Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. - x x x

(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a
memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall
be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant's
memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a
memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal

Brief is mandatory for the assignment of errors is vital to the decision of the appeal on the merits.
This is because on appeal only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief or
memorandum will be considered.

The RTC-Branch 227 then ordered that the records of the case be forwarded as soon as possible to
the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

When both parties moved for the reconsideration of the RTC decision, the RTC issued an Order
dated February 23, 2001 modifying its previous ruling by increasing the value of the improvements
from ₱120,000.00 to ₱800,000.00.

After successive appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the decision of the RTC
dated November 29, 2000 which reversed the decision of the MeTC, became final and executory. 3

Whilst respondent's appeal of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) judgment in the unlawful detainer
case was pending before the RTC-Branch 88, respond

On July 18, 2013, Po filed his memorandum  and countered that there was no merit in Fairland’s
14

insistence that evidence was unnecessary when no answer had been filed. The facts stated in the
complaint did not warrant a rendition of judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. The court had the discretion
to rule on the pleadings based on its evaluation of the allegation of facts. Fairland filed a motion for
reconsideration  attaching its condominium certificate of title  over the subject property, but it was
15 16

denied by the RTC in its Order,  dated February 24, 2014.

17

Undaunted, Fairland filed a petition for review  under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court before the CA.

Being an appealed case, the RTC required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. In its
memorandum,  Fairland argued that an unlawful detainer case was a special civil action governed
12

by summary procedure. In cases where a defendant failed to file his answer, there was no need for a
declaration of default. Fairland claimed that the Rules stated that in such cases, judgment should be
based on the “facts alleged in the complaint,”   13

There was requirement that judgment must be based on facts proved by preponderance of
evidence.

Settled is the rule that the trial court’s findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are
generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 21 There are recognized exceptions to this rule,
among which are:

(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures

(2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) there is grave abuse of discretion;

(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;

(7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;

(8) the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial court;

(9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion;

(10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and

(11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. 22 However, petitioner failed to show
that any of the exceptions is present in the instant case to warrant a review of the findings of fact of
the lower courts.

12. As to respondents' ownership and right of possession of the subject properties, records show
that the MCTC based its Decision not only on the Position Paper of respondents but also on the
pieces of evidence submitted by them

Arguments which are already embodied in the record, fully discussed and supported by
evidence, the instant appeal being a review of evidences (sic) presented before the
Metropolitan Trial Court." Adding further, that "appeal from the Metropolitan Trial Court to
the Regional Trial Court is merely a review of the records, facts and evidence submitted
(sic) before the Metropolitan Trial Court, hence, if the parties desire to adopt (the) same
argument and evidence submitted before the Metropolitan Trial Court the appellate court
may consider the same facts and evidence adopted by the party, the Regional Trial Court
being an appellate court and no new evidence will be presented in the appeal."

Can I present new evidence during my appeal?

No.  An appeal is based only on the transcripts and evidence from the original trial and
the memoranda filed with the court.  Even if the Superior Court sets oral argument, you
are not allowed to present new evidence you are only allowed to argue why the
previous court made an error in their ruling.

On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) [Branch 88, Quezon City], the MeTC decision was
reversed. [Respondent] was ordered to pay arrearages from May 23, 1997 up to the date of the
decision but he was also given an option to choose between staying in the leased property or
vacating the same, subject to the reimbursement by [petitioners] of one-half of the value of the
improvements which it found to be in the amount of ₱120,000.00. [Respondent] was also given the
right to remove said improvements pursuant to Article 1678 of the Civil Code, should [petitioners]
refuse to pay ₱60,000.00.

On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) [Branch 88, Quezon City], the MeTC decision was
reversed. [Respondent] was ordered to pay arrearages from May 23, 1997 up to the date of the
decision but he was also given an option to choose between staying in the leased property or
vacating the same, subject to the reimbursement by [petitioners] of one-half of the value of the
improvements which it found to be in the amount of ₱120,000.00. [Respondent] was also given the
right to remove said improvements pursuant to Article 1678 of the Civil Code, should [petitioners]
refuse to pay ₱60,000.00.

After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) decided in favor of [petitioners] by ordering
[respondent] to (a) vacate the premises at No. 42 Big Horseshoe Drive, Horseshoe Village, Quezon
City; (b) pay [petitioners] the sum of ₱306,000.00 corresponding to the rentals due from May 23,
1997 to November 22, 1998, and the sum of ₱17,000.00 a month thereafter until [respondent]
vacates the premises; and (c) pay [petitioners] the sum of ₱5,000.00 as attorney's fees.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

As to the argument of the plaintiff-appellant on the claim of ownership as evidenced by a deed of

absolute sale and that defendant’s affidavit of ownership as an indecisive proof of ownership to
the property is immaterial in the case.

As to respondents' ownership and right of possession of the subject properties. Respondents

attached, as annexes to their Complaint, the Original Certificates of Title Nos. RO-4326 and RO-
4327 in the name of Enrique, covering Lot Nos. 2816 and 2817, respectively, as evidence of their
ownership and right to possess the disputed properties.