Legal Memorandum Sample

 

3. On February 3, 2009, a Decision was rendered by Branch 1 of Metropolitan  Trial Court of Pasay City City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent; Plaintiff-Respondent;

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila City

4. On August 6, 200 2009, 9, a Motion Motion for Reconsidera Reconsideration tion filed July 5, 200 2009 9 by Defendant-Petitioner 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;

 JUANA DELA CRUZ, Defendant-Petitioner, -versus12345

CIVIL CASE NO. LFor: Ejectment

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

MEMORANDUM

6. On Apri Aprill 23, 2010, Plaintiff-Re Plaintiff-Respond spondent ent throu through gh legal counsel counsel filed a Comment dated April 19, 2010; 7. On May 13, 2010, as per Verification and Report from the Judicial Records Division (JRD) no Reply was filed by the Defendant-Petitio Defendant-Petitioner; ner; 8. On May 21, 2010, 2010, a Resolution Resolution was rendere rendered d by the Court of Appe Appeals als denying Defendant-Petitioner’s Defendant-Petitioner’s Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO); 9. Accordingly, the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit thei theirr respect respective ive Mem Memoranda oranda fifteen (15 (15)) days from notice, otherwise otherwise regardle regardless ss whether or not Memoranda were filed, the petition shall be submitted for decision; Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

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

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Respondent Jane Doe is of legal age, single, and residing on 1010 Ginoo Boulevard, Pasay City, where where she may be served served with legal processes processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;

II.

FAC FACTUA TUAL L BA BACKG CKGROU ROUND ND

10. PlaintiffPlaintiff-Resp Responden ondentt seek seeks s that a parce parcell of land located at 123 Binibin Binibinii Street, Street, Pasay be returned returned to her possessio possession, n, but due to Defe Defendantndant-Peti Petitione tioner’s r’s occ occupanc upancy y thereat, thereat, the forme formerr cannot cannot clai claim m possession possession which left her with the option of residing at 1010 Ginoo Boulevard, Pasay City. It is noteworthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent is the registered owner of the land subject under TCT No. 12345 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. The property was sold to them by the now deceased original owners, Spouses Marcelo and Marcela del Pilar;

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 notices thereto.

I.

PR PROC OCED EDUR URAL AL BAC BACKG KGRO ROUN UND D

1. On February February 11, 200 2008, 8, herein herein PlaintiffPlaintiff-Resp Responden ondentt file filed d a Complaint Complaint for Ejectment dated February 7, 2008 against Defendant-Pe Defendant-Petitioner; titioner; 22, 2008, an Answer dated December 15, 2008 was filed by 2. On December the Defendant-Pe Defendant-Petitioner; titioner;

11. Defendant-Pe Defendant-Petitioner, titioner, on the other hand, is an alleged lessee of the original owners of the land since September 1955. They had repeatedly assailed the verbal contract of lease for more than 50 years; 12. 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. When the event came that Plaintiff-Respondent was able to enforce her right over the land, Defendant-Petitioner, despite earnest and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff-Respondent still refused to vacate the land. This led her to seek help from the Barangay officials for mediation and/or conciliation in accordance with law. However, the Defendant-Petitioner still persistently occupied the land wit withou houtt heed heed to the serio serious us and constant constant demand demand of the Plain Plaintif tifffRespondent which rendered it unattainable to reach an agreement;

 

13. Due to the foregoing failure to claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusal of the Defendant-Petitioner, Plaintiff-Respo Plaintiff-Respondent ndent was compelled to hire the services of a legal counsel to commence the enforcement of ejection under the wings of the courts of law.

Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or Act No. 496, it provides that “the original certificate certificates s in the registration registration book, any copy thereof duly certifie certified d under the signature of the clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of the court, and also the owner’s duplicate certificate, shall be received 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.”

III. III. ISSUES ISSUES O OF F THE C CASE ASE

A.) WHETH WHETHER ER OR NOT THE HONO HONORAB RABLE LE TRI TRIAL AL COURT ACTED 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. 1517, P.D. 2016, APD 1-12 – PASAY CITY; B.) WHETHER WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL UNLAWFUL DETAINER DETAINER ACTION BA BARS RS THE BO BONA NA FI FIDE DE LESSE LESSEE’S E’S RI RIGH GHT T TO AV AVAI AIL L TH THE E PRIV PRIVIL ILEG EGES ES AN AND D BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SECTION 6 OF P.D. 1517;

Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid ownership of a land. In the decision of the case of  Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel, Coronel, the ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of title in claiming ownership over a land. It was held that “…in the recent case of Umpoc of Umpoc v. Mercado, Mercado, 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. Later in Arambulo in  Arambulo v. Gungab, Gungab, the Court held that the registered registered owner is preferred preferred to posse possess ss the property property subje subject ct of the unlawful detainer case. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.”

C.) WHET WHETHER HER OR NOT IN DETERMINING DETERMINING THE COVERAG COVERAGE E OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD), REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF THE STREETS SUBJECT TO THE ZONAL DEVELOPMENT

 The ruling of Dizon v. Court Court of Appeals was also used as basis for this argum argument. ent. 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. Futhermore, Article 428 of the New Civil Code enumerates the rights of an owner. “The owner has the right to en enjoy joy and dis dispos pose e of a thing, thing, witho without ut other other limita limitatio tions ns other other than than those those

AND NOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION BY METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF.

established by law. The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor  of the thing in order to recover it.” it.”

IV IV.. AR ARGU GUME MENT NTS S

A.) 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.D. 1517 and P.D. 2016.

B.) There is no bar in this this instant case for an unlawful detainer to avail the ben benefi efits ts and pri privil vilege eges s pro provid vided ed by Sec Sectio tion n 6 P.D. P.D. 151 1517 7 provided it is applicable.

C.) 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.

V.

DISC DISCUS USSI SION ON

It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No. 12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City enti entitles tles Petitione Petitioner-Re r-Respond spondent ent the right to exer exercise cise the aforement aforementione ioned d right rights, s, specifically, in this instant case, the right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land.  The contention of the Defendant-Pe Defendant-Petitioner titioner 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. 1517 and P.D. 2016 (Annex “A” and “B”, respectively) is untenable. It is expressly stated that Section 6 of P.D. 1517 grants lessees the right of first refusal before they may be ejected from a land, but this is only feasible feasible under certai certain n conditions conditions.. It is an indispens indispensable able 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. The land subject of  this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of APD.  To reiterate the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. CV 12345: “Insofar as the property in litigation, appellant Jane Doe is, consequently, correct in objecting to appell appellee ee’s ’s exerci exercise se of the right right of fir first st refus refusal al gra grante nted d under under Secti Section on 6 of  Presidential Decree Decree No. 1517. The fact that it is not included in the areas for priority developme deve lopment nt spec specifica ifically lly identifie identified d under Proc Proclamat lamation ion No. 196 1967 7 indicates indicates that appell appellee ee hav have e no cause cause of action action for ann annulm ulment ent of sal sale, e, rec reconv onveya eyance nce,, and preliminary injunction against appellants.”

A.)It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner of the parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No, 12345 of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City. In the Philippines, the presentation of a

B.) The Plaintiff-Responde Plaintiff-Respondent’s nt’s argument in this issue is intimately connected with the preceding argument. Defendant-Petitioner vigorously assails that there is no bar to the availability of the privileges and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee

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.

whenever there is an unlawful detainer action. It is however true. But this is subject to circumstances that may qualify a lessee to the privileges and benefits under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1516 such as the right of first refusal. Unfortunately, the land possessed by the Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under the ambit of Section 6 of 

 

P.D. No. 1517. Therefore, the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action in this issue. C.)  The third issue questions the coverage of the APD prescribed by the proclamation, proclamat ion, whethe whetherr or not it refers to the list of stre streets ets subject subject to the Zonal Development or to the areas included in the delineation of the metes and bounds indicated. 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), labeled as the South Sector of Pasay City, the area for priority development was defined as Tramo Lines along Barangays San Isidro, San Roque, and Santa Clara. It was thereafter specifically enumerated the list of covered sub-areas (please refer to Annex “C” for diagram) which are the following: 1) F. Victor, 2) Ventanilla Street, c) Juan Luna Street, d) D. Jorge Street, e) Viscarra Street, f) Conchita Street, g) Dolores Street, h) Leonardo Street, i) Alvarez Street, j) Basilio Street, k) Rodriguez Street, and i) Villa Barbara.   “There is consequently no gainsaying the fact that with its Binibini Street Barbara. location, the property in litigation is not included among the sites identified as Areas for Priority Development in Pasay City.”The mere fact that the list does not include Binibini Street necessarily implies that it is deemed excluded from it. Citing Solanada Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, it made a profound analysis of  Section Sect ion 6 of P.D. 1517 (as found in Anne Annex x “A” of this Memorandum) Memorandum) based on statutory construction:

“We agree. A close reading of Proclamation No. 1967 reveals that, before a pre preem empti ptive ve rig right ht can be exe exerci rcised sed,, the disput disputed ed lan land d sho should uld be situated in an area declared to be both an APD and a ULRZ.

purposes of making specific the applicability of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 935. NOW,, THEREFOR NOW THEREFORE, E, I, FERDINAN FERDINAND D E. MARCOS, MARCOS, Preside President nt of the Ph Phil ilip ippi pine nes, s, by vi virt rtue ue of the the powe powers rs vest vested ed in me by the the Constitution and existing laws, and in relation to Proclamation No. 1893 declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as an Urban Land Reform Zone, and LOI 935, hereby amend Proclamation No. 189 1893 3 by declaring declaring 244 sites in Metropoli Metropolitan tan Mani Manila la as Areas Areas for Priority Development in the attached annex.and Urban Land Reform Zones as described “The provisions of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 935 shall apply only to the above[-]ment above[-]mentioned ioned Areas of Prio Priority rity Development Developme nt and Urban Land Reform Zones. xxx xxx xxx”  The aforecited whereas clau clauses ses express express a clear clear inte intent nt to limit limit the operation of PD 1517 to specific areas declared to be located in both an APD and a ULRZ. The conjunctive and in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirms this intention.  And in statutory construction implies conjunction, joinder or union.  As understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and, the provisions of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within both an APD and a ULRZ.” With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, the Defendant-Petitioner’s action would necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.

An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set forth in Section 6, PD 1517, as follows: Sec. 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas Areas.. Within the Urban Zones[,] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more [,] who have built their homes home s on the land[,] land[,] and resi residents dents who have legally legally occupied the lands by contract, 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, under terms term s and conditions conditions to be determine determined d by the Urban Zone Expropriation Expropriation and Land Manage Management ment Committee Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree. Proclamation No. 1967 further delimited the areas or zones wherein this preemptive right could be availed of viz  of  viz .: .:

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, prem premise ise cons consider idered, ed, it resp respectf ectfully ully prayed 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. Otherr just and equitable Othe equitable relie relieff unde underr the foregoin foregoing g are likewi likewise se being prayed for. Respectfully submitted. Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. April 8, 2011.

WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 1893 was issued on 11 September 1979, pursuant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1517, declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as Urban Land Reform Zone. WHEREAS, It is now necessary and appropriate to identify specific sites covered covered by urban land reform in Metropoli Metropolitan tan Manila for

AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent Plaintiff-Respondent

 

10th Floor, New Building, Makati Avenue, Makati City

By:

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005 PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011 Roll of Attorney No. 2005001023 MCLE Compliance No. III – 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium, Espana, Manila