You are on page 1of 6

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila City

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.


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

Martin paid 3M which includes 500k. 2) the personal property belongs to another. the Lease Contract with Rob Galleria and Dra. Dra. Martin's. Dra. Premises were vacated by Dra. Aisa to Dr. Will the civil case prosper? . 2010. Actual or threatened force against a person. 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.500.500.000 on November 30. Dr. 3) the taking is with animus lucrandi. No subsequent payments were made until June 9 of the same year. the equipments will be confiscated). Aisa at her own expense.000 4th payment – 5. 2010. Others are unknown.  2 kinds of robbery 1.500. 2009 Upon the signing of Memorandum. Dr. Aisa. Some equipments were Dr. On Oct 12.violation of due process on the merits. The transfer of ownership and deed of absolute sale however would be made upon the last payment. Will the robbery case prosper?  Elements of Robbery 1) there is a taking of personal property. II.500. 15. Aisa made demands for specific performance of obligation but Martin refused On Oct.(enumeration needed) for 15 M.000 3rd payment – 5. Martin. and 4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. bereft of legal basis due to incomplete elements Article 11 exercise of lawful right.     Technical Grounds: No specifiied kind of crime .000 received during the date of signing (August 26. Martin entered into an agreement with suppliers which was paid by Dra. zero liability clause . 2009) 2nd payment – 3. Aisa has expired ordering the demolition of the if the premises would not be vacated and that. Dr. 2. It stipulated in the agreement that the amount shall be paid in 4 installment payments: 1st payment . contract becomes null and void 3. Any failure of the buyer/seller would result to: 1. Aisa immediately transferred the clinic to Dr. 30% of liquidated damages plus other damages 2. bound by contract therefore no dolo and harmless from any liability On Feb 14 2009. this being a Contract to Sell. Martin filed a complaint for robbery and a civil case of confirmation of unilateral rescission and damages against Dra. a letter was sent by Dra. EVALUATION 1. Martin regarding the claim of some equipment and demand and mutual restitution. Aisa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of QC.

B.D. ISSUES OF THE CASE A. C. therefor the amoun paid by martin should not be returned KAYO NA PO BAHALA SA RECOMMENDATION :))))) III. Martin Prayer for rescission will not prosper because condition was prevented to happen? (Art. 12345 of the Register of .) There is no bar in this instant case for an unlawful detainer to avail the benefits and privileges provided by Section 6 P.Demolition. 2016.D. 1191 Zero liability provision . Pasay City under TCT No. DISCUSSION A. 1517 provided it is applicable. C. 2016.) 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 should be liable 30% of purchase price will be the penalty. Martin (suppliers) apply Art.D.D. ARGUMENTS A. 1186 ata ito) 3. V.   Contract to Sell No breach.) WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD).D. P. 1517. Will Aisa have a cause of action?       Contract is null and void Aisa should return equipment expenses incurred shall be reimbursed from Dr. 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.) 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.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. IV. 1517 and P. B.) It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner of the parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street. 1517. APD 1-12 – PASAY CITY. the one who did not comply is Dr.) 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.

The land subject of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of APD. 1516 such as the right of first refusal.R.” B. and the seal of the court. respectively) is untenable. but this is only feasible under certain conditions. In the Philippines. “The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing.” It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street. It is however true.D.D. consequently. the Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful detainer case. 12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent the right to exercise the aforementioned rights. . 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. No. without other limitations other than those established by law. or Act No. 1517 grants lessees the right of first refusal before they may be ejected from a land. In the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v. Later in Arambulo v. 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. Futhermore.) The Plaintiff-Respondent’s argument in this issue is intimately connected with the preceding argument.) The third issue questions the coverage of the APD prescribed by the proclamation. Unfortunately. in this instant case.Deeds of Pasay City. It was held that “…in the recent case of Umpoc v. The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. 496. Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act.” Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid ownership of a land. No. 2016 (Annex “A” and “B”. or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated. 1517 and P. Article 428 of the New Civil Code enumerates the rights of an owner.D. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. Pasay City under TCT No. 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. 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. specifically. and also the owner’s duplicate certificate. reconveyance. C. 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. Spouses Coronel. it provides that “the original certificates in the registration book.” The ruling of Dizon v. CV 12345: “Insofar as the property in litigation. 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. Therefore.D. Court of Appeals was also used as basis for this argument. Mercado. any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk. To reiterate the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G. 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 right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land. and preliminary injunction against appellants.D. 1967 indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annulment of sale. Gungab. the ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of title in claiming ownership over a land. 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. No. 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. But this is subject to circumstances that may qualify a lessee to the privileges and benefits under Section 6 of P. appellant Jane Doe is. the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action in this issue. It is expressly stated that Section 6 of P. correct in objecting to appellee’s exercise of the right of first refusal granted under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No.

1967 further delimited the areas or zones wherein this preemptive right could be availed of viz.”The mere fact that the list does not include Binibini Street necessarily implies that it is deemed excluded from it. An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set forth in Section 6. k) Rodriguez Street. I.D. “There is consequently no gainsaying the fact that with its Binibini Street location.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 provisions of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within both an APD and a ULRZ. as follows: Sec. 935. under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree. the area for priority development was defined as Tramo Lines along Barangays San Isidro. Nos. Within the Urban Zones[. labeled as the South Sector of Pasay City. d) D. c) Juan Luna Street. 935 shall apply only to the above[-]mentioned Areas of Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones. Court of Appeals. 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. and LOI 935.D. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. San Roque. Proclamation No. 1893 by declaring 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as Areas for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones as described in the attached annex. hereby amend Proclamation No. 1517. joinder or union.] who have built their homes on the land[. 1517. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing laws. and i) Villa Barbara. 1893 was issued on 11 September 1979.D. e) Viscarra Street.] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more [.] and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract. 6. h) Leonardo Street. Proclamation No. pursuant to Section 4 of P. “The provisions of P. i) Alvarez Street. Victor. THEREFORE. NOW. No. And in statutory construction implies conjunction. 2) Ventanilla Street. FERDINAND E. 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. A close reading of 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. before a preemptive right can be exercised. Jorge Street. 1517 (as found in Annex “A” of this Memorandum) based on statutory construction: “We agree. As understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and.D. Nos. It was thereafter specifically enumerated the list of covered sub-areas (please refer to Annex “C” for diagram) which are the following: 1) F. Citing Solanada Enterprises v. and Santa Clara. PD 1517. 1893 declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as an Urban Land Reform Zone. 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. the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be both an APD and a ULRZ. WHEREAS.: WHEREAS. MARCOS. g) Dolores Street. The conjunctive and in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirms this intention. President of the Philippines. 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. and in relation to Proclamation No.” . f) Conchita Street. declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as Urban Land Reform Zone. 1517. 1967 reveals that. j) Basilio Street.

2005-001023 MCLE Compliance No. Makati City By: ATTY. 5/10/2005 PTR No. Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for. premise considered. 2011. Philippines.With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said. III – 000899 Copy Furnished: ATTY. 44568. PRAYER WHEREFORE. Makati City for Manila City. PAOLO COELHO IBP Lifetime No. Respectfully submitted. AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent 10th Floor. April 8. Espana. Manila . New Building. Makati Avenue. 1/10/2011 Roll of Attorney No. 67891. 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. the Defendant-Petitioner’s action would necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action. Tall Building Condominium. ARCHER Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1200. JEFFREY A.