Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

First Judicial Region
Branch X
Baguio City

GLENN QUAGMIRE, Civil Case No. 007863

Plaintiff,

- versus - For:

STEWIE GRIFFIN, UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Defendant. AND DAMAGES
x--------------------------------------x

DECISION

This is a case for UNLAWFUL DETAINER

filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for
occupying a parcel of land located in Baguio City.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that he is the

registered owner of the parcel of land- subject of
this case- embraced in TCT No. 001-1284545-0567.
On August 1, 2015, Glenn Quagmire and the
Plaintiff entered into a Contract of Lease involving
the subject property with the Defendant. The
agreed term of lease is two (2) years, reckoned
from August 1, 2015, until August 1, 2018. Upon the
expiration of the stipulated term, the defendant-
lessee continued to possess the subject property.
On August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a demand
letter to the Defendant where he had earnestly
requested the latter to vacate the premises within
15 days from receipt thereof. Nonetheless,
defendant adamantly refused to leave the subject
property and even vented out his remonstrance with
the officials in order to alienate the plaintiff from the
respected residents of Barangay Burnham Park.
The plaintiff resorted to Barangay conciliation on
August 20, 2017, but the defendant had doused the
plaintiffs resolve to end the controversy for his
failure to civilly discourse, hence this recourse to
this Court.

By way of Answer, the defendants alleged that upon

expiration of the stipulated term, the defendant
continued to lawfully possess the subject property
by virtue of a valid Contract of Extension of Lease.
On December 10, 2016, before the expiration of the
term of the lease, a subsequent agreement has
been made between the parties, that the term of
lease be extended until December 12, 2019. They
also alleged that no demand letter was received.
Furthermore, no conciliation was made at all and
that the defendant has no knowledge as to the
existence and due execution of the Certification to
File Action issued by the Barangay. From December
10, 2013 up to date, the Defendant alleged that he
is continuously in lawful possession of the parcel of
land.

At the preliminary conference, no settlement

was reached by the parties, for which reason this
court terminated the preliminary conference and
directed the parties to file their respective position
papers.

The issue to be resolved in this case is

whether or not the contract of lease between
plaintiff- lessor and defendant- lessee has been
terminated giving rise to the question as to who has
the better right of possession?

In Cabrera v. Getaruela, the Court held that a

complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for
unlawful detainer if it recites the following:

2
 (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 latters 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.

While it is true that the plaintiff is the lawful

owner of the parcel of land by virtue of the Title
Certificate submitted, the allegations in the
Complaint failed to convince this Court that such
constitutes a case for unlawful detainer.

The defendants allegation on the right of

continuous possession was proven by mere
preponderance of evidence. The Contract of
Extension of Lease gives the right of possession in
favor of the defendant- lessee.

In Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr. it was held

that:

It is basic that a contract is the law

between the parties. Obligations arising
from contracts have the force of law
between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith.
Unless the stipulations in a contract are
contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy, the same
are binding as between the parties.

3
 Considering that the Contract of
Extension was proven by preponderance of
evidence and that the terms thereof are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy, it should be the law
which binds the parties.

INVIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgement

rendered in favor of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay eighty-

five thousand pesos (P85, 000) to the
defendant as moral damages and two
hundred thousand pesos (P200, 000) as
attorneys fees.