This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AISA SARMIENTO, Defendant-Petitioner, -versusCIVIL CASE NO. L-19345 For: Ejectment
FERNANDO MARTIN, 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 abovetitled case and aver that:
1. Plaintiff-Respondent Dr. Aisa Sarmiento is the sole proprietor of Med Central Inc. located
at Level 2 of Robinsons Galleria in Ortigas.
2. Defendant-Petitioner Dr. Fernando Martin, Director/President of Health Care Inc.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Facts: Dra. Aisa Sarmiento is the sole proprietor of Med Central Inc. (MCI) located at Level 2 of Robinsons Galleria in Ortigas. However, due to unfortunate events such as not having enough number of customers, increase in price of supply of equipments needed for the clinic, and increase in level of competition especially in Robinsons Galleria. Because of these reasons, MCI did not meet its targets for the year leading to its bankruptcy. Dra. Aisa decided to sell the clinic to Dr. Fernando Martin, Director/President of Health Care Inc. Both had several meetings where Dra. Aisa supplied Dr. Martin with financial statements of Med Central. It turned out that Med Central had a net loss for 2 years as evidenced by the Income statements, Inventory of Equipments and Statement of assets and Liabilities. An offer sheet was given by Dra. Aisa to Dr. Martin where the list of equipment in the clinic and the clinic itself was offered for sale. On Feb 13, 2009 Dr. Aisa and Dr. Martin entered into a Memorandum of agreement, where Aisa sells everything
3) the taking is with animus lucrandi. 30% of liquidated damages plus other damages 2.500. Aisa made demands for specific performance of obligation but Martin refused On Oct. the Lease Contract with Rob Galleria and Dra. Martin filed a complaint for robbery and a civil case of confirmation of unilateral rescission and damages against Dra. Dr. 2009 Upon the signing of Memorandum. Will the robbery case prosper? Elements of Robbery 1) there is a taking of personal property. and 4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. 2) the personal property belongs to another. 2010. Technical Grounds: No specifiied kind of crime . armed robbery involving use of a weapon and aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon.000 received during the date of signing (August 26. Aisa has expired ordering the demolition of the if the premises would not be vacated and that. contract becomes null and void 3. 2.violation of due process on the merits. Martin entered into an agreement with suppliers which was paid by Dra. a letter was sent by Dra. the equipments will be confiscated). On Oct 12. EVALUATION 1. Some equipments were Dr. Martin regarding the claim of some equipment and demand and mutual restitution. It stipulated in the agreement that the amount shall be paid in 4 installment payments: 1st payment . Others are unknown. The transfer of ownership and deed of absolute sale however would be made upon the last payment. 2010. 15. No subsequent payments were made until June 9 of the same year.500. II. Dra. Martin. 2 kinds of robbery 1.000 3rd payment – 5. Any failure of the buyer/seller would result to: 1. bound by contract therefore no dolo 2. Dr. Aisa at her own expense.free and harmless from any liability On Feb 14 2009. Dr. bereft of legal basis due to incomplete elements Article 11 exercise of lawful right. Aisa immediately transferred the clinic to Dr. Dra.000 on November 30.500. Premises were vacated by Dra. Martin paid 3M which includes 500k. Actual or threatened force against a person. 2009) 2nd payment – 3. Martin's. Aisa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of QC. Aisa. zero liability clause .(enumeration needed) for 15 M. Aisa to Dr. this being a Contract to Sell. Will the civil case prosper? .500.000 4th payment – 5.
D. Will Aisa have a cause of action? Contract is null and void Aisa should return equipment expenses incurred shall be reimbursed from Dr.D. 1517. 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. Contract to Sell No breach. B. C. APD 1-12 – PASAY CITY. IV.D. ISSUES OF THE CASE A.) 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. Martin Prayer for rescission will not prosper because condition was prevented to happen? (Art.D. 1517 provided it is applicable. DISCUSSION A. C. 1517 and P.) 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. 2016.) WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD). 1517. 12345 of the Register of . P.Demolition. ARGUMENTS A.D. B. V. Pasay City under TCT No. 2016. the one who did not comply is Dr. therefor the amoun paid by martin should not be returned KAYO NA PO BAHALA SA RECOMMENDATION :))))) III.) 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.D.) 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. 1191 Zero liability provision .) There is no bar in this instant case for an unlawful detainer to avail the benefits and privileges provided by Section 6 P. 1186 ata ito) 3. Martin (suppliers) apply Art.) It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner of the parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street. Martin should be liable 30% of purchase price will be the penalty.
Spouses Coronel. It was held that “…in the recent case of Umpoc v. and the seal of the court. To reiterate the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G. consequently.D. in this instant case. 12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent the right to exercise the aforementioned rights. Mercado. but this is only feasible under certain conditions. It is expressly stated that Section 6 of P. Pasay City under TCT No. 496. Later in Arambulo v. and preliminary injunction against appellants. specifically. Article 428 of the New Civil Code enumerates the rights of an owner. 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. The land subject of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of APD. 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. 1517 grants lessees the right of first refusal before they may be ejected from a land.” B. reconveyance. it provides that “the original certificates in the registration book. 1967 indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annulment of sale. It is however true. The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. the right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land. Unfortunately. and also the owner’s duplicate certificate. C. 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. 2016 (Annex “A” and “B”. 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. 1517. without other limitations other than those established by law.D. 1516 such as the right of first refusal.” It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street. 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.D. No.D. Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. Court of Appeals was also used as basis for this argument.) The Plaintiff-Respondent’s argument in this issue is intimately connected with the preceding argument. 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.D. the ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of title in claiming ownership over a land.” The ruling of Dizon v. Futhermore. 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.” Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid ownership of a land. appellant Jane Doe is. the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action in this issue. the Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful detainer case. Therefore. 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. 1517. or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated. . CV 12345: “Insofar as the property in litigation. No.Deeds of Pasay City. respectively) is untenable.) The third issue questions the coverage of the APD prescribed by the proclamation.R. or Act No. “The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing. In the Philippines. Gungab. 1517 and P. correct in objecting to appellee’s exercise of the right of first refusal granted under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. But this is subject to circumstances that may qualify a lessee to the privileges and benefits under Section 6 of P. In the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v. The fact that it is not included in the areas for priority development specifically identified under Proclamation No. the land possessed by the Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under the ambit of Section 6 of P. any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk. No.
It was thereafter specifically enumerated the list of covered sub-areas (please refer to Annex “C” for diagram) which are the following: 1) F. joinder or union. “The provisions of P. e) Viscarra Street.D. THEREFORE. Proclamation No. Victor. 1893 was issued on 11 September 1979. c) Juan Luna Street. the area for priority development was defined as Tramo Lines along Barangays San Isidro. d) D. under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree. hereby amend Proclamation No. h) Leonardo Street. WHEREAS. 1517 (as found in Annex “A” of this Memorandum) based on statutory construction: “We agree. “There is consequently no gainsaying the fact that with its Binibini Street location. 935 shall apply only to the above[-]mentioned Areas of Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones. An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set forth in Section 6. President of the Philippines. A close reading of Proclamation No. 1517. And in statutory construction implies conjunction. 1517.: WHEREAS.” . 6. and in relation to Proclamation No. pursuant to Section 4 of P.] who have built their homes on the land[. before a preemptive right can be exercised. Proclamation No. 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. 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. i) Alvarez Street. 1893 declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as an Urban Land Reform Zone. f) Conchita Street. As understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and. NOW. 1967 reveals that. 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. No. 1517. Jorge Street. San Roque.D. Nos. 1893 by declaring 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as Areas for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones as described in the attached annex. 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. g) Dolores Street. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. 2) Ventanilla Street. 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No.”The mere fact that the list does not include Binibini Street necessarily implies that it is deemed excluded from it. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing laws. labeled as the South Sector of Pasay City. and LOI 935. The conjunctive and in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirms this intention. 1967 further delimited the areas or zones wherein this preemptive right could be availed of viz. Citing Solanada Enterprises v. j) Basilio Street. and Santa Clara. the provisions of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within both an APD and a ULRZ. Nos.D. it made a profound analysis of Section 6 of P. MARCOS. I. as follows: Sec. 935. and i) Villa Barbara. declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as Urban Land Reform Zone. the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be both an APD and a ULRZ. FERDINAND E.D. Within the Urban Zones[.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). the property in litigation is not included among the sites identified as Areas for Priority Development in Pasay City. PD 1517. Court of Appeals.] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more [.] and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract. k) Rodriguez Street.
2011. AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent 10th Floor. New Building. Manila . 2005-001023 MCLE Compliance No. Makati City By: ATTY. PAOLO COELHO IBP Lifetime No. Philippines. 44568. 67891. the Defendant-Petitioner’s action would necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action. ARCHER Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1200.With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said. Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for. Tall Building Condominium. Espana. Respectfully submitted. 1/10/2011 Roll of Attorney 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. 5/10/2005 PTR No. JEFFREY A. Makati City for Manila City. Makati Avenue. III – 000899 Copy Furnished: ATTY. April 8. PRAYER WHEREFORE. premise considered.