Republic oI the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS

SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION


1UANA DELA CRUZ
Represented by her attorney-in-fact
Atty. 1effrey A. Archer
Petitioner.


-versus- C.A.G.R.SP No.
For: Eiectment

1ANE DOE
Respondent.


X-------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM


COME NOW PETITIONER. through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Court most respectIully submit this Memorandum in the above-entitled case and aver that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT


This is a Petition Ior Review pursuant to Rule 42 oI the 1997 Rules oI Court assailing the
decision rendered by the Hon. Judge Lorenzo Menzon oI the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 oI
Pasay City dated June 29,2009 where the dispositive portion oI which reads and quotes:

'WHEREFORE, the decision oI the Metropolitan Trial
Court Branch 1 oI Pasay City is hereby aIIirmed in toto¨

'So ordered.¨

and an order made in August 6, 2009 denying the Motion Ior Reconsideration made by the
petitioner where the dispositive portion reads oI which reads and quotes:

'WHEREFORE, Ior lack oI merit-deIendant-appellant`s
Motion Ior Reconsideration is hereby denied¨

The plaintiII, now the respondent, Iiles against the deIendant, now the petitioner, an
action oI UnlawIul Detainer. The respondent wherein claims that she is the titled owner oI the
said parcel oI land being leased by the petitioner and prays that the petitioner be eiected Irom the
said property oI the respondent.

The petitioner, in answering the complaint, maintained that she can`t be eiected invoking
P.D.1517, P.D. 2016, APD 1-12 Pasay City and other related laws which grants statutory rights
to bona Iide tenants to acquire the said property through purchase oI the said property in
question. The petitioner is willing and able to buy the said property.

The Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 oI Pasay City has decided the case in Iavor oI the
ownership oI the property which was evidently unprocedural considering that in an action oI
unlawIul detainer, only issue oI possession de Iacto can be raised and ignoring the said
Presidential Decrees, Proclamations and Issuances which take part oI the law oI the land. This
decision a quo made by the Metropolitan Trial Court and aIIirmed by the Regional Trial Court in
toto which ought to be reversed or modiIied


THE PARTIES


1. The Petitioner Juana Dela Cruz (herein reIerred to as the Petitioner), is oI legal
age, widow and with residence and postal address at 123 Binibini St., Pasay City where she can
be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;

2. The Respondent Jane Doe (herein reIerred to as the Respondent), is oI legal age,
single and with postal address at 1010 Ginoo Blvd., Pasay City;


STATEMENT OF FACTS


1. The petitioner entered into an oral contract oI lease with the original owners oI the
said parcel oI land, the late spouses Marcela and Marcelo Del Pilar (herein reIerred to as the
SPS. Del Pilar and/or spouses), the size oI which is a 65 square meters and located at 123
Binibini St., Pasay City;

2. In line with the lease agreement, the petitioner constructed their house and
continued to reside therein up to the present;

3. From the day they started to lease the said land, the petitioner never deIaulted in
the payment oI the agreed monthly rentals;

4. On February 18, 1995, unknown Irom the petitioner the respondent has bought to
the said property Irom the spouses and the respondent has titled it on her own name;

5. ThereaIter, the respondent has taken her own steps to eiect the petitioners Irom
the said property until Iinally, she Iiled an action oI unlawIul detainer against the petitioner
beIore the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 oI Pasay City;


STATEMENT OF THE CASES


1. On February 12, 2008, the respondent Iiled a Complaint Ior Eiectment against the
Appellee at the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 oI Pasay City
1
;

2. On December 22, 2008, the petitioner Iiled a Position Paper;

3. On February 2, 2009, the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 oI Pasay City
decided in Iavor oI the respondent
2
;


1
See Annex A
2
See Annex 8
4. On February 20, 2009 , the petitioner Iiled a Notice oI Appeal and elevated the
case to the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 oI Pasay City

5. On June 29, 2009, the Hon. Judge Lorenzo Menzon oI the Regional Trial Court
Branch 10 oI Pasay City aIIirmed 39494 the iudgment rendered by the Metropolitan Trial
Court
3
;

6. On July 5, 2009, a Motion Ior Reconsideration is Iiled by the petitioner thru his
counsel praying that the decision rendered on June 29,2009 be set aside and another rendered Ior
the Appellee;

7. On August 6, 2009, the Regional Trial Court oI Pasay City has denied the Motion
Ior Reconsideration Iiled by the petitioner; thus, prompting the petitioner to Iile a petition Ior
review;

8. On September 4, 2009, the petitioner Iile a Petition Ior Review to the Court oI
Appeals;

9. On May 21, 2010, the Court oI Appeals order both parties to submit their
memoranda within 15 days


Hence, the Iiling oI this memorandum


Issues


WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT TRIAL COURT ACTED
CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE BASIS
OF EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD RAISED IN DEFENSE
THE LESSEE`S RIGHT UNDER P.D.1517. P.D.2016 AND APD 1-12 PASAY CITY

WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THE
BONAFIDE LESSEE`S RIGHT TO AVAIL OF THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 6 OF P.D. 1517

WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD). REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF
STREETS SUB1ECT TO ZONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT TO THE AREAS
INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION BY METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN
THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF.

WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACT OF THE PETITIONER OF INSTITUTING A
COMPLAINT TO THE HOUSE AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB)
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING


Arguments

WHE1HER OR AO1 1HE HOAORABLE COUR1 1RIAL COUR1 AC1ED
CORREC1LY IA DECIDIAC 1HIS UALAWFUL DE1AIAER AC1IOA OA 1HE BASIS
OF EJIDEACE OF OWAERSHIP AF1ER DEFEADAA1 HAD RAISED IA DEFEASE
1HE LESSEE'S RICH1 UADER P.D.1517, P.D.2ô1ô AAD APD 1-12 PASAY CI1Y

3
See Annex C

Under the Rule 70 oI Rules oI Court, an action Ior UnlawIul Detention resolves only the
issue oI possession de Iacto even iI the evidence oI ownership may be reIerred to or considered
only to determine its possession. This is, iI the deIendant, now the petitioner, is unlawIully
withholding possession oI the said property or the reIusal oI the petitioner is unlawIul as held by
the Supreme Court in Huibonhoa v. Court oI Appeals, GR. 95897, Dec. 14, 1997. In our present
case, the possession oI the petitioner is lawIul and even her reIusal to vacate the said property is
also lawIul.
Since the petitioner has been lawIully leasing the said property to the original owners, the
Sps. Del Pilar, it clearly presents us a situation wherein the petitioner is lawIully in possession oI
the said property and iustiIies her reIusal to vacate the same property. Furthermore, although the
contract between the original owners and the petitioners, the respondent were not able to
overthrow the counterclaim oI the petitioner which was overlooked by the Honorable
Metropolitan Trial Court when she resolved the case in Iavor oI the respondents. In her
disquisition, the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court said and quotes:

'AIter the thorough evaluation oI the evidence on record,
the court believes that the deIendants can be lawIully eiected
Irom the subiect premises.

Clearly, the plaintiII is the registered owner oI the property
on question as evidenced by the TransIer CertiIicate oI the
Title Number 12345. Such being the case and as an exercise
oI ownership the plaintiII can lawIully take possession oI the
property (pars. 1 & 2 pp.2 Decision 2-3-09)¨
4


the pronouncement made by the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court humbly submits that it is
not in conIormity with the rules governing eiectment cases which concerns itselI solely with the
issue oI possession . In Iact, ownership was never raised as an issue in this case.

In reIusing to vacate the property, petitioner invokes her statutory rights Iound under the
Section 6 oI P.D. 1517 which provides the property in question to be purchased by a qualiIied
lessee. The petitioner`s lease period and in Iact that her oral contract with the original owners oI
the land makes her the legal tenant thereoI. Also, under P.D. 2016, prevents her eviction when
the entire Barangay San Roque where Binibini Street is located an area oI priority development.
Furthermore, the issuance oI the decree is used to prevent urban landowners Irom eiecting the
tenants in violation oI P.D. 1517 and other related laws which are intended to develop such slum
areas in the Metro Manila

Since such decree and issuances became part oI the land, the petitioner`s claim and
evidence relating to such decrees and issuances should have been appropriate and laudible Ior the
trial iudge to consider it and not hastily decide the case because the respondent is the titled owner
oI the said property.


WHE1HER OR AO1 AA UALAWFUL DE1AIAER AC1IOA BARS 1HE
BOAAFIDE LESSEE'S RICH1 1O AJAIL OF 1HE PRIJILECES AAD BEAEFI1S
PROJIDED BY SEC1IOA ô OF P.D. 1517

When the Honorable Judge Lorenzo Menzon, aIIirmed the decision oI the Metropolitan
Trial Court, he invoked the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case oI Five Star
Marketing, Co., Inc. v. Booc (535 SCRA 28) which reads and quotes:

'The avowed obiective oI actions Ior Iorcible entry and
unlawIul detainer, which have been made summary in

4
See Annex 8
nature, is to provide a peaceIul, speedy and expeditious
means oI preventing an alleged illegal possessor oI the
property Irom uniustly continuing his possession Ior a long
time, otherwise, the party illegally deprived oI possession
might Ieel the despair oI long waiting and decide as a
measureoI selI-protection to take the law into his hands and
seize the same by Iorce and violence.¨ (par. 2 pp 2.
Decision 6-29-09)
5


In the present case, the evil sought to be prevented in the said Five Star case
6
is not
present. First oI all, the petitioner is no illegally in possession oI the said property as indicated in
the previous agreement made by the petitioner Ior she was the lessee oI the original owners oI
the said land, the Sps. Del Pilar. Furthermore, her resistance to vacate the premises is that she
availed her right granted under PD1517 on which the avowed policies are laid down under it`s
preamble to wit:

'WHEREAS, it is declared obiective oI the New Society to
eIIect social, economic and political reIorms attuned to the
establishment oI a secure national community and to an
improved quality oI liIe Ior all citizens and Ior all others
who may soiourn our shores;
WHEREAS, the quality oI human liIe in our times is
inescapably determined by the relationship among
population, resources, the environment, and intelligent
policies;
WHEREAS, human settlement is an integrative concept
embracing the interdependence oI man's environment,
human shelters and structures, and the design and
organization oI human communities consistent with a
national Iramework plan, all Ior the people's security and
well-being.
WHEREAS, land is the ultimate platIorm oI all man's
activities, and the crucial Iactor in determining the shape oI
human settlements;
WHEREAS, the basic law oI the land explicitly provides
Ior the regulation oI the acquisition, ownership, use,
enioyment and disposition oI private property and Ior the
equitable diIIusion oI property ownership and proIits which
includes land and land resources;
WHEREAS, the traditional concept oI landownership has
aggravated the problem arising Irom urbanization such as
the proliIeration oI blighted areas and the worsening oI the
plight oI the urban poor and has spawned valid and
legitimate grievances in urban centers giving rise to social
tension and violent conIlicts;
WHEREAS, a social reIorm obiective oI the New Society
is to renew blighted areas, improve the conditions oI the

3
See Annex C
6
See 333 SC8A 28
urban poor and resolve and redress legitimate grievances
arising thereIrom, while at the same providing incentives to
progressive landowners and developers who wish to
develop their lands in accordance with government plans
and programs responsive to community welIare;¨
7

The then late President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation 1967 as amended by
Proclamation No. 2284 to ensure a meaningIul realization oI the said policies therein in PD
1517. Furthermore, PD 2016 was also issued to prevent the Circumvention oI the Urban ReIorm
Law by the heartless landowners.

From the avowed principles oI the said laws, courts should not render these laws
nugatory but instead to decide to eIIectively implement these laws Ior the beneIit oI the slum
dwellers.

In PD 2016, the equitable diIIusion oI property ownership oI land and land resources is
the primary reason why in such Presidential Decree prohibits the eiectment oI the qualiIied
tenants residing in areas Ior priority development. Furthermore, such reason is one oI the
paramount obiectives oI the Urban ReIorm Law which in turn, cannot be rendered nugatory by
the avowed obiective oI the action Ior UnlawIul Detainer which had been made summary in
character

WHE1HER OR AO1 IA DE1ERMIAIAC 1HE COJERACE OF AREAS FOR
PRIORI1Y DEJELOPMEA1 (APD), REFEREACE MUS1 BE HAD 1O 1HE LIS1 OF
S1REE1S SUB1EC1 1O ZOAAL DEJELOPMEA1 AAD AO1 1O 1HE AREAS
IACLUDED IA 1HE DELIAEA1IOA BY ME1ES AAD BOUADS AS IADICA1ED IA 1HE
PROCLAMA1IOA I1SELF.

The property in question where the petitioner built her house more than 60 years ago is
located at Binibini Street Barangay San Roque, Pasay City. APD 1-12 covers a large portion oI
Pasay City bounded on the North by the Manila-Pasay boundary; on the East, by Tripa de
Gallena somewhere near M. dela Cruz; on the South by EDSA and on the West by Zamora-
Burgos Streets.

The Iollowing Barangays are included in the APD 1-12 are the Iollowing: San Isidiro,
San Roque and Sta. Clara. Some streets are also listed within the whole area proclaimed as
subiect to zonal development. Binibini Street wherein the property is located is located at
Barangay San Roque. Although the said street is not included in the list as an area Ior priority
development but considering that the entire Barangay San Roque is covered by the proclamation
as blighted area and subiect to priority zonal development Binibini Street is necessarily included.
It would be absurd that not to include a street and the whole Barangay is put as a part oI the areas
Ior priority development.














7
See Annex u
Prayer


WHEREFORE, in consideration oI all the Ioregoing, the petitioner respectIully prays that
the Honorable Court oI Appeals reverse or modiIy the decision oI the Honorable Metropolitan
Trial Court Branch 1 oI Pasay City dated June 29, 2009 and the order oI the Honorable Regional
Trial Court Branch 10 oI Pasay City dated August 6, 2009.Furthermore, a new order be rendered
declaring the areas in Binibini Street be subiect to APD 1-12 Pasay City as areas oI priority
development and petitioner be entitled to the beneIits and privileges provided under Sec 6 oI
P.D. 1517

It is Iurther prayed that the alleged sale oI the said parcel oI land oI the Spouses Marcela
and Marcelo Del Pilar to the respondent, Jane Doe, on February 18, 1991 be declared null and
void due to the violation oI the Urban ReIorm Law

Finally, other relieIs that are iust and equitable under the present circumstances are
likewise prayed Ior.

RespectIully submitted

Manila, Philippines, this 28
th
day oI May 2010


DE GUZMAN TUGELIDA DE CASTRO AND ASSOCIATES
Counsel Ior Petitioner
Address: Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium, Espana, Manila

By:

Atty. JeIIrey A. Archer
IBP LiIetime No. 12345; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 777654; 1/10/2011
Roll oI Attorney No. 2005-006341
MCLE Compliance No. III 000897

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful