Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila City

JUANA DELA CRUZ, Defendant-Petitioner, -versusCIVIL CASE NO. L-12345 For: Ejectment

JANE DOE, Plaintiff-Respondent. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM

COME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

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.

1. On February 11, 2008, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment dated

February 7, 2008 against Defendant-Petitioner;
2. On December 22, 2008, an Answer dated December 15, 2008 was filed by the Defendant-Petitioner; 3. On February 3, 2009, a Decision was rendered by Branch 1 of Metropolitan Trial Court

of Pasay City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent;
4. On August 6, 2009, a Motion for Reconsideration filed July 5, 2009 by DefendantPetitioner through legal counsel was denied by Judge Lorenzo Menzon of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court Pasay City; 5. On September 14, 2009, a Petition for Review dated September 9, 2009 was filed to the

Court of Appeals by Defendant-Petitioner;

It is noteworthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent is the registered owner of the land subject under TCT No. 8. III. 7. the Defendant-Petitioner still persistently occupied the land without heed to the serious and constant demand of the PlaintiffRespondent which rendered it unattainable to reach an agreement. Plaintiff-Respondent was compelled to hire the services of a legal counsel to commence the enforcement of ejection under the wings of the courts of law. This led her to seek help from the Barangay officials for mediation and/or conciliation in accordance with law. the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice. II. On May 21. When the event came that Plaintiff-Respondent was able to enforce her right over the land.) WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THE BONA FIDE LESSEE’S RIGHT TO AVAIL THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SECTION 6 OF P. 2010. 9. APD 1-12 – PASAY CITY. is an alleged lessee of the original owners of the land since September 1955. The property was sold to them by the now deceased original owners.6. Spouses Marcelo and Marcela del Pilar.ISSUES OF THE CASE A. Due to the foregoing failure to claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusal of the Defendant-Petitioner. 2016. B. the filing of the instant Memorandum. 2010. the former cannot claim possession which left her with the option of residing at 1010 Ginoo Boulevard. 12. Accordingly. .) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD RAISED IN DEFENSE THE LESSEE’S RIGHTS UNDER P. as per Verification and Report from the Judicial Records Division (JRD) no Reply was filed by the Defendant-Petitioner. Plaintiff-Respondent seeks that a parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street. Defendant-Petitioner. otherwise regardless whether or not Memoranda were filed. a Resolution was rendered by the Court of Appeals denying Defendant-Petitioner’s Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). but due to Defendant-Petitioner’s occupancy thereat. 1517. On April 23. 11. Pasay City. 12345 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. 2010.D. On May 13.D. They had repeatedly assailed the verbal contract of lease for more than 50 years.D. on the other hand. 2010. Defendant-Petitioner. Pasay be returned to her possession. P. 1517. the petition shall be submitted for decision. Hence. Plaintiff-Respondent through legal counsel filed a Comment dated April 19. Plaintiff-Respondent was not able to claim immediately the land for it was previously subject to a pending legal proceeding and that there was still no urgent necessity of using and occupying it. However. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. 13. despite earnest and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff-Respondent still refused to vacate the land.

In the Philippines. Court of Appeals was also used as basis for this argument. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. in this instant case. without other limitations other than those established by law. 2016. it provides that “the original certificates in the registration book. Pasay City under TCT No. 12345 of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City. DISCUSSION A. Pasay City under TCT No. V. It was held that “…in the recent case of Umpoc v. the ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of title in claiming ownership over a land.C. Article 428 of the New Civil Code enumerates the rights of an owner. 1517 and P. Spouses Coronel. . 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.) WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD).) The court committed no error in deciding that an unlawful detainer action be enforced upon herein Defendant-Petitioner despite the assailed contention of the former under P. 12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent the right to exercise the aforementioned rights. 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. 496. 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. and also the owner’s duplicate certificate.) The determination of the scope and limitation of Areas for Priority Development shall be based on the list of specific areas prescribed by the proclamation. Futhermore. B. IV. any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk. “The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing.D. the Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful detainer case. REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF THE STREETS SUBJECT TO THE ZONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION BY METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF. specifically. or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated. ARGUMENTS A. C. Mercado. 1517 provided it is applicable.) There is no bar in this instant case for an unlawful detainer to avail the benefits and privileges provided by Section 6 P. The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.” Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid ownership of a land.” The ruling of Dizon v.)It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner of the parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street. 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. the right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land. Gungab.D. In the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v. and the seal of the court.D.” It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street. or Act No. Later in Arambulo v.

the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be both an APD and a ULRZ.D. f) Conchita Street. To reiterate the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G. PD 1517. 2) Ventanilla Street. but this is only feasible under certain conditions. 1516 such as the right of first refusal.: . the area for priority development was defined as Tramo Lines along Barangays San Isidro. A close reading of Proclamation No. 1517. The fact that it is not included in the areas for priority development specifically identified under Proclamation No. Victor. e) Viscarra Street. No. 6. d) D. Court of Appeals. appellant Jane Doe is. Within the Urban Zones[. Proclamation No. and Santa Clara. 1967 indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annulment of sale. “There is consequently no gainsaying the fact that with its Binibini Street location.D.” B. consequently. j) Basilio Street. Defendant-Petitioner vigorously assails that there is no bar to the availability of the privileges and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee whenever there is an unlawful detainer action. before a preemptive right can be exercised. 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.D. San Roque. g) Dolores Street. C. under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree. Unfortunately. Therefore. It is expressly stated that Section 6 of P. c) Juan Luna Street. No.) The third issue questions the coverage of the APD prescribed by the proclamation. reconveyance.”The mere fact that the list does not include Binibini Street necessarily implies that it is deemed excluded from it. 1967 reveals that. It is however true. continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices. Citing Solanada Enterprises v. and i) Villa Barbara. the land possessed by the Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under the ambit of Section 6 of P. 1517 grants lessees the right of first refusal before they may be ejected from a land.] and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract. No.D. i) Alvarez Street. But this is subject to circumstances that may qualify a lessee to the privileges and benefits under Section 6 of P. 2016 (Annex “A” and “B”. it made a profound analysis of Section 6 of P. the property in litigation is not included among the sites identified as Areas for Priority Development in Pasay City.) The Plaintiff-Respondent’s argument in this issue is intimately connected with the preceding argument. The land subject of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of APD. whether or not it refers to the list of streets subject to the Zonal Development or to the areas included in the delineation of the metes and bounds indicated.D. k) Rodriguez Street. CV 12345: “Insofar as the property in litigation. 1517. Reiteration is therefore necessary to lay emphasis on the decision of the Court of Appeals that in the List of Areas for Priority Development (APD’s). correct in objecting to appellee’s exercise of the right of first refusal granted under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 (as found in Annex “A” of this Memorandum) based on statutory construction: “We agree.] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more [. It was thereafter specifically enumerated the list of covered subareas (please refer to Annex “C” for diagram) which are the following: 1) F. labeled as the South Sector of Pasay City.D. h) Leonardo Street. as follows: Sec.R. 1967 further delimited the areas or zones wherein this preemptive right could be availed of viz. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. Jorge Street.] who have built their homes on the land[. the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action in this issue. respectively) is untenable. and preliminary injunction against appellants. An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set forth in Section 6.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. 1517 and P.

the Defendant-Petitioner’s action would necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.D. AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent 10th Floor. joinder or union. Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for. MARCOS. 2011. As understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and. premise considered. 935. 1517.D. April 8. 1893 was issued on 11 September 1979. and LOI 935. WHEREAS. hereby amend Proclamation No. New Building.” With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said. 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 1517. Nos. pursuant to Section 4 of P. President of the Philippines. And in statutory construction implies conjunction. Philippines. Makati City By: .D. Respectfully submitted. 1517. the provisions of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within both an APD and a ULRZ. 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. NOW. FERDINAND E. THEREFORE. 1893 declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as an Urban Land Reform Zone. Makati Avenue. Makati City for Manila City. Nos. and in relation to Proclamation No. No. it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable Supreme Court that Defendant-Petitioner’s prayer for writ of injunction be DENIED for having no cause of action and the petition DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious. 1893 by declaring 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as Areas for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones as described in the attached annex. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing laws.WHEREAS. The conjunctive and in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirms this intention. xxx xxx xxx” The aforecited whereas clauses express a clear intent to limit the operation of PD 1517 to specific areas declared to be located in both an APD and a ULRZ. I. 935 shall apply only to the above[-]mentioned Areas of Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones. “The provisions of P. declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as Urban Land Reform Zone. Proclamation No. It is now necessary and appropriate to identify specific sites covered by urban land reform in Metropolitan Manila for purposes of making specific the applicability of P. PRAYER WHEREFORE.

Espana. Tall Building Condominium. PAOLO COELHO IBP Lifetime No. JEFFREY A. III – 000899 Copy Furnished: ATTY. ARCHER Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1200. Manila . 5/10/2005 PTR No. 1/10/2011 Roll of Attorney No. 44568.ATTY. 67891. 2005-001023 MCLE Compliance No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful