acquisition of property by laches since they occupied it, built fences, planted trees and used the same as ingress and egress towards their house which was previously gutted by fire. The Plaintiff knew all these but they did not lift a finger to bar them from doing so. They waited for more than 30 years to oust them. II.2.7 Based on the aforementioned, the Plaintiff had no cause of action against the Defendant since the action was already barred by prescription. Also, such action is barred by laches which is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length or time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society. (Vda. de Page 2 of 4

Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 627). II.3 Defendant also interposed a compulsory counterclaim of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) for Moral Damages and Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) for attorney’s fees. III. III.1

FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES Defendant only admits the facts stated in his Answer.

III.2 Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, defendant admits no other facts from the Complaint. IV.

ISSUES TO BE TRIED

IV.1 Whether the Plaintiff was able to establish their ownership of the subject property? IV.2 Whether the Plaintiff’s cause of action is already barred by prescription and laches? V.

EVIDENCE

V.1 Defendant intends to present the following documents: V.1.1 The Deed of Absolute Sale entered by the plaintiff’s mother and the defendant and attached in his Answer as “ANNEX I.” V.2 Defendant intends to present the following witnesses: V.2.1 Defendant himself, who will testify on the true circumstances leading to the filing of the suit against him; V.2.2 Carl De Madugas, owner of one of the adjacent lots of the subject property who resides therein since 1973. V.3 Defendant reserves the right to present any and all documentary evidence which shall become relevant to rebut plaintiff’s claims in the course of trial as well as any other witnesses whose testimony will become relevant to belie plaintiff’s witnesses, if necessary. VI.

RESORT TO DISCOVERY

VI.1 Considering the relatively simple issues presented, defendant does not intend to avail of discovery at this time.

Page 3 of 4

VI.2 Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery from plaintiff, defendant reserved the right to discovery before trial. VII.

AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES

VII.1 It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial conference to dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all the parties. Respectfully submitted. March 13, 2019, Ilagan City. RAGUINDIN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Plaintiffs Unit 324, Lighthouse Tower Luna Street, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan By: Atty. JOHN MARK B. RAGUINDIN Roll of Attorney No. 98421 IBP No. 98765/8-15-11/Cagayan PTR No. 12345/7-22-10/Cagayan

Copy Furnished: REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Second Judicial Region Branch 1 City of Ilagan Atty. IVY C. CABASAL Counsel for the Plaintiff Ilagan City, Isabela

Page 4 of 4