Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila City
JUANA DELA CRUZ, Defendant-Petitioner, -versusCIVIL CASE NO. L-12345 or! E"ect#ent
JANE DOE, Plaintiff-Respondent$ %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% MEMORANDUM
COME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, throu&h the undersi&ned counsel, unto this 'onorable Supre#e Court #ost respectfully sub#it and present this Me#orandu# in the above-titled case and aver that!
1. Plaintiff-Respondent (ane Doe is of le&al a&e, sin&le, and residin& on )*)* +inoo
,oulevard, Pasay City, -here she #ay be served -ith le&al processes and notices issued by this 'onorable Court.
2. Defendant-Petitioner (uana Dela Cru/ is of le&al a&e and residin& on )01 ,inibini Street, 2ue/on City, and #ay be served -ith le&al processes and other "udicial notices thereto$
I. PROCEDURAL BACK ROUND
1. On ebruary )), 0**3, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Co#plaint for E"ect#ent dated
ebruary 4, 0**3 a&ainst Defendant-Petitioner.
2. On Dece#ber 00, 0**3, an 5ns-er dated Dece#ber )6, 0**3 -as filed by the Defendant-Petitioner. 3. On ebruary 1, 0**7, a Decision -as rendered by ,ranch ) of Metropolitan Trial Court
of Pasay City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent.
4. On 5u&ust 8, 0**7, a Motion for Reconsideration filed (uly 6, 0**7 by DefendantPetitioner throu&h le&al counsel -as denied by (ud&e 9oren/o Men/on of ,ranch )* of the Re&ional Trial Court Pasay City. 5. On Septe#ber ):, 0**7, a Petition for Revie- dated Septe#ber 7, 0**7 -as filed to the
Court of 5ppeals by Defendant-Petitioner.
'ence. 13. Plaintiff-Respondent throu&h le&al counsel filed a Co##ent dated 5pril )7. but due to Defendant-Petitioner>s occupancy thereat. Due to the fore&oin& failure to clai# the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusal of the Defendant-Petitioner.aran&ay officials for #ediation andCor conciliation in accordance -ith la-$ 'o-ever. 12. 2%1&. the petition shall be sub#itted for decision.
8. Plaintiff-Respondent -as not able to clai# i##ediately the land for it -as previously sub"ect to a pendin& le&al proceedin& and that there -as still no ur&ent necessity of usin& and occupyin& it$ Bhen the event ca#e that Plaintiff-Respondent -as able to enforce her ri&ht over the land.inibini Street. 0*)*. FACTUAL BACK ROUND
10. 0*)*. Defendant-Petitioner.oulevard. Defendant-Petitioner. a Resolution -as rendered by the Court of 5ppeals denyin&
Defendant-Petitioner>s Prayer for Te#porary Restrainin& Order <TRO=. On May 0). Spouses Marcelo and Marcela del Pilar. 0*)*. the 'onorable Court of 5ppeals ordered the parties to sub#it their respective Me#oranda fifteen <)6= days fro# notice. the for#er cannot clai# possession -hich left her -ith the option of residin& at )*)* +inoo . 151$(
. 5ccordin&ly. Plaintiff-Respondent -as co#pelled to hire the services of a le&al counsel to co##ence the enforce#ent of e"ection under the -in&s of the courts of la-$
III.deceased ori&inal o-ners.D. the filin& of the instant Me#orandu#$
II.ISSUES OF THE CASE A.! WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTL" IN DECIDIN THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD RAISED IN DEFENSE THE LESSEE#S RI HTS UNDER P.6. 11.
9. is an alle&ed lessee of the ori&inal o-ners of the land since Septe#ber )766$ They had repeatedly assailed the verbal contract of lease for #ore than 6* years. Plaintiff-Respondent see?s that a parcel of land located at )01 . as per . 7. 151$. Pasay City$ @t is note-orthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent is the re&istered o-ner of the land sub"ect under TCT Ao$ )01:6 of the Re&istry of Deeds of Pasay City$ The property -as sold to the# by the no. P. other-ise re&ardless -hether or not Me#oranda -ere filed. APD 1-12 ' PASA" CIT"( B. On May )1. On 5pril 01.D.erification and Report fro# the (udicial Records Division
<(RD= no Reply -as filed by the Defendant-Petitioner. Pasay be returned to her possession. on the other hand. despite earnest and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff-Respondent still refused to vacate the land$ This led her to see? help fro# the . 0*)*. the Defendant-Petitioner still persistently occupied the land -ithout heed to the serious and constant de#and of the PlaintiffRespondent -hich rendered it unattainable to reach an a&ree#ent.D.! WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THE BONA FIDE LESSEE#S RI HT TO AVAIL THE PRIVILE ES AND BENEFITS PROVIDED B" SECTION & OF P.
! T*+/+ 2< 4.D. 151$ 643 P. the Court declared that the trial court did not err in &ivin& #ore probative -ei&ht to the TCT in the na#e of the decedent vis--vis the contested unre&istered Deed of Sale$ 9ater in Arambulo v. AR UMENTS
A.02-4 & P.23245 0*60 64 . 151$ . in this instant case. and the seal of the court.! WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMININ THE COVERA E OF AREAS FOR PRIORIT" DEVELOPMENT )APD!. Gungab.) T*+ 3+0+/124602-4 -9 0*+ <./+<..6=627 0*+ :+4+920< 643 .
IV.-4 *+/+24 D+9+43640-P+0202-4+/ 3+<.Civil Code enu#erates the ri&hts of an o-ner$ DThe o-ner has the ri&ht to en"oy and dispose of a thin&.-. specifically.) T*+ . it provides that Dthe ori&inal certificates in the re&istration boo?. the Court held that the re&istered o-ner is preferred to possess the property sub"ect of the unla-ful detainer case$ The a&e-old rule is that the person -ho has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof$E The rulin& of Di/on v$ Court of 5ppeals -as also used as basis for this ar&u#ent$ @t -as stated that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of o-nership and the Guestionability of the title is i##aterial in an e"ect#ent suit$ uther#ore. and also the o-ner>s duplicate certificate. 5rticle :03 of the Ae.
V. shall be received as evidence in all the courts of the Philippine @slands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein e%cept so far as other-ise provided in this 5ct$E Reco&ni/ed "urisprudence also uphold the si&nificance of a certificate of title in provin& valid o-nership of a land$ @n the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v.761602-4.-. B.1+40
<*677 :+ :6<+3 -4 0*+ 72<0 -9 <.inibini Street./-=23+3 :> S+.02-4 :+
+49-/.)@t is necessary to e#phasi/e that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide o-ner of the parcel of land located at )01 . the presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real property is a conclusive evidence of o-nership of the person -hose na#e the certificate of title is entitled to$
Under Section :4 of the 9and Re&istration 5ct.-40+402-4 -9 0*+ 9-/1+/ .7 3+0624+/ 0.6:7+. DISCUSSION
A./2:+3 :> 0*+ .D.E @t is indubitable that the certificate of title of )01 .+3 .47689. or of the re&ister of deeds of the province or city -here the land is situated. or 5ct Ao$ :78.
C.C. Mercado.:6/ 24 0*2< 24<0640 . the ponente cited t-o cases -hich hi&hli&ht the si&nificance of a valid certificate of title in clai#in& o-nership over a land$ @t -as held that DFin the recent case of Umpoc v. any copy thereof duly certified under the si&nature of the cler?.-11200+3 4.43+/ P. )01:6 of the Re&ister of Deeds of Pasay City$ @n the Philippines.72.292.6<+ 9-/ 64 ./-=23+3 20 2< 6. Spouses Coronel./0 .D.7 3+0624+/ 6. Pasay City under TCT Ao. 6/+6< .+ 643 72120602-4 -9 A/+6< 9-/ P/2-/20> D+=+7-.47689. -ithout other li#itations other than those established by la-$ The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.+//-/ 24 3+.20+ 0*+ 6<<627+3 . REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF THE STREETS SUBJECT TO THE ZONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION B" METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF..inibini Street. the ri&ht of action a&ainst the holder and possessor of the thin& in order to recover the land$
.+./-./2=27+5+< . Pasay City under TCT Ao$ )01:6 -hich is re&istered in the Re&ister of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent the ri&ht to e%ercise the afore#entioned ri&hts. 2%1&.
c= (uan 9una Street. correct in ob"ectin& to appellee>s e%ercise of the ri&ht of first refusal &ranted under Section 8 of Presidential Decree Ao$ )6)4$ The fact that it is not included in the areas for priority develop#ent specifically identified under Procla#ation Ao$ )784 indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annul#ent of sale. and Santa Clara$ @t -as thereafter specifically enu#erated the list of covered subareas <please refer to 5nne% DCE for dia&ra#= -hich are the follo-in&! )= $ . "= . and preli#inary in"unction a&ainst appellants$E
B.inibini Street necessarily i#plies that it is dee#ed e%cluded fro# it$ Citin& Solanada Enterprises v$ Court of 5ppeals. reconveyance. before a pree#ptive ri&ht can be e%ercised. PD )6)4. )01:6! D@nsofar as the property in liti&ation.E. continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allo-ed the ri&ht of first refusal to purchase the sa#e -ithin a reasonable ti#e and at reasonable prices. ?= Rodri&ue/ Street. e= . h= 9eonardo Street. the property in liti&ation is not included a#on& the sites identified as 5reas for Priority Develop#ent in Pasay City$EThe #ere fact that the list does not include . d= D$ (or&e Street. labeled as the South Sector of Pasay City.aran&ays San @sidro.! The third issue Guestions the covera&e of the 5PD prescribed by the procla#ation. San RoGue. conseGuently.asilio Street. the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action in this issue$ C. the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be both an 5PD and a U9RH$
5n urban tenantIs ri&ht of first refusal is set forth in Section 8.) The Plaintiff-Respondent>s ar&u#ent in this issue is inti#ately connected -ith the
precedin& ar&u#ent$ Defendant-Petitioner vi&orously assails that there is no bar to the availability of the privile&es and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee -henever there is an unla-ful detainer action$ @t is ho-ever true$ .inibini Street location. it #ade a profound analysis of Section 8 of P$D$ )6)4 <as found in 5nne% D5E of this Me#orandu#= based on statutory construction! DBe a&ree$ 5 close readin& of Procla#ation Ao$ )784 reveals that. -hether or not it refers to the list of streets sub"ect to the Honal Develop#ent or to the areas included in the delineation of the #etes and bounds indicated$ Reiteration is therefore necessary to lay e#phasis on the decision of the Court of 5ppeals that in the 9ist of 5reas for Priority Develop#ent <5PD>s=. under ter#s and conditions to be deter#ined by the Urban Hone E%propriation and 9and Mana&e#ent Co##ittee created by Section 3 of this Decree$ Procla#ation Ao$ )784 further deli#ited the areas or /ones -herein this pree#ptive ri&ht could be availed of vi#$!
. respectively= is untenable$ @t is e%pressly stated that Section 8 of P$D$ )6)4 &rants lessees the ri&ht of first refusal before they #ay be e"ected fro# a land. i= 5lvare/ Street.The contention of the Defendant-Petitioner that the verbal lease a&ree#ent they had #ade -ith the no. as follo-s! Sec$ 8$ and Tenanc! in Urban and "eform Areas$ Bithin the Urban HonesJ. f= Conchita Street. the land possessed by the Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under the a#bit of Section 8 of P$D$ Ao$ )6)4$ Therefore.illa .deceased ori&inal o-ners Marcelo and Marcela Del Pilar for over 6* years shall entitle the# to the privile&es under P$D$ )6)4 and P$D$ 0*)8 <5nne% D5E and D.iscarra Street.entanilla Street. the area for priority develop#ent -as defined as Tra#o 9ines alon& .arbara$ DThere is conseGuently no &ainsayin& the fact that -ith its .K le&iti#ate tenants -ho have resided on the land for ten years or #ore J.K and residents -ho have le&ally occupied the lands by contract. 0= .ictor. &= Dolores Street. but this is only feasible under certain conditions$ @t is an indispensable Gualification that the land is included in the list of 5reas for Priority Develop#ent <5PD= before an o-ner can be &ranted of the ri&ht of first refusal$ The land sub"ect of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enu#erated in the list of 5PD$ To reiterate the Court of 5ppeals decision in C5-+$R$ Ao$ C.ut this is sub"ect to circu#stances that #ay Gualify a lessee to the privile&es and benefits under Section 8 of P$D$ Ao$ )6)8 such as the ri&ht of first refusal$ Unfortunately. appellant (ane Doe is.K -ho have built their ho#es on the landJ. and i= .
pursuant to Section : of P$D$ Ao$ )6)4. President of the Philippines.necessary and appropriate to identify specific sites covered by urban land refor# in Metropolitan Manila for purposes of #a?in& specific the applicability of P$D$ Aos$ )6)4. the Defendant-Petitioner>s action -ould necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action$
PRA"ER WHEREFORE. declarin& the entire Metropolitan Manila area as Urban 9and Refor# Hone$ B'ERE5S. it respectfully prayed for that this 'onorable Supre#e Court that Defendant-Petitioner>s prayer for -rit of in"unction be DENIED for havin& no cause of action and the petition DISMISSED for bein& clearly un#eritorious$ Other "ust and eGuitable relief under the fore&oin& are li?e-ise bein& prayed for$ Respectfully sub#itted$ Ma?ati City for Manila City.. "oinder or union$ 5s understood fro# the co##on and usual #eanin& of the con"unction and$ the provisions of PD )6)4 apply only to areas declared to be located -ithin both an 5PD and a U9RH$E Bith the fore&oin& reco&ni/ed "urisprudence said. Ma?ati City
. and in relation to Procla#ation Ao$ )371 declarin& the entire Metropolitan Manila area as an Urban 9and Refor# Hone. @t is no. ERD@A5AD E$ M5RCOS. Ae. Philippines$ 5pril 3. hereby a#end Procla#ation Ao$ )371 by declarin& 0:: sites in Metropolitan Manila as 5reas for Priority Develop#ent and Urban 9and Refor# Hones as described in the attached anne%$ DThe provisions of P$D$ Aos$ )6)4.uildin&.y!
. Procla#ation Ao$ )371 -as issued on )) Septe#ber )747. @.B'ERE5S. pre#ise considered. )8:* and )8:0 and of 9O@ Ao$ 716 shall apply only to the aboveJ-K#entioned 5reas of Priority Develop#ent and Urban 9and Refor# Hones$ %%% %%% %%%E The aforecited whereas clauses e%press a clear intent to li#it the operation of PD )6)4 to specific areas declared to be located in both an 5PD and a U9RH$ The con"unctive and in the last sentence of the Guoted provision confir#s this intention$ And in statutory construction i#plies con"unction. )8:* and )8:0 and of 9O@ Ao$ 716$ AOB. by virtue of the po-ers vested in #e by the Constitution and e%istin& la-s. Ma?ati 5venue. and 9O@ 716. 0*))$
AZURIN BUHAIN BONTU"AN AND ARICA"OS LAW OFFICES Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent )*th loor. T'ERE ORE.
ARCHER Counsel for Petitioner Unit )0**.ATT".P 9ifeti#e Ao$ 8437). 6C)*C0**6 PTR Ao$ ::683.uildin& Condo#iniu#. )C)*C0*)) Roll of 5ttorney Ao$ 0**6-**)*01 MC9E Co#pliance Ao$ @@@ L ***377
Copy urnished! ATT". Manila
. PAOLO COELHO @. JEFFRE" A. Tall . Espana.