Position Paper Carnapping
Position Paper Carnapping
Position Paper Carnapping
College of Law
Poblacion, Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet
Submitted by:
HECTOR M. PALAO-AY
Submitted to:
ATTY. JOLANIE ANN C. LUSPIAN SACYAT
CASE
No.
_____
-versus-
For: CARNAPPING
statute of limitations.
At the instant case, the complaint for ejectment filed by the
plaintiff contained an application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction, as allowed under Section 33
of BP 129. The suit would, therefore, ostensibly fall under the
exception mentioned in Section 412 (b) of the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law.
Under Section 3 of Rule 70, an ejectment case is a summary
procedure, and that all actions for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered, shall be governed by the
summary procedure hereunder provided. Additionally, it is also
a firmly settled principle that the municipal court has jurisdiction
over forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases (Heirs of Jacobo
Bolus, et. al. vs. The Court of Appeals and Spouses Ricardo
and Gliceria Jimenez, G. R. No. 107036, February 9, 1993).
The rationale is that forcible entry cases are summary
proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of
protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the
property involved (Republic vs. Guarin, 81 SCRA 269). It has
been held that these actions "are intended to avoid disruption of
public order by those who would take the law in their hands
purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession" (Vda
de Legaspi vs Avendao, 79 SCRA 135, September 27, 1977).
It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is
time procedure designed to remedy the situation (Mabalot vs.
Madela, Jr. 121 SCRA 347). Procedural technicality is therefore
obviated and reliance thereon to stay eviction from the property
should not be tolerated and cannot override substantial justice
(Dakudao vs. Consolacion, 122 SCRA 877). So much so that
judgment must be executed immediately when it is in favor of
the plaintiff in order to prevent further damages arising from
loss of possession (Salinas vs. Navarro 126 SCRA 167).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of the Honorable Court that the instant ejectment suit be
decided in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the defendant to:
1. Permanently vacate the premises in question and give the
immediate right of possession to the plaintiff;