You are on page 1of 29

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATIC CITY, BRANCH 148
SUSAN AHORRO, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
- versus -

CIVIL CASE NO. _____

SPS. CARMELITO AND ANTONIO


ALDOVER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
x--------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
DEFENDANTS-SPOUSES ALDOVER, through counsel, come
and respectfully submits this memorandum stating as follows:

The Pleadings
The controlling initiatory pleading here is the Amended
Complaint dated 11 June 2004 which the Honorable Court admitted in
its 27 August 2004 Order.
The lot subject matter of this suit has an area of around 4, 044
square meters formerly titled under TCT No. 107508 (issued on 26
January 1998) in the names of the three defendants Reyeses
(Alfredo, Sidra and Tomas Reyes; id. at par. 5). Before, this property
(which was a part of a bigger lot) was titled in the name of the
Reyeses predecessor-in-interest (now deceased) Mr. Luis Reyes, on
01 August 1969 (id at pars. 6 & 8).
Plaintiffs presently occupy the subject lot (id. at par. 7). Their
story is that in the years 1960s onwards the defendants Reyeses
and their predecessor-in-interest Luis (who was then still alive) leased
to them the lots they respectively occupy and allowed them to build
their houses there (id. at par. 8). Thereafter, plaintiffs said the
defendants Reyeses offered to sell the subject lot to them, although
plaintiffs did not say when this offer was made (id. at par. 9).

Memorandum - 2
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Not disclosing also when it happened, the plaintiffs continued


narrating that they first checked the lots title with the Registry of
Deeds of Pasig City and saw that it was clean (id. at par. 10).
Consequently, they said they accepted the defendants Reyeses offer
to sell and paid them on instalments.
In paragraph 11 of their Amended Complaint, however, plaintiffs
averred that some of them remained lessees of the Reyeses. They
also claimed that some had already fully paid for their respective lots,
while the others have not (ibid.).
Plaintiffs claimed to have been shocked when, in April 2004,
they received a Notice to Vacate issued in LRC No. R-6203 then
pending before Branch 71 of this Honorable Court addressed to the
defendants Reyeses and all persons claiming right under them, the
body of which reads:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that by the virtue of
the Writ of Possession issued on March 17, 2004 by Hon,
CELSO D. LAVINA, Presiding Judge of this Court in the
above-entitled case, a copy of which writ is hereto
attached and being served upon you, DEMAND is hereby
made upon you and to all person and/or persons claiming
rights under you to voluntary vacate the subject
property/premises covered by Transfer of Certificate of
Title No. PT-122311 now registered in the name of
ANTONIA B. ALDOVER, Register of Deed for Pasig City,
and
surrender
physical
possession
of
said
property/premises to the petitioner, ANTONIA B.
ALDEVER, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
notice.
Your failure to comply with this Notice will that
much to our regret, the undersigned sheriff will execute
and implement said Writ of Possession forcibly to the
extent and limit as for provided by law.
(id. at par. 12, also Annex I thereof).
How this came about was testified on by defendant Antonia
Aldover where she explained:
Question (Q): Madam witness, are you the same
Antonia Aldover who is one of the
defendants in this case?
Answer

Yes, sir.

Memorandum - 3
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Do you know the property subject matter


of this case located at Brgy. Bambang,
Pasig City with an area of 4,044 square
meters more or less?

Yes, sir.

Why do you know said property?

Because I and my co-defendant husband


Carmelito Aldover are the registered
owner of said property.

What evidence, if any do you have to


prove this?

I have here a certified true copy of


Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. PT122311 issued in our names by Registry of
Deeds of Pasig City, sir.

How did you and your husband become


the owners of this property?

It was mortgaged to us by its former


owners, our co-defendants Alfredo Reyes,
Sidra Reys and Tomas Reyes, sir, last 12
August 1999 to secure their loan of
P500,000.00 Pesos.

What evidence, if any, can you show to


prove this?

I have here an original copy of the Real


Estate Mortgage they executed in our
favour, sir.

Why did you and your husband accept this


property as a collateral?

Because we were convinced that it was a


sufficient collateral for the loan and its title
was clean, or free from all kinds of liens
and encumbrances.

Which title are you referring to?

This title, sir. TCT No. PT-107508 issued


by the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City in

xxx

xxx

Memorandum - 4
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

the names of the Reyeses, which is a


certified true copy.
xxx
Q

After the Deed of Mortgage was executed,


what did you do next?

We registered an adverse claim over the


property and had it annotated in Entry No.
PT-14433/PT-107508 in this TCT No. PT107508 last 03 January 2000 (witness
pointing on page 2 of TCT No. PT-107508)

Then after this, what did you do next?

We had the mortgage registered also and


annotated in this TCT No. PT107508 on
04 December 2001, sir. (witness pointing
to Entry No. 3402/PT-107508 found in
page 3 of TCT No. PT-107508)

This loan was secured by the mortgage,


was it paid?

No, sir.

So what did you and your husband do?

We extrajudicially foreclosed it, sir.

What happened during the foreclosure?

I and my husband were the winning


bidders during the foreclosure sale, sir and
we were issued a certificate of sale.

Can you show us a copy?

Here it is, sir (witness showing a


Certificate of Sale dated 27 August 2002,
a certified true copy xxx).

What did you do, if you did anything, with


this Certificate of Sale?

We registered it and the same was


annotated on page 3 of TCT No. PT107508 last 02 September 2002 (witness
pointing to Entry No. PT-42766/PT-34207
in TCT No. PT-107508).

Memorandum - 5
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

What happened next?

On 31 March 2003 to be exact, we filed a


petition for issuance of writ of possession
docketed as LRC No. R-6203 and heard
by Branch 71 of this Court (RTC-Pasig
City), sir.

What happened to this petition?

The court rendered a decision in our


favour, sir.
Here (witness showing a
duplicate original copy of the Decision
dated 26 August 2003 in LRC No. R-6203
xxx).

Has this
already?

Not yet, sir.

Why?

The Court of Appeals had issued a writ of


preliminary
injunction
to
stop
its
implementation, sir.

Decision

be

implemented

(Exh. 1, pp. 1-3).


Plaintiffs claim that the mortgage by the Reyeses to the
Aldovers, as well as the title issued to the latter after the foreclosure
sale (TCT No. PT-122311) were all null and void because:
a. the Reyeses have no right to mortgage the subject
property in favour of any third person by virtue of the
deed of conveyance executed in their (plaintiffs)
favour (Amended Complaint, par. 16);
b. the plaintiffs right over the property is far more
superior than the Aldover because they (plaintiffs) were
innocent purchasers for value and or (sic) builder in
good faith. (id. at par. 14).
The principal reliefs plaintiffs now pray for are as follows:
1.

Affirming Plaintiffs right to the disputed property as


against Defendants SPOUSES ALDOVER ordering
the latter to respect and recognize the ownership

Memorandum - 6
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

and possession of the Plaintiffs pursuant to the


deed of conveyance executed in their favor.
2.

Declaring the Transfer Certificate of Title No.


PT122311 issued in the name of Defendants
SPOUSES ALDOVER and such other deed of
conveyance relative to Issuance of said title NULL
and VOID.

(id. at p. 7).
Defendants Aldover, in their Answer with Counterclaims filed
last 7 September 2006, insisted on the validity of their title (TCT No.
PT-122311), vis--vis the above reasons plaintiffs gave for assailing
its validity, and the mortgage/foreclosure prior to it. They asserted
that plaintiffs are plain squatters (id. at par. 3). They interposed
counterclaims (id. at pars. 16-18).
The other defendants filed no responsive pleading and did not
participate during the pre-trial, trial and other proceedings.

Issues
There were several proposed issues here (Pre-Trial Order
dated 06 June 2007, pp. 3-5) but several were already resolved by
this Honorable Court when it ruled upon defendants Aldovers
motions to dismiss. The undersigned counsel now proposes to
restate the remaining issues as follows:
1. Whether or not the Aldovers title, TCT No. PT-122311,
is valid;
2. Who are now the owners of the subject property, the
plaintiffs or the defendants Aldover?
3. Who between them are entitled to an award of
damages?

DISCUSSION
The first two issues shall be discussed here jointly, being
interrelated.
From plaintiffs own copy of TCT No. PT-107508 (in defendants
Reyeses names) which was attached both to their original Complaint
6

Memorandum - 7
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

and Amended Complaint as Annex B thereof, the following are


crystal clear:
a. the defendants Aldover annotated an adverse claim on
it last 03 January 2000;
b. the subject mortgage in their favour was likewise
annotated on said title on 04 December 2001;
c. after the foreclosure, the Certificate of Sale in the
Aldovers favour was likewise annotated on this title on
02 September 2002; and
d. apart from these three (3), there were no other
inscriptions,
annotations
or
memoranda
of
encumbrances on this title. Stated differently, none of
the alleged deeds of conveyances executed in
plaintiffs favour was registered and inscribed in this
title.
In relation to this, defendant Antonia Aldover had testified:
Q:

Several of the plaintiffs here testified that they had


already purchased the portions of the property they
are respectively occupying, what can you say to
this?

A:

This is not true. And assuming this is true, I and my


husband were never informed of such purchase by
the plaintiffs or even by the Reyeses themselves.

Q:

In their amended Complaint the Plaintiffs said that


you and your husband were aware that they were
occupying the property before the same was
mortgaged to you. What can you say to this?

A:

That is true, since we saw people living there.

Q:

What did you do when you saw these occupants?

A:

We asked the Reyeses what is the status of these


occupants and they told us that they just allowed
people to stay there and some of them are paying
rentals.

(Exh. 1, p. 3).

Memorandum - 8
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Defendants Aldover, indeed, were not aware, and could not


have been aware, of the alleged sale to some of the plaintiffs.
The latters very first witness, plaintiff Bibiana Cahibaybayan,
had confirmed this on cross-examination as follows:
Q

You testified on direct examination that you


had an agreement with Alfredo, Sidra and
Tomas Reyes for you and your husband to
purchase 98 square meters of the lot covered
by the Exhibit A.

Yes sir.

And this agreement according to you is your


Exhibit B in the contract to sell?

Yes sir.

And this agreement is dated May 26, 2003?

Yes, sir.

So you had an agreement to purchase the 98


square meters of the lot only on May 26,
2003?

No sir, before that meron na po kaming


contract to sell noon yon po binili ko po ng
year 2000 pa po.
Naandyan po yong
kasulatan na nagbabayad na ho ako ng year
2000.

Do you have a similar contract to sell


sometime the year 2000?

Yan na po yong pinagawa ko late na po


napagawa kasi po sabi po nila sila ng
magpapagawa hindi naman po pinapagawa
kaya ako nalang po nagpagawa.

So this was prepared year 2003?

Yes sir.

And this was signed year 2003 specifically


May 26, 2003?

Yes, sir.

Memorandum - 9
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

This was the first contract to sell signed by


you and your husband together with the
Reyeses Alfredo, Sidra and Tomas Reyes?

Meron po pero hindi po notaryado.

You mean it was signed but not notarized?

Yes, sir.

Where is it can you please show us the


contract to sell prior to Exhibit B which you
said was signed but was not notarized?

Hindi maganda pagkakaano ganito lang po.

What do you mean? This is a receipt Im


referring to a contract to sell before this
Exhibit B you said you had a contract to sell
signed by the parties?

Wala po ito lang po ang sinasabi ko.

So there is none?

Yes sir.

Now, was it your testimony that on or about


the signing of this contract to sell Exhibit B
you checked the title of the property?

I check the title in the year 2000 because that


was the time we executed the first payment.

So after that when you check it in the year


2000 you did not anymore check the title?

Yes sir.

That was the first and only time you checked


the title year 2000?

Yes sir before I pay.

Can you remember the month in the year


2000 when you checked the title?

I cannot remember sir.

But do you remember the last hearing when


you were asked by your counsel you identified
a copy of the title?

Yes sir.
9

Memorandum - 10
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Were you the one who secured the copy of


the title?

Yon pong anak ko.

Do you remember when was this secured by


your anak from the Register of deeds?

Hindi na po kasi yan po prior 1996 inalok


tapos yong year 2000 po inalok ulit tapos sabi
ko antayin ko na lang po yung 13th months
para kop o mai-secure yong down payment at
pina-check ko po naman ayan nga po.

You were one of the complainants/plaintiffs in


this case?

Yes sir.

You remember of course that you executed


here together with your co-plaintiffs a
complaint and then later an amended
complaint?

Oho ito nga yon ho sa Court of Appeals.

And this Annex B of your original complaint as


well as your amended complaint you attached
a copy of the title which was marked as Annex
B of both Original complaint and the amended
complaint?

Yes Sir.

And this Annex B of your original complaint as


well as your amended complaint has three (3)
annotations at the back. First, is an adverse
claim, second, is annotation concerning a
mortgage the third, is a certificate of sale?

Yes sir,

And you did notice that this adverse claim was


filed or annotated by the defendant Antonia
Aldover on January year 2000?

Napansin po naming noong huli na pong


inano naming pero nagtaka ho kami kung
bakit nagkaroon na ng ganyan.

And you are also aware that this mortgage in


favor of the Aldovers also the defendants was

10

Memorandum - 11
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

annotated on the same title on December 4,


2001 as reflected in your own Annex?
A

Hindi nga po kami aware dyan sa ano na


yan.

So you did not examine the title you attached


as your Annex to your complaints?

Yes sir.

And you are also not aware that in Annex B


your complaint and amended complaint there
is also an annotation of a certificate of sale in
favor of the Aldovers on September 2, 2002?

Hindi ko po masyadong nalaman yong pinagattach naming papers dyan.

And all these dates were before you executed


a contract to sell with the Reyeses on May 26,
2003?

Yes sir.

And all these dates were before you executed


a contract to sell was never annotated in this
title?

Yes Sir.

Now, you said on direct examination that you


know my clients the Spouses Antonia and
Carmelito Aldover because they were the
ones claiming the property as their own?

I knew them only lately because they were


claiming.

When you said lately youre referring to the


time sometime immediately before you file
your complaint in this case?

No sir.

Kelan?

Noon pong sila ay mag-ano napo nong


notice to vacate and notice for demolition. Yun
lang po.

Which notice to vacate is this, was this one


coming from the Sheriff of Court?

11

Memorandum - 12
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Yes sir.

You are referring to the Annex I of your


original complaint and amended complaint the
notice to vacate dated September 15, 2003?

ATTY. AMAZONA:
Which he be allowed to refer to the record,
Your Honor.
ATTY. OLIVEROS:
I will show her Exhibit.
COURT:
Ibig mo daw bang sabihin yang notice to
vacate na dated 2003?
A

Yes Mam.

ATTY. OLIVEROS:
No, its not 2003 I stand corrected, this notice
to vacate Annex to the original complaint and
amended complaint is dated April 1, 2004 and
Im showing to the witness.
COURT:
So you must have come to know of the
Spouses Aldover only sometime after April 1,
2004?
A

Yes Sir.

So it would not have been possible for you to


even give them a copy of the contract to sell
Exhibit B before April 2004 because you did
not know them before April 2004?

Yes sir.

So it is possible also that when the property


was mortgaged to them and when they
foreclosed the property they were not at all
aware of your contract to sell because you
failed to give them a copy and failed to
annotate it in the Registry of Deeds?

Yes sir.

(TSN, 12 February 2008, pp. 9-22).


12

Memorandum - 13
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Plaintiffs next witness Lernando G. Ahorro also admitted not


registering the alleged sale in his favour. He also did an open court
lying (on cross):
Atty. Oliveros:
Q:

Mr. Witness, This Deed of Absolute Sale date


August 7,2001 was earlier marked as Exhibit
L was this ever registered?

A:

Yes.

Q:

Where did you register this?

A:

In the.. no, not yet because we are still in the


process of registering it.

Q:

So, it has not been annotated also in the title


of the Reyeses?

A:

Yes, Sir.

Q:

You said in your affidavit that the property you


referred to in the Deed of Sale in the one
covered by TCT No. 39564, am I correct?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

So, did you check the original of this TCT No.


39564 before you entered into a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated August 7, 2001?

A:

Yes Sir.

Q:

And it is your testimony also that when you


checked TCT No. 39564 in the Register of
Deeds in Pasig City before you entered in to
the Deed of Absolute Sale of August 7, 2001
you found the title to be clean and still existing
at that time?

A:

Yes sir.

Q:

When you made the checking with the


Register of Deeds that must have been before
August 7, 2001?

A:

Yes sir.

Q:

And you are sure that you found TCT No.


39564 still existing and clean?

A:

Yes sir.

13

Memorandum - 14
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Q:

It has not been cancelled yet?

A:

Yes sir.

(TSN, 24 June 2008, pp. 8-11).


TCT No. 39564 -- as per plaintiffs own allegations was
however cancelled way back 26 January 1998 when TCT No. PT107508 was issued (par. 6, Amended Complaint; see Annex B
thereof).
Next was Clarita Singson who claims that her daughter had a
sale in her favour on 08 July 1999. First she claimed it was
registered (id. at pp. 22-23). But when asked for proof, she
eventually admitted otherwise (id. at pp. 24-25). She also admitted
that Alfredo Reyes did not sign this document of sale and there was
no special power of attorney executed by him authorizing anyone to
sign the document of sale for him (id. at pp. 26-27).
Amelia Dequina next testified. She claimed that there was a
contract to sell in her daughters favour dated 18 December 2003.
She admitted that no full payment of the agreed purchase price has
been made (id. at pp. 31-31). She also lied as follows:
Q: This contract to sell was executed December 18,
2003 of after December 18, 2003?
A:

Before December 18, 2003, sir

Q:

And more or less when did you check the title?

A:

Before my daughter paid the down payment, the


initial payment.

Q:

And more or less what month or year was that?

A:

We paid the down payment April so, before April


more or less February 2001.

Q:

February 2001? And when you check the title last


February 18, 2001 did you see the adverse claim
annotated in the title?

A:

None yet sir.

Q:

Did you get a copy of the title at that time?

A:

No, sir we just looked at the title during that time.

Q:

So in other words this story of yours that the title


was clean cannot be supported by any documents?
Just your recollection?

14

Memorandum - 15
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

A:

I was able to secure a copy of the title but it is just a


copy.

Q:

When did you secure copy of this title?

A:

At that time on February

Q:

So you have a copy of this document?

A:

Only a Xerox copy sir.

Q:

Do you have it now?

A:

I do not have it right now.

(id. at pp. 32-34).


Iluminada Ergiuza, in her attempt to say she and her husband
were buyers in good faith, likewise lied as follows:
Atty. Oliveros:
Q:

Mrs. Witness do you agree with me that both Deed


of Conditional Sale dated December 23, 1997 and
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 11,
2001 mentioned TCT No. 39564 from the Reyes is
it your testimony that before you enter into the Deed
of Conditional Sale and Deed of Absolute Sale you
check this title of the Reyes?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

And was it your testimony that you found the title


clean?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

And also existing?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

Not yet cancelled.

A:

Not yet sir.

Q:

This Deed of Conditional Sale was executed


December 23, 1997, when was it when you check
the title?

A:

October 1997.

15

Memorandum - 16
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Q:

And this Deed of Absolute Sale Executed


September 11, 2001 did you again check the TCT
No. 39564 before the execution of said document?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

And more or less when was it.

A:

That was January.

Q:

I am referring to the Deed of Absolute Sale dated


September 11, 2001, did you check TCT No. 39564
before September 11, 2001 or after September 11,
2001?

A:

Sometime January 2001.

Q:

And you found TCT No. 39564 also clean?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

And existing also.

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

Not yet cancelled?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

You are also aware that after TCT No. 39564 one of
the titles issued was TCT No. 107508 and this was
issued by the Register of Deeds on January 26,
1998?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

And it was issued precisely because TCT No. 39564


was cancelled, am I correct?

A:

I do not know yet about the cancellation.

Q:

You do not know? But you are sure that in 2001


you saw TCT No. 39564 still existing, not yet
cancelled and clean?

A:

Yes, sir.

(id. at pp. 37-40).


On the other hand, instead of lying, the next witness, Angelina
Flores, merely said she could not recall anything (id. at p. 43-45). She
admitted, however, that the stated consideration in the Contract to
Sell in her favour dated 17 December 2003 has not been fully paid
(id. at p. 43).

16

Memorandum - 17
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

At this juncture defendants Aldover deem it proper to stress that


it avails plaintiffs nothing by saying that they were buyers in good
faith. For even assuming they purchased the property before the
mortgage to the Aldovers, it remains a documented fact that the
Aldovers themselves were mortgagees in good faith and buyers in
good faith since none of the alleged sales in favour of the plaintiffs
was ever registered and/or annotated in the Reyeses title. Only the
Aldovers adverse claim, mortgage and certificate of sale were duly
registered and annotated therein.
On 02 December 2008 Joselito Acula and Viola Cruz gave
similar testimonies. The testimony of Sonia Malaque was stipulated
on. Alfredo Reyes testified on 12 May 2009. Alfred Reyes, a
supposed vendor who sold lots to some of herein plaintiffs was crossexamined as regards the alleged sales. Part of his testimony reads:
Q:

So you said you know all the buyers in whose


favour you executed the Deeds of Sale but you
cannot name them all?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

You cannot also recall how many of them?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

But you have copies of the Deeds of Sale?

A:

Wala po, kasi po tiwala po sila sa akin noon.

Q:

You did not keep copies of the Deeds of Sale?

A:

No more sir. I did not keep track of it because they


trusted me and they bought it in instalment basis.

Q:

So after signing the Deeds of Sale, you gave all the


photocopies to your buyers?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

Do you know if any of these buyers were able to


fully pay for the properties they bought?

A:

Ahorro fully paid.

Q:

So Ahorro alone was fully paid for the property?

A:

There are other more, sir.


I know Aling Charing and her daughter who have
fully paid, sir.

17

Memorandum - 18
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Q:

Do you know if any of these Deeds of Sale were


ever registered with the Register of Deeds?

A:

I do not know, sir.

Q:

Aside from you, who else signed as seller for the


properties?

A:

My son Tomas Reyes, sir.

Q:

So only the two of you signed the Deeds of Sale?

A:

My other daughter also signed the Deeds of Sale,


sir.

Q:

Some of them or all of them?

A:

Not all, sir.

(TSN, 12 May 2009, pp. 8-9).

He also admitted having mortgaged the property to defendants


Aldover, not paying the loan, and not redeeming the property which
the Aldovers subsequently foreclosed (id. at p. 9-20). He also
confirmed that the Aldovers were not told about the alleged prior
sales he made in some of the plaintiffs favour
Q:

But you yourself did not inform Aldover at the time


you mortgaged the property that you have already
sold some of the portions, some portions of the lot
to the plaintiffs?

A:

No, Your Honor.

Q:

Why?

A:

I was not able to tell her anymore, your Honor


because at that time, only a few who were able to
buy and I thought I can redeem the property
immediately from the Aldover, thats why I did not
tell it anymore to Ms. Aldover because I was hoping
that the property will be paid by the Municipal
government.

(id. at p. 25).
Indeed, who in his/her right mind would accept a property as a
mortgage collateral from a person who had already sold it to another?
This witness, upon the Honorable Courts questioning, also admitted

18

Memorandum - 19
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

that the entire property (and not merely a portion thereof as falsely
claimed by plaintiffs counsel) was mortgaged to the Aldovers
Q:

So, how many square meters did you mortgage?

A:

All, your Honor.

Q:

Thats the 1, 500 square meters you were


mentioning earlier?

A:

No, your Honor, its a different title, its separate.

Q:

We are only talking about the area being claimed


now by the plaintiffs, for how much did you
mortgage it to the Aldover?

A:

Php300,000.00 your Honor.

ATTY. AMAZONA:
He was referring to the other lots, your Honor.
COURT:
I dont care about the other lots, thats why I am
trying to clarify, what other lots are these? We are
not concerned to these other lots. Are they the
subject of this litigation?
ATTY. OLIVEROS:
No, your Honor.
COURT:
O, bakit lagging iginigiit ya, ginugulo lang natin.
ATTY. AMAZONA:
The 300,000.00, your Honor.
COURT:
Q:

The entire 5,000 square meters?

A:

Yes, your Honor.

Q:

For 300,000.00?

A:

Yes, your Honor.

Q:

And you are saying that you have no copy of the


mortgage contract?
19

Memorandum - 20
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

A:

Yes, your Honor.

Q:

So, the entire area was mortgaged?

A:

Yes, your Honor. The 5,000 square meters.

(id. at pp. 27-29, underlining added).

Their last witness, Regino Valderama, testified last 26 May


2009.
Thereafter, plaintiffs formally offered their documentary
evidence, were admitted (Order dated 21 October 2009) and they
thereafter rested.
Defendant Antonia Aldover took the witness stand on 17
November 2009. Her direct testimony was already quoted above. In
addition, she testified on her counterclaims as follows:
Q:

In your Answer with Counterclaims dated 30 August


2006 you pleaded counterclaims against the
plaintiffs of P150,000.00 attorneys fees and
litigation related expenses, P100,000.00 moral
damages and P50,000.00 exemplary damages?
Why?

A:

As stated in our Answer with Counterclaims, that is


a false, baseless and malicious suit which forced us
to incur, as we further incur, litigation-related
expenses (including those for our counsels fee) in
the total P150,000.00. Also, plaintiffs malice and
bad faith caused us sleepless nights, mental
anguish and extreme anxiety for which we demand
an award of P100,000.00 moral damages. And to
dissuade others from following plaintiffs bad
example, for the public good we should likewise
awarded P50,000.00 exemplary damages.

(Exh. 1, p. 3).
On cross-examination she reiterated that she accepted the
subject property as collateral for the loan only after seeing that its title
is clean:
Q:

Did you verify with the appropriate agency such as


the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City?

A:

Yes, sir, I went to the Register of Deeds of Pasig


and I found out that the title was clean and free from
encumbrances.

20

Memorandum - 21
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Q:

And when was that exactly did you go to the


Register of Deeds of Pasig?

A:

Before I executed the mortgage sir.

(TSN, 17 November 2009, p. 16).


She also explained why she did not at all talk to the occupants
of the lot before accepting the property for mortgage:
COURT:
Q:

Before extending the loan, did you actually go to the


area the subject of the mortgage?

A:

Yes Your Honor.

Q:

Were there people in that area?

A:

Yes, Your Honor.

Q:

Did you talk to them?

A:

No, Your Honor.

Q:

Why?

A:

Because I did not think of possessing the property


and I thought that the Reyeses would pay the loan
within the specified time or the agreed time.

Q:

What are your agreements in terms of payment?

A:

Six (6) Months, Your Honor.

ATTY. AMAZONA:
Q:

Now the Honorable Court asked you if the subject


property and you answered yes and you also
claimed that you did not bother to ask people
around the determine whether the subject property
was sold of purchased by another person?

A:

I did not Sir.

Q:

You did not even exert efforts to go to the barangay


office and talk to the barangay chairman the status
of the property?

A:

I did not sir, because as I said earlier I thought the


Reyeses would keep their promise to pay the loan
and I did not think of possessing the property.

21

Memorandum - 22
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Q:

After (6) six months, did the Reyeses pay their


loan?

A:

They did not sir.

Q:

Did you give them the opportunity to comply with


their obligation?

A:

Several times sir, in fact it took years before I


decided to foreclose the property.

Q:

Do you have proof of that?

A:

Yes, I have Sir.

Q:

What proof was that, Madam Witness?

A:

The mortgage property, the date of conveyance and


the date where I started doing the foreclosing
procedures like the adverse claim.

(id. at pp. 20-22).


The Aldovers formally offered their evidence on 19 January
2010 during the hearing that day and were admitted (TSN, pp. 2335). They rested their case.
On 09 March 2010 plaintiffs called their rebuttal witness, Alfredo
Reyes, to the witness stand. His testimony was offered as follows:
ATTY. AMAZONA:
Your Honor, I am offering the testimony of this
witness to rebut the testimony of defendant Antonio
Aldover on the judicial affidavit given on November
17, 2009, specifically on the following points:
1. that the Real Estate Mortgage is spurious;
2. that the signature of Sidra and Tomas Reyes are
forged and falsified;
3. that the Real Mortgage was actually signed
before the Notary Public but it was presented
solely for the signing of the witnesses in his
residence in Bambang, Pasig City;
4. that defendant knew the property was already
sold to the plaintiff ahead of the mortgage;

22

Memorandum - 23
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

5. To identify the said falsified real estate mortgage,


specifically the forgery of Sidra and Tomas
Reyes.
(TSN, 09 March 2010, pp. 5-6)
The Aldovers, through counsel, objected as follows:
Atty. Oliveros:
Before we proceed, Your Honor, we would like to
object to the presentation of this witness. We saw
the judicial affidavit submitted by plaintiffscounsel in
relation to the testimony of this witness and in
effect, the witness will be saying that the signatures
in the Deed of Mortgage in favor of my clients were
forgeries. That is not alleged in the original
complaint and even in the amended complaint filed
by the plaintiffs. There was nothing there which says
that the signatures were forged by the defendants.
Secondly, it was not even prayed for in the
amended complaint.
xxx
Atty. Oliveros:
And precisely Your Honor, our objection in the first
offer, the alleged forgery of the Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage is not alleged in the amended complaint.
Second, the nullification of the deed of mortgage is
not also prayed for in the complaint and in the
amended complaint. Third, the plaintiffs here cannot
ask for the nullification of the deed of mortgage
because they were not parties to that particular
contract, Your honor.
xxx
Atty. Oliveros:
When the plaintiffs presented their evidence
showing that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was
falsified or was forgery, they were saying that the
sale in their favor should prevail over the deed of
real estate mortgage. So in effect, the existence and
due execution and authenticity of the deed of
mortgage was already a given. They are only saying
that their right is superior to the Deed of Mortgage.
23

Memorandum - 24
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

So after they presented evidence, we never


presented any evidence showing that the deed of
mortgage was valid. So we never presented any
such evidence, nothing of that sort was ever
testified on by the witness, there is nothing to rebut
on that point, and this is improper for rebuttal, Your
Honor.
(id. at pp. 3, 4, 6 and 15, as corrected to make it intelligible).
There was a lengthy debate between the then Honorable
Presiding Judge and plaintiffs counsel about the propriety of this
rebuttal evidence (id at pp. 7-17) but the Presiding Judge just let him
testify to obviate further delay (id. at p. 17).
On 17 September 2013 Tomas Reyes gave a similar testimony
on rebuttal. On cross he admitted that no criminal case has been
filed relative to the alleged falsified real estate mortgage. He said his
father Alfredo Reyes may have filed a civil case to have the same
nullified but he could not give any particulars thereof allegedly
because he lives in Antipolo. He admitted nevertheless that he had
never signed any civil or criminal complaint nor did he execute any
special power of attorney to this father to authorize the latter to file
suits in his behalf.
The defendants Aldover nevertheless stood by their argument
that plaintiff could not prove the alleged spurious character of the
mortgage, etc. for the first time and late in the rebuttal stage. But in
any case, when cross-examined, Alfredo Reyes testified to the effect
that there was nothing wrong at all with the deed of mortgage
executed in the Aldovers favour
Q:

And in your Judicial Affidavit you are saying that


there is a certain real estate mortgage which was
falsified?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

Now, definitely this is not the real estate mortgage


you executed with the Aldover?

A:

No, sir.

COURT:
If this is not the real estate mortgage, what real
estate mortgage were you referring to in the judicial
affidavit?
ATTY. AMAZONA:

24

Memorandum - 25
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

May we request Your Honor, that the witness be


allowed to confronted of this document, the real
estate mortgage
COURT:
Go ahead.
ATTY. AMAZONA:
How can the witness be confronted with that when
indeed during the examination he never identified
this particular document.
COURT:
He said that he is not referring to the real estate
mortgage executed in favor of Aldover and if this is
not the one, what is the real estate mortgage he is
referring to?
COURT:
What are the real estate mortgage that you are
referring to?
ATTY. AMAZONA:
May we know what is the question, Your Honor.
COURT:
He said that the real estate mortgage to Aldover
was not the one that was falsified. If that is so, what
mortgage then was falsified referred to in his judicial
affidavit.
ATTY. AMAZONA:
Previous to that question you are referring to other
question this witness is claiming
COURT:
I dont want to debate on that. Will you please read
back the question?
STENOGRAPHER:
Referring to her notes and reading the previous
question.
COURT:

25

Memorandum - 26
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Answer the question.


ATTY. AMAZONA:
May we request Your Honor, that the answer of the
witness be placed in the vernacular.
(To witness)
A:

Ang pagkakaalam kung sanla yung P300,000.00


Pesos pagkatapos ng bigyan niya ako ng pera
P210,000.00 Pesos lang ang kinuha ko dahil
tinubuan ko na ng six (6) moths, sir.

COURT:
Q:

Are you aware of any mortgage that has been


falsified?

A:

Ang pagkaalam ko pagkabigay ng dokumento sa


akin yung P300,000.00 lang ang papel, pero ang
natanggap ko lang po yung P210,000.00 kasi
itinubo ko na po yung P90,000.00 para sa anim na
buwan dahil sa pangako kong babayaran ko ng
anim na buwan, Your Honor.

COURT:
So if I understood you right, the mortgage say that it
is to secure obligation, the amount of P500,000.00,
but what you actually received is only P200,000.00
Pesos. Is that correct? Is that your testimony?
A:

Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
And because of that, you are now saying that the
mortgage is not genuine?
A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

And your ground for saying it is not genuine is


because the amount indicated there is not really
P500,000.00, because what you actually received
was only P200,000.00?

A:

Yes, Your Honor.

Q:

And it is there were the forgery took place?

A:

Yes, Your Honor.

(id. at pp. 22-27).


26

Memorandum - 27
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

Alfredo Reyes, of course, testified that it was only the portion of


the property (i.e., the one where his house stands) which was
covered by the mortgage and that he allegedly told the Aldovers,
before the mortgage, of the various sales in plaintiffs favour (Exh.
MMM, p. 3). This absolutely lacked credence because:
a. the Real Estate Mortgage he and his co-owners signed
stated otherwise: they declared therein that they are
the owners of the property and the entirety thereof
covered by TCT No. Pt-107508 was mortgaged;
b. no one in his right mind would accept a property for
mortgage if the same had already been sold earlier to
another person; and
c. no one would have loaned the Reyeses for half a
million pesos with only the small portion of their lot as
the collateral.
From all of the above, therefore, it is clear why plaintiffs
Amended Complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit, namely:
a. not all of them had documents of sale in their favour;
b. those who have did not register the same;
c. the Aldovers were not aware of these unregistered
sales, whether actually or constructively;
d. several of the plaintiffs only have contracts to sell and
they have not even made full payment of the agreed
purchase price;
e. by signing the Real Estate Mortgage the defendants
Reyeses, in effect, made representations that they are
the owners/co-owners of the properties free from liens
and encumbrances; and
f. the Aldovers, therefore, were mortgagees in good faith
(during the mortgage) and buyers in good faith (during
the foreclosure/auction sale) where they were the
highest bidders.
Finally, what is the clear implication of the fact that the
mortgage to herein defendants were registered while the supposed
sales to some of the plaintiffs were not registered? Sections 52 and
53 of P.D. No. 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) are
enlightening:

27

Memorandum - 28
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

SEC. 52. Constructive notice upon registration.


- Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment,
order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered
land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land
to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all
persons from the time of such registering, filing or
entering.
SEC. 53. Presentation of owners duplicate
upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument
shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the
owners duplicate certificate is presented with such
instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this
Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.
The production of the owners duplicate certificate
whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for
registration, shall be conclusive authority from the
registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new
certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in
accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate
or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered
owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favour
of every purchaser for value and in good faith. xxx
Yes, the owners original duplicate copy of the title was
surrendered by the Reyeses to the defendants and to the defendants
alone. It showed voluntariness of the mortgage and the fact that
defendants may not be charged with even just a constructive notice
of the alleged sales in plaintiffs favour.
There is no way, therefore, for defendants title to be nullified.
Plaintiffs knew this and that was why they and their counsel had
employed all kinds of dilatory tactics to prolong the proceedings in
this case.
And finally, allow us to quote what the Supreme Court said in
the case of Sps. Alfredo and Conchita Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals,
et al. (258 SCRA 79) the doctrine of which is very pertinent and
applicable to this case:
Under the Torrens system, registration is the
operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates
a lien upon the land. A person dealing with registered
land is not required to go behind the register to determine
the condition of the property. He is only charged with
notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on
the face of the register or certificate of title (Reynes vs.
Barrera, 69 Phil. 656).
28

Memorandum - 29
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================

The Amended Complaint, therefore, should be dismissed and


the Aldovers granted their counterclaims as discussed above.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Pasig City, 31 October 2013.
NAME OF LAW OFFICE TO SIGN

Copy furnished:
Atty. _______________

29