PAPER # 6

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4TH JUDICIAL REGION
LUCENA CITY
BRANCH ___

DOMINGO DALEON
Plaintiff Civil Case No. 46-463

For : ANNULMENT/ CANCELLATION

OF TITLES, RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION WITH SPECIFIC
DAMAGES
Versus

VIRGINIA TRESMONTE,
MARGARITA DURANTE
Defendants

x-----------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable

Court , most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the
above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This Legal Memorandum in support of the plaintiff in Civil Case

No. 46-463. The plaintiff has brought this action seeking relief for the
Annulment/ Cancelation of Titles, Recovery of Possession with Specific
Damages, and the evidences presented in this case demonstrates that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. This memorandum will provide legal arguments
in support of the plaintiff and demonstrate why he should be granted relief
he seeks.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On December 1994, the plaintiff Mr. Domingo Daleon filed a complaint

against the defendants Virginia Tresmonte and Margarita Durante seeking
relief to the Annulment/ Cancellation of Titles, Recovery of Possession with
Specific Damages. The evidences presented by the plaintiff demonstrate that
he is entitled to relief and that the defendants are liable for fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation.

1
 LEGAL ARGUMENTS

A. Liability for Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation

The evidences presented by the plaintiff Mr. Domingo Daleon

demonstrates that the defendants Virginia Tresmonte and Margarita
Durante are liable for Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation. The plaintiff
has presented witness testimony and documentary evidence that
establishes the defendants liability. Therefore, the court should find the
defendants liable for Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation and award
Mr. Domingo Daleon the relief he seeks.

B. Damages

The plaintiff is entitled to damages for the harm caused by the

defendants. Mr. Daleon has presented evidence of the harm caused and
the expenses he has incurred as a result. Therefore, the court should
award the plaintiff damages I an amount that will compensate him for the
harm caused by the defendants.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidences presented in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to

relief for the Annulment/ Cancelation of Titles and the Recovery of
Possession with Specific Damages and that the defendants are liable for
Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation. Therefore, I respectfully request
that the court grant him relief and award him damages in an amount that
will compensate him for the harm caused by the defendants.

Respectfully submitted.

Lucena City, Philippines. April 4, 1995

Atty. JOHN F. LACSAMANA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
No 57 Granja Street, Brgy. 3
Lucena City

Copy furnished:

San Diego Law Firm

Counsel for Defendant
Brgy. Iba. Dupay,
Lucena City

2
PAPER # 7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4TH JUDICIAL REGION
LUCENA CITY
BRANCH ___

DOMINGO DALEON
Plaintiff Civil Case No. 46-463

For : ANNULMENT/ CANCELLATION

OF TITLES, RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION WITH SPECIFIC
DAMAGES

Versus

VIRGINIA TRESMONTE,
MARGARITA DURANTE
Defendants

x-----------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant

COME NOW DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court , most respectfully submit and present this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This Legal Memorandum in support of the defendants in Civil Case

No. 46-463. The plaintiff has brought this action seeking relief for the
Annulment/ Cancelation of Titles and the Recovery of Possession with
Specific Damages, but the evidence presented in this case fails to
demonstrate that the defendants are liable for Fraud, Deceit and
Misrepresentation. This Memorandum will provide legal arguments in
support of the defendants and demonstrate why they should not be held
liable for Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

On December 1994, the plaintiff Mr. Domingo Daleon filed a complaint

against the defendants Virginia Tresmonte and Margarita Durante seeking
relief for the Annulment/ Cancelation of Titles and the Recovery of
Possession with Specific Damages.The plaintiff has presented the witness
testimony of Ms. Nila Silao, neighbor who witness the authentication of the
adoption papers of Virginia Tresmonte and the Deed of Self-Adjudication in
favor of Virginia Tresmonte, but the evidences presented fails to establish
the defendants liability. The defendants disputes the plaintiff’s claims and
maintains that they are not liable for Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

A. Burden of Proof

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendants are liable for
Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation. To meet this burden, the plaintiff
must satisfy the preponderance of the evidences. Since the plaintiff
questions the authenticity of the birth certificate and the adoption papers
presented fails to meet this burden and that the birth certificate and
adoption papers presented are legal and are recorded in the Civil
Registrar of Lucena City, and therefore the defendants cannot be held
liable.

B. Mitigating Circumstances

Even if the plaintiff could establish liability, the defendants are entitled to
assert any available defenses or mitigating circumstances. The defendants
maintain that the plaintiff’s cause of action has already been prescribed,
as more than ten years have already elapsed from the time the defendants
acquired the properties and registered the same under their names. The
plaintiff’s long inaction and delay in asserting his supposed rights over
the properties is an indication that he abandoned any claim or interest he
may have over the same. Defendants further avers that the plaintiff’s
belated attempt to question the validity of the title and the “Deed of Self
– Adjudication” is prejudicial to the defendants and must be barred.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidences presented in this case. Therefore, I respectfully

request that the court dismiss the palintiff’s complaint and enter judgment
in favor of the defendants.

4
 Respectfully submitted.

Lucena City, Philippines. April 4, 1995

Atty. Lorna A. Almeda

Counsel for the Defendants
No 57 Constancia Street, Brgy. 7
Lucena City

Copy furnished:

Acra & Balgo Law Firm

Counsel for Plaintifft
Brgy. Talao-talao,
Lucena City