Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Mandaluyong City
Branch 213

IN RE: PETITION FOR THE

SURRENDER OF THE OWNER’S
DUPLICATE OF TCT NO. 23939,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO
DECLARE THE SAME AS NULL
AND VOID, AND TO ORDER THE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS TO ISSUE
ANOTHER OWNER’S COPY,

JIMMY GARCIA ONG, R-MND-23-01027-LR

Petitioner,

-versus-

MA. EMMA CONCEPCION F. ONG

and REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR
MANDALUYONG CITY,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO RENDER
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully states that:

1. On 08 August 2023, Petitioner filed a Petition for the

Surrender of Owner’s Duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 23939 (“TCT No. 23939”) or in the alternative, to declare
the same as null and void, and to order the Registry of Deeds
to issue another owner’s copy against Respondent Ma. Emma
Concepcion F. Ong (“EMMA” for brevity);
1
2. The Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) referenced by the
Respondent specifically states that “the original title is in her
possession for safekeeping” (Emphasis and Underscoring
Supplied);

3. Bearing in mind the welfare of the parties’ children, at that

time, Petitioner agreed to sign the MOA for the Respondent to
put under her care and custody the title to the Dansalan
Property;

4. Nothing in the MOA states or admits that the subject

property shall be co-owned by both the Petitioner and the
Respondent. Petitioner may, thus, at any given time, seek the
return of the property;

5. Further, nothing in the MOA prohibits the Petitioner from

selling the subject property. Assuming arguendo that there is
such a condition in the MOA, the same is null and void for
having been contrary to the tenor of the law;

6. The New Civil Code specifically under Article 1409, provides

the following contracts that are inexistent and void from the
beginning:

a. Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to

law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;

b. Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;

c. Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of

the transaction;

2
 d. Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;

e. Those which contemplate an impossible service;

f. Where the intention of the parties relative to the principal

object of the contract cannot be ascertained;

g. Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right

to set up the defense of illegality be waived. 1

7. In light with abovementioned provision, Memorandum of

Agreement that contravenes Philippine laws and established
jurisprudence may be deemed invalid and unenforceable.

8. Also, in paragraph 7 of Respondent’s Answer with

Counterclaim, She ADMITTED that the subject property
covered by TCT No. 23939 was inherited by the Petitioner
from his mother, who died on 08 May 2008;

9. Given her admission regarding the ownership of the property,

which constitutes the ultimate fact in this instant case, there
is no need for additional evidence to establish the veracity of
these facts;

10. To Prove the exclusivity of the subject property, Article 109 of

the Family Code enumerates the exclusive property of each
spouse:

a. That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

b. That which each acquires during the marriage by

gratuitous title;

1
New Civil Code Chapter 9 Article 1409

3
 c. That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter
or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the
spouses; and
d. That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife
or of the husband;

11. In Villanueva v. Intermediate Appellate Court2, the

Supreme Court ruled that the husband's acquisition by
succession of a parcel of land during his marriage to his wife
simply means that the lot is his exclusive property because it
was acquired by him during the marriage by lucrative title;

12. In the case at bar, conclusive evidence establishes that

the property, as delineated in Transfer Certificate of Title No.
23939, is unequivocally the exclusive possession of the
Petitioner. The Petitioner inherited the property from his late
mother, who is the original owner;

13. In light of its characterization as the exclusive proprietary

domain of the Petitioner, he wields absolute authority and
dominion over said property, inclusive of the prerogative to
alienate and dispose thereof, in consonance with the
provisions delineated in Article 111 of the Family Code, to wit:

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber,

alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property,
without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in
court to litigate with regard to the same.

14. Respondent likewise states that Petitioner, repeatedly,

removed the “THIS PROPERTY IS NOT FOR SALE” notice
posted at the Dansalan Property. Petitioner submits that
2
Villanueva v. Intermediate Appellate Court 192 SCRA 21 [1992]

4
 such an act is simply an exercise of his right as the sole
and exclusive owner of the subject property pursuant to
article 110 of the Family Code which provides:

Art. 110. The spouses retain the ownership, possession,

administration and enjoyment of their exclusive properties.

15. Aside from Respondent’s admission on Petitioner’s exclusive

ownership of the subject property, her Answer contained
malicious, unmeritorious, and baseless allegations against
the Petitioner which does not deserve the Honorable Court’s
valuable time and attention;

16. Respondent, herself, admitted in paragraphs 3.22 and 3.23 of

her Answer, one of the unfounded allegations she made
against Petitioner, to wit:

“[R]espondent filed a complaint against the

petitioner, together with his mistress and
brother before the Office of the City
Prosecutor (“OCP”) of Mandaluyong City xxx

[T]he complaint was dismissed by the OCP

of Mandaluyong City xxx”

17. Ultimately, these allegations are immaterial to the instant

Petition, as this Honorable Court is not the proper forum;

18. Having admitted the material allegation in the Petition,

Respondent’s Answer has not tendered any issue. In fact,
it can be read therefrom that Respondent admitted that the
subject property is Petitioner’s exclusive property, in
accordance with Article 109(2) of the Family Code;

5
 19. Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. –

Where an answer fails to tender an issue,
or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading, the court may, on motion of
that party, direct judgment on such
pleading. xxx (Emphasis Supplied)

20. Jurisprudence states that a judgment on the pleadings is a

judgment on the facts as pleaded3, and is based exclusively
upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties
and the accompanying annexes.4 It is settled that the trial
court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on
the pleadings filed by a party if there is no controverted
matter in the case after the answer is filed.5

21. Additionally, it was held in the case of Fernando Medical

Enterprises Inc. v. Wesleyan University Philippines Inc, that
the trial court may render a judgment on the pleadings upon
motion of the claiming party when the defending party's
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. For that
purpose, only the pleadings of the parties in the action are
considered6.

22. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the instant petition is

ripe for a judgment on the pleadings.
3
Narra Integrated Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137915, 15 November 2000
4
Sunbanun v. Go, G.R. No. 163280, 02 February 2010
5
Spouses Hontiveros v. RTC, Br. 25. Iloilo City, G.R. No. 125465, 29 June 1999
6
Fernando Medical Enterprises Inc. v. Wesleyan University Philippines Inc., G.R. No. 207970, 20 January 2016

6
 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable
Court render a judgment on the pleadings.

Quezon City for Mandaluyong City, ________________ 2023.

MACALANDA & MACALANDA LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Petitioner
G/F FCN Bldg. Carolina Lane, Diamond Village
Barangay Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City
Email Address: ron.macalanda@yahoo.com
Contact Nos.: (02) 8726-9757 / 917-180-8701

By:

RONALD O. MACALANDA

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

RTC – Branch 213
Mandaluyong City

ATTY. JOSE ISAGANI M. GONZALES

Counsel for the Respondent
Generoso 4, Galauran Compound
382 EDSA, Caloocan City

7
 Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will submit
the foregoing Motion to the Honorable Court on ________________
2023 at ________________ in the morning for its favorable
consideration and approval.

RONALD O. MACALANDA

Copy furnished by registered mail:

ATTY. JOSE ISAGANI M. GONZALES

Counsel for the Respondent
Generoso 4, Galauran Compound
382 EDSA, Caloocan City

EXPLANATION

Due to lack of messengerial services to effect personal service,

a copy of the foregoing motion was sent to Respondent’s counsel
through registered mail.

RONALD O. MACALANDA