You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LA UNION


First Judicial Region
Province of La Union

HEIRS OF PEDRO SABADO, ANA SABADO, MARIA SABADO,


Petitioners,
-versus- Civil Case No. 12345
For: Annulment of
Deed of Sale
and Damages
EDUARDO COSTALES,
Defendant.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT.

COMES NOW the defendant, by the undersigned


counsels, unto the Honorable Court, most respectfully submits
his Memorandum in the above-entitle case, and for this
purpose states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Sometime in 1948, Juan Sabado died intestate, leaving


to his four (4) children, namely, Jose, Pedro, Ana and Maria,
with a parcel of land with an area of around 2800 square
meters, located at Naguilian, La Union. The heirs divided
among themselves the inherited land. Tax Declarations were
not acquired in their respective names over the actual portions
of the partitioned land, except for Jose Sabado.

Sometime in 1980, the Sabado siblings namely Jose,


Pedro, Ana, and Maria, executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition with Sale. The document indicated that the 2800
square meters of land was divided equally among the sibling-
heirs and they consented to sell 1000 square meters of land in
favor of Eduardo Costales for Php 10,000. The deed was then
notarized. Costales settled and occupied the land area he
bought since then.

Jose Sabado executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication,


proclaiming himself as the sole heir of Juan, and claiming sole
ownership of the entire land. He did so to help transfer the Tax
Declaration in his name in the name of Eduardo Costales. This
was done with the consent of the other Sabado siblings.

Sometime in 1982, Jose executed a deed of sale with an


area of 1,000 square meters of the land to Eduardo Costales in
order for the Tax Declaration to be transferred in the name of
Eduardo Costales over such portion that he bought.

The heirs of Pedro, Ana, and Maria, led by Leon Sabado,


the son of Pedro, brought a civil case to annul the affidavit of
ownership executed by Jose, and the deed of sale between
Jose and Eduardo.

The plaintiffs contend that the affidavit used by Jose to


sell the land is false, since Jose is not the sole heir of Juan. They
claim that the deed of sale must likewise be annulled as Jose
cannot sell a property he does not absolutely own. They
contend as well that they will recover ownership and possession
over the portion Eduardo bought. And, they allege that there
was no consideration on the sale since there was no payment
made.

The defendant contends that he is the rightful owner of


the 1000 square meters sold to him. The Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition with Sale, dated 1980, was executed by Jose, Pedro,
Ana, and Maria when they were still alive.

The document indicated that the 2800 square meters of


land were divided equally among the heirs, and that they all
sold 1000 square meters of land to the defendant for a
consideration of Php10,000.00. The Deed was duly notarized.
He also contends that the Affidavit of Ownership executed by
Jose was a mere acknowledgement to the sale in order to help
the defendant transfer the Tax Declaration over the portion he
bought unto his name, since the Tax Declaration covering the
entire property was in the name of Jose Sabado only. The
defendant contends further that the affidavit was executed
with Jose Sabado’s siblings’ consent. And that, the defendant
must be declared the lawful and rightful owner of the 1000
square meters land.

An NBI handwriting expert certified that the signatures of


the heirs on the deed of extra-judicial partition, and the
signatures of Jose Sabado in the affidavit of self-adjudication
and in the deed of sale are all genuine. Since 1980, the
defendant has been occupying the portion sold to him.

ISSUES

I. Whether or not the Deed of Sale is valid.

II. Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSION

I. On the validity of the signed Deed of Sale as a Contract of


Sale.

A valid Contract of Sale, as defined in the Civil Code, is a


meeting of minds, with respect to the other, to give something
or to render some service.

Article 1318 provides that there is no contract unless the


following requisites concur:

1. consent of the contracting parties;

2. object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;


and,

3. cause of the obligation which is established.

Accordingly for a contract to be valid, it must have three


essential elements: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2)
object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and
(3) cause of the obligation which is established. (Sps. Ramon
Lequin and Virginia Lequin v. Sps Raymundo Vizconde and
Salome Requin Vizconde, G.R. No. 177710, October 12, 2009,
603 SCRA 407,417)
All these elements must be present to constitute a valid
contract. Consent is essential to the existence of a contract,
and where it is wanting, the contract is non-existent.

In a contract of sale, its perfection is consummated at


the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing
that is the object of the contract and upon the price. Consent
is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance
of the thing and the cause, which are to constitute the
contract. (Heirs of Dr. Mario S. Intac and Angelina Mendoza-
Intac v. Court of Appeals and Sps. Marcelo Roy, Jr. and
Josefina Mendoza-Roy and Sps. Dominador Lozada and
Martina Mendoza-Lozada, G.R. No. 173211, October 11, 2012).

The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition with Sale dated 1980


is a proof of the consent from the parties. The Sabado siblings
on their own volition entered into a contract of sale with the
defendant. This is enough to prove that both parties have the
capacity to give consent and to obligate themselves (Art. 1489
of the Civil Code) contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiffs.
Though a separate deed of sale was produced dated 1982, this
was done in order to facilitate the transfer of the Tax
Declaration under the name of Jose Sabado to the name of
Eduardo Costales. This is evident in the production of the
Affidavit of Self Adjudication with consent from the other
siblings since the tax declaration was under the name of Jose
Sabado only.

The object and the cause or consideration was also


evident in the contract produced by the defendant. For a
price of Php10,000.00, the land was sold to Eduardo. The price
of the land being put in question is not of transcendental
importance as it was stated in the Civil Code that gross
inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale (Art.
1470 of the Civil Code).

In view of the foregoing, the parties to the Deed of Sale,


Jose Sabado and Eduardo Costales fully complied with the
requirements. Both agreed for the sale of the land amounting
to Php 10,000.00, as evidenced by both the Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition with Sale and the Deed of Sale.

On the rule of forgery and NBI certification to the genuineness


of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication and Deed of Sale.
It is a hornbook rule that forgery cannot be presumed
and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence (Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107967,
March 1, 1994, 230 SCRA 550) and the burden of proof lies on
the party alleging forgery. (Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. CA,
G.R. No. 117609, 360 Phil. 753, 1998). In this case, the petitioner
must prove the same.

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must


establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of
the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
considered synonymous with the term “greater weight of the
evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.”
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last
analysis, means a probability of the truth. It is evidence which is
more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. (Go. v. Court of Appeals,
403 Phil. 883, 890-891, 2001)

In view of the foregoing, the certification by the NBI


proved that the signatures on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition,
Deed of Sale, and Affidavit of Self-Adjudication are all genuine.
The plaintiffs merely assert that the Deed of Sale was void
without presenting any clear, positive and convincing
evidence that the signatures were forged cannot stand with
the proof presented by the defendant. There is definitely no
greater weight of the credible evidence presented to prove
the genuineness of the signature and the validity of the
contract than the certification from the NBI and the instruments
of the contracts themselves.

II. On the cause of action of the plaintiffs.

A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party


violates a right of another (Rule 2, Civil Procedure).

All actions must be prosecuted and defended in the


name of the real party in interest (Rule 3, section 2 of the Civil
Procedure). A real party in interest is a person who is to be
benefited or injured in the judgment or who is entitled to the
avails of the suit, while a real party in interest defendant is one
who has a correlative obligation, whose act or omission violates
the legal rights of the former.
The petitioner’s nor the defendant, in this case, are not
real party in interest. The right to question the validity of extra-
judicial partition with sale are the parents of the same who
executed the same. The defendant herein does not have the
correlative obligation with the petitioners, because the above
transaction is between the parents of the same and the
defendant, Eduardo.

When a suit is not brought in the name of the real party in


interest, it may be dismissed on the ground that the complaint
states no cause of action.

Under Rule 16, section 1 (g) of the rules on civil procedure


provides that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause
of action, is a ground for motion to dismiss a complaint. Thus,
the petitioners’ complaint states no cause of action and must
be dismissed on the ground that it states no cause of action.

CONCLUSION

The plaintiff cannot assail directly on the validity or


nullification of the Deed of Sale between the seller and the
buyer without declaring first the nullity of the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication executed by Jose Sabado.

It is well settled that the Affidavit, Deed of Extra-Judicial


Partition, and the Deed of Sale contained genuine signatures,
as certified by an NBI handwriting expert. There being no
greater evidence presented by the plaintiff to prove the
contrary and the requisites for a valid sale is present, it is
conclusively presumed that the sale was valid.

The petitioners’ complaint must be dismissed for failure to


state a cause of action. The rules require that all actions be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the rea party in
interest.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most


respectfully prayed of the Honorable dismiss the case for failure
to state cause of action, assert the validity of the sale, and
declare the defendant as the owner of the questioned lot.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are


likewise prayed for.

Naguilian, La Union.

February 10, 2018

JOHN MICHAEL M. AQUINO


Roll No. 70001
MCLE Compliance No. V-000321
Co-Counsel

NATHANIEL O. CALAPARDO
Roll No. 70002
MCLE Compliance No. V-000321
Co-Counsel

CHRISTINE MASSET D. GONZALES


Roll No. 70003
MCLE Compliance No. V-000321
Co-Counsel

NAPOLEON PARIS
Roll No. 70004
MCLE Compliance No. V-000321
Co-Counsel

MICHAEL JOHN D. PEÑALBER


Roll No. 70005
MCLE Compliance No. V-000321
Co-Counsel

FRANKLIN T. WACQUISAN
Roll No. 70006
MCLE Compliance No. V-000321
Co-Counsel
VERIFICATION

I, EDUARDO COSTALES, of legal age, Filipino, and with


postal address at 567 Naguilian La Union, subscribing under
oath, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case.

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing; have


read it and the facts and contents therein are true and
correct of my knowledge and belief.

3. Affiant sayeth naught.

EDUARDO COSTALES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of


February 2018, affiant exhibited to me his SSS ID No. 1-333-333-1

Doc. No. ______;


Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2018.

Copy furnished:

Atty. JUANA DELA CRUZ


Counsel for Heirs of Pedro, Ana, and Maria Sabado
123 Naguilian, La Union