Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Trial Memorandum Sample PDF
Trial Memorandum Sample PDF
SUPREME COURT
Manila City
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff-Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff-Respondent Jane Doe is of legal age, single, and residing on 1010 Ginoo
Boulevard, Pasay City, where she may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this
Honorable Court;
2. Defendant-Petitioner Juana Dela Cruz is of legal age and residing on 123 Binibini Street,
Quezon City, and may be served with legal processes and other judicial notices thereto.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On February 11, 2008, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment dated
6. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff-Respondent through legal counsel filed a Comment dated
April 19, 2010;
7. On May 13, 2010, as per Verification and Report from the Judicial Records Division
IV. ARGUMENTS
A.) The court committed no error in deciding that an unlawful detainer action be
V. DISCUSSION
A.)It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner of the
parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No, 12345 of the Register of
Deeds of Pasay City. In the Philippines, the presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real
property is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name the certificate of title is
entitled to.
Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or Act No. 496, it provides that the original
certificates in the registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the
clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of
the court, and also the owners duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the courts
of the Philippine Islands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far
as otherwise provided in this Act.
Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid
ownership of a land. In the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel, the
ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of title in claiming
ownership over a land. It was held that in the recent case of Umpoc v. Mercado, the Court
declared that the trial court did not err in giving more probative weight to the TCT in the name of
the decedent vis--vis the contested unregistered Deed of Sale. Later in Arambulo v. Gungab, the
Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful
detainer case. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.
The ruling of Dizon v. Court of Appeals was also used as basis for this argument. It was
stated that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and the questionability of the
title is immaterial in an ejectment suit. Futhermore, Article 428 of the New Civil Code
enumerates the rights of an owner. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,
without other limitations other than those established by law. The owner has right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No.
12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent
the right to exercise the aforementioned rights, specifically, in this instant case, the right of
action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land.
The contention of the Defendant-Petitioner that the verbal lease agreement they had made
with the now deceased original owners Marcelo and Marcela Del Pilar for over 50 years shall
entitle them to the privileges under P.D. 1517 and P.D. 2016 (Annex A and B, respectively)
is untenable. It is expressly stated that Section 6 of P.D. 1517 grants lessees the right of first
refusal before they may be ejected from a land, but this is only feasible under certain conditions.
It is an indispensable qualification that the land is included in the list of Areas for Priority
Development (APD) before an owner can be granted of the right of first refusal. The land subject
of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of APD. To
reiterate the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. CV 12345: Insofar as the property in
litigation, appellant Jane Doe is, consequently, correct in objecting to appellees exercise of the
right of first refusal granted under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517. The fact that it is
not included in the areas for priority development specifically identified under Proclamation No.
1967 indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and
preliminary injunction against appellants.
B.) The Plaintiff-Respondents argument in this issue is intimately connected with the
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable
Supreme Court that Defendant-Petitioners prayer for writ of injunction be DENIED for having
no cause of action and the petition DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.
Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. April 8, 2011.
By:
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
Espana, Manila