Memorandum of Appeal (Manangan)

 

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court First Judicial Region

Branch 60 Baguio City SPS. DHEARBORN AND MYLYNN MANANGAN as represented by JAYLA MANANGAN, and JAYLA MANANGAN in her own right, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Civil Case No: 9248-R For: Unlawful Detainer

- versus - 

MARGIE GANDO, or any other person claiming to be heirs, assigns, or agents of ELSIE VICTOR, and any JANE or JOHN DOE possessing the subject property, Defendants-Appellees.

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL  With all due respect for the Honorable Court. Appellants, Spouses Dhearborn & Mylynn Manangan and  Jayla Manangan (Appellants), through counsel, most respectfully state, that:

I. THE CASE  This is an Appeal under Rule 40 of the Rules of Court fr from om the the De Deci cisi sion on of th the e Mu Muni nici cipa pall Tr Tria iall Co Cour urtt da date ted d 11  January 2019.

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES and TIMELINESS 1. On 8 March 2018, a Co Com mplaint for Unlawful Deta De tain iner er wa was s file filed d by Ap Appe pell llan ants ts wi with th th the e Mu Muni nici cipa pall Tri Trial al Court. The said Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 14128; 1

 

2.  The case was referred for mediation to no avail and all duri rin ng th the ese time mes s the appellee Victor never once personally appeared. Trial then ensued after; Only 9 January 2020, Appellants received a copy of  3. the Decision dated 11 January 20191  issued by the Court, through Hon. Glenda Ortiz-Soriano, dismissing Civil Case No. 14128, the dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE,  in view of the foregoing, the complaint for for unlaw nlawfu full deta detaiiner ner by the plai plaint ntif iffs fs Spo Spouses uses Dhearb Dhe arborn orn and Mylynn Mylynn Mananga Manangan, n, repres represent ented ed by  herein Jayla Manangan, and Jayla Manangan also in her own right, right, agains againstt defend defendants ants Margie Margie Gando Gando or any an y othe otherr pers person on cl clai aimi ming ng to be heir heirs, s, assi assign gns s or agen ag ents ts of El Elsi sie e Vi Vict ctor or,, and any Jane Jane or John John Doe Doe possessing the subject property is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

4. Availing of the remedy under Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the Appellants files the instant Appeal dated 20 January 2020. Under Section 2 of said Rule, an appeal of  the decision, order, or judgment of the Municipal Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court is to be filed "within fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. Xxx;" Xxx;" 5.  The appellants received a copy of the Order of the Honorable Court directing them to submit their Memorandum on Appeal on February 24, 2020 within 15 days from receipt, or until March 10, 2020. This Memorandum on Appeal having been filed on March 6, 2020, the same is being filed on time;   III. THE PARTIES Appell App ellant ants s Dhe Dhearbo arborn rn and Myl Mylynn ynn Man Manang angan an are 6. marri ma rried ed to ea each ch ot othe her, r, bo both th Fi Fili lipi pino no citi citize zens ns,, of lega legall ag age, e, presently working overseas in North Carolina, United States of  America. On the other hand, appellant Jayla Manangan is   of  legal age, a Filipino citizen, with residence and postal address at No. No. 6 Do Doct ctor or Jo Jose se Ca Cari riň ňo St St., ., Lowe Lowerr QM Su Subd bdiv ivis isio ion n, Baguio City but for facility of serving pleadings, notices, orders and decisions decisions of the Honorabl Honorable e Court, these processes processes can be forwarded to the undersigned counsel at Unit 5 & 6 Ground

1

 A certified true copy of the Decision dated 11 January 2019 is hereto attached as Annex "A"

2

 

Floor, Megatower Residences, Sandico St. corner Tecson St., Salud Mitra Barangay, Baguio City;

7. Appell App ellant ant Jay Jayla la Man Manang angan an was app appoin ointed ted by the appellants Sps. Manangan as their attorney-in-fact through a Special Power of Attorney 2 for the purposes of filing this action and performing all related matters thereto; Appellee MARGIE GANDO is of legal age, Filipino 8. citizen, and with residence at Teacher's Village, Atab, Marcos Highway, Baguio City; Appe Ap pell llee ee EL ELSI SIE E VI VICT CTOR OR is of lega legall ag age, e, Fi Fili lipi pino no 9. citizen and is currently deprived of her liberty following her rec re cent arre rrest due to being convicte ted d for Es Esttafa by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 1 of Baguio City.

IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS Everli rlita Man Manang an, the mot mother the app appell ellant ants s 10. Dhearb Dhea rbor orn nEve an and d taJa Jayl yla a angan, Ma Mana nang ngan an an and d her th the e of mo moth ther er-i -inn-la law w of  appellant Mylynn Manangan, was a close friend of appellee Elsie Victor, together with her mother and her siblings, since the 1980s;3

11. Ev Ever erli lita ta wa was s so cl clos ose e wi with th the the Vi Vict ctor or fami family ly th that at whenever appellee Victor would approach her and ask her for some money, she would willingly lend her some. This behavior of appellee Victor continued for some time. Everlita was also appointed as a godmother at the wedding of appellee Victor’s eldest child. On the other hand, appellee Victor also stood as godm go dmot othe herr at th the e we wedd ddin ing g of th the e Sp Spou ouse ses s Dh Dhea earbo rborn rn and and Mylynn;4 Vic ctor’s debt to the 12. Over the years, appellee Vi Manangans grew. Appellee Victor then suggested that she sell them the land subject of this dispute, taking into consideration her mounting debt in the determination of the purchase price;

2

  Previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A," forming part of the record of the case.

3

 Judicial Affidavit of Everlita Manangan.   Ibid.

4

3

 

13. Appellant Dhearborn Manangan, was very  interested in buying the parcel of land subject of this dispute from fro m ap appe pell llee ee Vi Vict ctor or.. Co Cons nseq eque uent ntly ly,, Ap Appe pell llan antt Dh Dhea earbo rborn rn Manangan and appellee Victor entered into a verbal agreement for purchase of the parcel of land subject of this case located at Teacher's Village, Lower Atab, Marcos Highway consisting of  406 square meters, more or less; 14. Payments were then made to appellee Victor on an installment basis. There were no receipts given since all these payments were based on trust; Whil ile e th the e ap appe pell llan ants ts Sp Spou ouse ses s Ma Mana nang ngan an we were re 15. Wh paying for the land, they began constructing a house on it.  They allowed the appellant Jayla Manangan to aid financially  in the construction and development of improvements upon the property in question;

16. Event Eventually, ually, a Deed of Sale was executed executed among among the 5 6 Deed of Sale parties on December 23, 2004.  A Confirmation was subsequently executed on August 16, 2005.of  

17.  The house on the subject lot was constructed by the appe ap pell llan ants ts wi with thou outt an any y ai aid d or help help wh what atso soev ever er from from th the e appellees; 18. Over and above the purchase price agreed, appellants continued to give money to appellee Victor, which according to her, was payment for the transfer, permits for buil bu ildi ding ng,, ap appl plic icat atio ion n for for wa wate terr an and d elec electr tric icit ity y an and d ot othe herr expenses for the lot; 19.  The relationship of the appellants with appellee Victor started to sour after they questioned her regarding the money they gave her for the transfer of ownership of the said lot because for the several years that she was asking money  from them, appellee Victor failed to give them any document pertaining to the transfer, permits for building, application for water and electricity; 20. Despite the fact that the appellants have paid for the property in full and have given appellee Victor numerous sums of money thereafter, appellee Victor failed to transfer the 5

6

  Previously Previously marked marked as Plaintiff' Plaintiff's s Exhibit Exhibit "B," forming part part of the record of the marked case.   Previously Previously mar ked as Plaintiff' Plaintiff's s Exhibit Exhibit "C," forming part part of the record of the case.

4

 

 Tax Declaration covering the property subject of this case under the names of the appellants;

21.   In th the e in inte teri rim, m, ap appe pell llan ants ts hi hire red d a ca care reta take ker, r, Baci Ba cili lisa sa Vi Vict ctor or,, wh who o al also so ha happ ppen ens s to be th the e olde olderr sist sister er of  Elsie, to watch over their property. Appellant Jayla Manangan would go to the property from time to time to tend to it and to over ov erse see e wha hatt cou ould ld be do done ne as to th the e co cons nstr truc ucti tion on and and clearing; 22. On 31 Ma Marc rch h 20 2006 06,, Ba Baci cili lisa sa in info form rmed ed ap appe pell llan antt  Jayla Manangan that there were people who started to try and occu oc cupy py th the e pr prop oper erty ty,, an and d th that at sh she e co coul uld d not not pr prev even entt th them em from entering for fear of her safety. Appellan Appellantt Manangan Manangan went to the property and she saw people trying to occupy the same.  They also destroyed the temporary fence that they made to prevent others from entering; 23.  The leader of the group of people was led by Antonio Bang-i. and his wife and claimed theytobought propertyAntonio from appellee Victor they that refused vacate the the property;

24. Appellants filed a civil case against Antonio Bang-i befo be fore re th the e Re Regi gion onal al Tria Triall Co Court urt Bra Branc nch h 60 of Ba Bagu guio io Ci City  ty  which was docketed as Civil Case No. 6252-R. Appellants were able to prove that they are the rightful owners and lawful possessors of the property when the Honorable Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision in their favor. As a result, Bang-i filed an appeal before the Honorable Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-GR CV No. 93878. The Honorable Court of Appeals denied the appeal of Antonio Bang-i and affirmed with modification the trial court decision; 7

25.  The abovementioned case ruled that the appellant Spouses Manangan are the rightful possessors of the subject property in this wise: Consequently, the [Spouses Dhearborn and Mylynn Mananga Man angan], n], being the rightful possessors of the subject property, were entitled to the relief prayed for. for. Defe Defend ndan antt-Ap Appe pell llan antt Anto Antoni nio, o, shou should ld not not in intr trud ude, e, in any any manne manner, r, in into to the the poss posses essi sion on of 

7

  Previously Previously marked marked as Plaintiff Plaintiff's 's Exhibit Exhibit "D" and “D-1,” “D-1,” forming part of the record of the case.

5

 

[Spouses Dhearborn and Mylynn Manangan] of the house and lot. (emphasis supplied)8  xxx

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision Deci sion dated April 26, 2009 of the Regional Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 6252-R is AFFI AF FIRM RMED ED WITH WITH MODI MODIFI FICA CATI TION ON in that the award for damages and attorney's fees are deleted. SO ORDERED.

9

26. Sometime in April 2011, Spouses John and Florence Bongdoen came to the appellants’ propert rty  y  demanding them to vacate the place; 27.  The Spouses Bongdoen demanded that appellant  Jayla Manangan, together with her cousin, Mabelle Cabantac, vacate the premises because according to them, the property  was sold sold to them by th the e defend defendant ant Elsi Elsie e Victo Victor. r. They sh showed owed appellant Jayla Manangan a Deed of Sale to prove that they  paid P1,000,000.00 for the subject property; Appe pell llan antt Ja Jayl yla a Ma Mana nang ngan an ad advi vise sed d th the e Sp Spou ouse ses s 28. Ap Bongdoen that the property subject of this case was already  owned by them and that once again appellee Victor hood ho odwi wink nked ed an anot othe herr se sett of peop people le in into to givi giving ng her her a hu huge ge amount of money;

29.  The Spouses Bongdoen filed charges of Estafa against appellee Victor. Trial ensued and the appellant Jayla Manangan testified for the prosecution. Appellee Victor was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Baguio City 10; 30.  The appellants had peaceful possession of the property for some time until appellee Jayla Manangan received a call from the daughter of their caretaker informing her that  yet another set of people entered their property and they were accompanied by police officers;

8 9

10

 Page 22, para. 3 of the Decision dated March 30, 2012.  Page 26, para. 3 through Page 27, para. 1 of the Decision dated 30, 2012.  March Previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit “I” forming part of the record of the case.

6

 

31. When Jayla and her family arrived at their property, there were people who ente tere red d the the pro rop perty and the they  intr in trod oduc uced ed th them emse selv lves es as Char Charma maig igne ne Ho Hora ra an and d Ma Marg rgie ie Gando. Jayla told the police officers who accompanied these people that their family is the lawful owner of the said house and lot. She even showed to them the Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals but they did not acknowledge it.  There were even armed unidentified men; men; 32. Afterwards, the appellants entered the property, and then they would be turned away again when appellee Gando would return. Appellee Gando kept insisting for the appellants to ju just st sp spea eak k wi with th ap appe pell llee ee Vi Vict ctor or,, an and d th that at sh she e wa was s ju just st following appellee Victor’s orders, being a mere caretaker. The possession of appellee Gando as the agent of appellee Elsie Victor was tolerated in the meantime; 33.  The assistance of the local police station was sought by appellant Jayla Manangan. They would successfully enter the th e pr prop oper erty ty only on ly to be lo lock cked ed out out on once ce ag agai ain n when when th they  ey  return the next time;

34. Dur During ing tha thatt tim time, e, app appell ellee ee Vic Victor tor fil filed ed a cri crimin minal al case ca se ag agai ains nstt ap appe pell llan antt Ja Jayl yla a Mana Manang ngan an for for fals falsif ific icat atio ion n of  11 public document but the same was also dismissed  for failure of to prosecute, a dismissal which amounted the acquittal of  appellant Jayla Manangan. In addition to this, a civil case for forcible entry was filed against the caretaker of the appellants at th the e in inst stan ance ce of appe appell llee ee Vi Vict ctor or an and d a ce cert rtai ain n “Myr “Myrna na,” ,” docketed as Civil Case No. 13883 but the same was likewise dismissed by MTCC Branch 3 of Baguio City; 12  said d cas case, e, app appell ellee ee Vic Victor tor was unsucc unsuccess essful ful in 35. In sai proving provin g her right ove overr the subje subject ct propert property. y. The court ruled thro roug ugh h a De Deci cisi sion on da date ted d Ju June ne 19 19,, agains aga instt Els Elsie ie Vic Victor tor  th 2015,13 the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , with the foregoing, ng, the plaintiff’s compla com plaint int for forcib forcible le entry entry and damage damages s is hereby  hereby  dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. 11

  Previously marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit “H” forming part of the record of the case.

12

13

 record Previously Previously marked marked as Plaintiff' Plaintiff's s Exhibit Exhibit “E” forming part part of the of the case.  Ibid 

7

 

SO ORDERED.

36. Despite the numerous demands of the appellants, the final demand to vacate the property which Margie Gando refused to receive, and the intervention of the local barangay, the appellees still refused to vacate the property; hence the filing of the instant case;14 37. Finding that the Decision was imbued with errors, Appellant is now filing the instant Appeal pursuant to Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Court; V. ISSUES I. WHETHER THE MTC ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT INITIATED BY THE APPELLANTS. II.

WHETHER

THE

APPELLANTS

BETT BE TTER ER RIGH GHT T OFPROPERTY. PH PHYS YSIC ICAL AL OVER THERI SUBJECT

HAVE

A

PO POSS SSES ESS SIO ION N

III. WHETHER THE SELLER CAN BE ALLOWED TO DISOWN OR DISAVOW THE TITLE OF THE BUYER. VI. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION THE TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN DIS DISMISS MISSING ING THE COM COMPLAI PLAINT NT INITIATED BY THE APPELLANTS. THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP, AND CONSE CO NSEQUE QUENT NTLY LY THE RIG RIGHT HT OF POSSESSION DE FACTO OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND HAS RES  ALREADY BECOME JUDICATA AND THE APPELLANTS HAVE ESTABLISHED THEIR BETTER BETT ER RIGH RIGHT T TO POS POSSES SESSIO SION N DE FACTO AS AGAINST THE APPELLEE VICTOR, THEIR SELLE SE LLER R AN AND D PR PREDE EDECES CESSO SOR-I R-INNINTEREST.

14

  Previously marked as Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Exhibits “F” and “G” forming part of the record of the case.

8

 

38.  The appellees still questioned the ownership of the appellants despite issue being res judicata .; .;   39. In the case of Sps. Dhearborn & Mylynn Manangan  repres rep resent ented ed by the their ir Att Attorn orneyey-inin-Fac Fact  t , Ja Jayl yla a Mana Manang ngan an v. 15 Antoni Ant onio o Ban Bang-i  g-i ,   the the Co Cour urtt of Ap Appe peal als, s, in up upho hold ldin ing g th the e finding of this Honorable Court, aptly declared: Clearly, Clearl y, the sale sale over over the subjec subjectt proper property ty betwee between n plaintiffs-appellees and Elsie, although unrecorded, is valid and subsisting between them. It must be noted, however, that as regards third persons, the instrument must be registered to affect and bind them. This is pr prec ecis isel ely y the the cont conten enti tion on of defe defend ndan antt-ap appe pell llan antt Antonio. Nonetheless, while it is true that the Waiver of Rights was registered, We strongly emphasize that the Deed of Sale executed executed by plaintiffs plaintiffs-app -appellee ellees s and Elsie was confirmed by the co-heirs of Elsie   whereas the Waiver of Rights bore only the signature of Elsie.  xxx xxx xxx

Having established that the contract of sale of the subjec sub jectt proper property ty was perfec perfected ted even even befor before e the exec ex ecut utio ion n of the the unre unreco cord rded ed deed deed of sale sale,, We highli hig hligh ghtt the the ruling ruling of the lower court court that that the the plaintiffs-appellees were the first possessors of the subject property. In addition, the act of possession was clearly proved considering that the plaintiffsappellees were the ones who caused the construction of the house. Such fact was subs ubsta tant ntia iate ted d by the pie pieces ces of docu ocumen menta tarry evidence evidenc e submitted by the plaintiffs-appellees plaintiffs-appellees such as the survey plans, receipts of various construction materials and photographs depicting various stages of construction. (Emphasis supplied)

  40. Other pertinent provisions of the above-cited case are as follows: Page 8 On February 22, 2008, the court a quo issued a Pre Trial Order with the parties having arrived at the foll follow owin ing g factu factual al st stip ipul ulati ation ons: s: (1) (1) that that the the subj subjec ectt proper pro perty ty was occupi occupied ed by the Spouse Spouses s Manang Manangan’ an’s s Caretaker; (2) that the subject house is an unfinished buildi bui lding; ng; (3) that herein herein defend defendant ant and his worker workers s were altering and/or adding on the existing structure  C.C. G.R. CV No. 93878, March 30, 2012

15

9

 

when this case was filed; (4) that the subject lot is an unregistered lot; (5) that the Deed of Sale in favor of  the plaintiff’s was not annotated in Tax declaration No. 96-1013010-102134 in the name Elsie Victor; (6) that it was Elsie Victor who was the original claimant and occupant of the land where the house is erected; and (7) that the Deed of Sale was allegedly executed on December 23, 2004

Page 11 In arrivi arriving ng at the assail assailed ed Decisi Decision, on, the trial trial court court anchored its ruling on the above-mentioned provision of law and made a finding that it was was Spou Spouse ses s Mana Ma nang ngan an who who were were the the fi firs rstt poss posses esso sors rs of the the subject property considering that the transaction entered into by them and Elsie was a Contract of  Sale. Sa le. As such, such, date date of the the posses possessio sion n should should be reckoned from October 18, 2003, the date Spouses Manangan were allowed to enter and construct on the th e said said prop proper erty ty.. The The defe defend ndan ant, t, on the the othe otherr hand, came into possession of the property only on November 21, 2005.

Pages 16-17 With that, we adhere to the findings of the lower court that the contract contract entered entered into by plaintiffs plaintiffs-appell -appellees ees was a Contract of Sale because the contract that was execute uted by the parties does not indicate ate any  stipulati stip ulations ons that would make it contract to sell. The subject property was actually given or delivered to the plaintiffs-appellees plaintiffs- appellees  16 as they were allowed allowed to Thus,, as cons co nstr truc uctt the the hous house e in the the prem premis ises es..  Thus correctly held by the lower court, the contract of sale between plaintiffs-appellees and Elsie was perfected upon the delivery of the property or the

date plaintiffs-appellees were allowed to construct thereon, that is, on December 23, 2004, the date before the unrecorded Deed of Sale was executed. Pages 19-20 Having Havi ng es esta tabl blis ished hed that that the the cont contrac ractt of sale sale of the the subje ubject ct prop roper erty ty was was perf perfec ectted ev even en befo before re th the e execution of the unrecorded deed of sale, We highlight the ruling of the lower court that the plaintiffsappellees were the first possessors of the subject proper pro perty. ty. In additi addition, on, the act of posses possessio sion n was clea clearl rly y prov proved ed cons consid ider erin ing g that that the the pl plai aint ntif iffs fs-appellees were the ones caused the construction of  the house. house.  Such fact was sub substa stant ntiat iated ed by the the 16

 The Plaintiff Spouses herein represented by the Plaintiff Jayla P. Manangan.

10

 

pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the plai plaint ntif iffs fs-a -app ppel elle lees es such such as the the surv survey ey plan plans, s, rece receip ipts ts of vari variou ous s cons constr truc ucti tion on mate materi rial als s and and photographs depicting various stages of  construction. Moreov More over er,, witn witnes ess s Moni Monico co Arse Arseni nio o Cald Calder eron on,, a construction supervisor, testified that it was Jayla and Ever Manangan who purchased the materials needed for the construction. A careful perusal of  the th e rece receip ipts ts of vari variou ous s cons constr truc ucti tion on mate materi rial als s reve reveal aled ed that that the the rece receip ipts ts were were in the the name name of  Jayla, the attorney-in-fact attorney-in-fact of plaintiffs-appellees. plaintiffs-appellees. Pages 22-23  The rule of long standing is that a public document executed and attested through intervention of a notary  public is evidence of the facts in a clear, unequivocal manne ma nnerr ther therei ein n expr expres esse sed. d. Gene Genera rall lly, y, a nota notari rized zed instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. However, this presumption is not not abso absolu lute te and and may may be re rebu butt tted ed by clea clearr and convincing evidence.

Here,, it was Here was not not suff suffic icie ient ntly ly prov proved ed that that the the Spec Sp eciial powe powerr of Atto Attorn rney ey was was not not val alid id.. We, We, therefore, adhere to the findings of the lower court that hat the Spe Specia iall Power ower of Att ttor orne ney y was duly uly 17 executed execu ted despite desp ite such discre di screpancy pancy   . Consequently, Consequentl y, plaintiffs plaintiffs-appel -appellees, lees, being the rightful rightful possessors of the subject property were entitled to the relief prayed for. Defendant-appellant Antonio, should nott in no intr trud ude, e, in any manne manner, r, in into to the the poss posses essi sion on of  plaintiffs-appellees of the house and lot.

Notwithstanding that, we stress that since it was alleg all eged ed by defend defendan ant-a t-appe ppella llant nt Antoni Antonio o and and his wife that they paid P600,000.00 for the canc ca ncel ella lati tion on of mort mortga gage ge to Atty Atty.. Kiat Kiat-o -ong ng to cancel the mortgage over the subject property and they also paid an amount of P1,000,000.00 as the remaining balance for the purchase of the subject 17

 The defendant Victor is herein trying to question the veracity and due execution of the Special Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiff Spouses in favor of the Plaintiff Jayla P. Manangan, and the the deed deeds s of conv convey eyanc ance e exec execute uted d in thei theirr favor favor,, alth althou ough gh the the actual delivery delivery of the property to the Plaintiffs Plaintiffs came earlier. earlier. There is al alre read ady y that a cour co t endant ruli ruling ng that th attorshou shwants ould ldts lay la y to re rest st ble the the Court base baurt sele less ss assert ass ertion ions s tha t urt Defend Def ant Victor Vic wan the Honora Hon orable Co to review anew.

11

 

proper prop erty ty,, the the deni denial al of this this appe appeal al is with withou outt prej pr ejud udic ice e to the the fi fili ling ng of anot anothe herr acti action on by the the defendant-appellant for the proper recovery of the (Empha hasi sis s sum of money he allegedly paid . (Emp Supplied) 

41. Adama Adamant nt to mainta maintain in her dece deception, ption, appelle appellee e Victor filed criminal case for falsification of the deeds of conveyance usedaby the appellants to prove their right of ownership over the land subject of this case in the Bang-i civil case, against appellant Jayla Manangan, but the same has been dismissed with prejudice due to the persistent failure of Elsie Victor to prosecute.18  The Honorable Court in said criminal case aptly  observed: Today in the fifth trial date given the prosecution to present evidence in this case.  Last May 16, 2016, Atty Atty.. Ri Rica card rdo o Feli Felix x aske asked d fo forr the the time time to subm submit it a writ wr itte ten n moti motion on for for th the e admi admiss ssio ion n of the the judi judici cial al-affida aff idavit vit of his witnes witness, s, Basili Basilisa sa Victor Victor.. On June 3, 2016 20 16,, Atto Attorn rney ey Feli Felix x fi file led d a moti motion on to admi admitt  judicial-affidavit with the attached Judicial  judicial-affidavit Affidavi Affi davitt of Basilisa Basilisa Victor. Victor. However, However, the motion motion was declared abandoned in the order of the court dated June 9, 2016 as the movant failed to appear on the the sche schedu dule led d hear hearin ing g on the the moti motion on.. Last Last hearing, June 27, 2016, Atty. Ricardo Felix moved for another resetting to give him time to submit a moti mo tion on for for reco recons nsid ider erat atio ion n of the the orde orderr of the the court declaring his earlier motion for the admission of the judicial affidavit of Basilisa Victor abandoned. Until to date, no motion for reconsideration reconsider ation was filed by attorney Felix. Considering all the foregoing and upon the motion of  the the accu accuse sed d th thro roug ugh h coun counse sel, l, At Atty ty.. Gize Gizell lle e Ann Ann Dalloran, as it appears that the prosecution failed to present evidence in this case despite more than sufficient opportunity, this case is hereby dism dismis isse sed d for for fail failur ure e to pros prosec ecut ute e. (E (Emp mphas hasis is supplied)

42. Bent on vexing the appellants even further so she coul co uld d ho hood odw win ink k mo more re pe peo opl ple e in into to pu purc rcha hasi sing ng th the e sam ame e property she already sold to the appellants, appellee Victor again tried to disturb the possession of the appellants over the property in question by filing a forcible entry case against the appellant’ appel lant’s s caretak caretaker. er. Victor v. Evangelista   was doc docket keted ed as 18

 Previously marked as Exhibit "H" for the Plaintiffs and made part of the records of the case.

12

 

Civil Case No. 13883 but the MTCC Branch 3 of Baguio City  dismissed the complaint;

43. In People of the Philippines v. Elsie Victor   docketed as Criminal Case No. 127747 for Estafa, the MTCC Branch 1 of Bagui Baguio o Cit City y co conv nvic icte ted d El Elsi sie e Vi Vict ctor or for for se sell llin ing g th the e sa same me subject parcel of land to other persons when in truth and in fact fact th the e sa same me ha has s al alre read ady y be been en so sold ld to he here rein in ap appe pell llan ants ts.. Eviden Evi dence ce was pres present ented ed sho showin wing g the app appell ellant ants’ s’ own owners ership hip over ov er th the e pr prop oper erty ty pr prio iorr to de defe fend ndan antt Vi Vict ctor or’s ’s sa sale le of th the e property in question to the Spouses Bongdoen. Elsie Victor was given ample opportunity to rebut the allegations brought forward by the witnesses for the prosecution in the criminal case therein as to the ownership of the appellants, but she did not; 44.  The Honorable Court ruled in Criminal Case No. 127747: Page 5-6 The prosec The prosecut ution ion in an attem attempt pt to establ establish ish the the guilt of the accused presented four (4) witnesses, namely: Sps. Bongdoen herein private compla com plaina inant nts, s, Jayla Jayla Mana Mananga ngan n in beha behalf lf of Sps. Sps. Dhearborn and Mylyn Manangan and Atty. Padang who notarized the Confirmation of Deed of Sale. Sps. Bongdoen stated that accused Elsie Victor told them that she is the owner of the properties in question and further assured them that as regards the present possessor of the property, she will be the one to oust the possessor/s upon payment in full of the consideration of the sale by the Spouses Bongdoen; accused told them that the occupants therein are caretakers who stayed there by means of her tolerance so once payment is made she can accordingly evict the occupants therein. Accused also made assurances that she will be responsible in evictin cting g the the occu occupa pant nts. s. Suc Such assu ssuranc ances convinced and prodded Sps. Bongdoen to part with their money and bought the properties. But later on,, they on they fo foun und d ou outt that that the the poss posses esso sorr Mabe Mabell lle e Cabantac was authorized by one Jayla Manangan who wh o is the the si sist ster er of Dhea Dhearb rbor orn n Mana Manang ngan an af afte terr buyin bu ying g the the subjec subjectt proper property ty from from Elsie Elsie Victor Victor in 2004 20 04.. Jayl Jayla a Mana Manang ngan an cl clai aims ms that that the the priv privat ate e complainants complainan ts were deceived by Elsie Victor as they were we re the the ones ones who who cons constr truc ucte ted d the the hous house e with with their own money. To prove her claim, Atty. Padang was presented to show that he notarized a document entitled Confirmation of Deed of Sale executed in 2005 13

 

by the co-heirs of Elsie Victor stating that they have knowledge that the conveyance to Sps. Manangan was made with their consent.

These allega These allegatio tions ns again against st the accus accused ed were were not refuted by the defense. Based on the records, on February 28, 2013, accused through counsel was fined for failure to submit accused judicial affidavit on time. Then accused was given five (5) days to fi file le it its s ju judi dici cial al affi affida davi vits ts.. The The pros prosec ecut utio ion n has has rested its case and when it was the defense turn to pres pr esen entt evid eviden ence ce,, a Moti Motion on to Admi Admitt Judi Judici cial al Affi ffidavi avit was fil ile ed by the the accu accuse sed d thro throu ugh a collabor coll aboratin ating g counsel, counsel, Atty. Atty. Christian Christian B. Amistad Amistad only on December 18, 2013; hence, the same was denied and this case was submitted for decision. Page 8 After a careful examination of the evidence on hand, the the cour courtt fi find nds s th that at al alll the the elem elemen ents ts of the the crim crime e charged are present. It is undisputed that the subject of the property in this case is an immovable, a house and an d lot lot loca locate ted d at Km 4 Teac Teache hers rs Vill Villag age, e, Marc Marcos os Highway, Baguio City. It is also undisputed that the accused represent her herself as the owne wner of the pr prop oper erti ties es in fact fact,, a Deed Deed of Sale Sale (E (Exh xhib ibit it “E”) “E”) was was executed by the accused as transferor and the private comp co mpla lain inant ant Spou Spouse ses s Bong Bongdo doen en as the the trans transfe fere ree. e. Spouse Spo uses s Bongdo Bongdoen en because because of the repres represent entati ation on of  the accused parted with their money in the amount of  One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). The Confirmation Confirmation of Deed Deed of Sale Sale (E (Exh xhib ibit it I) nota notari rize zed d by Atty Atty.. Padang in 2005 proves that there is indeed a prior tr tran ansa sact ctio ion n with with the the pres presen entt poss posses esso sorr of the the property, the Manangans. Equally important is the existence of a Decision rendered by the Regional

Trial No. Court, 6252-RBranch entitl60, ed Baguio DhearbCity, orn in anCivil d MCase ylyn Mana Ma nang ngan an re repr pres esen ente ted d by Atty Atty-i -inn-fa fact ct,, Jayl Jayla a Manangan vs. Antonio Bang-i (Exhibit “M”) in favor of the Manangans ans award wardiing them the the of the posses pos sessio sion n of the the same same proper property ty subjec subjectt of this this case. That prior to this case, herein accused also sold so ld the the same same prop proper erty ty to one one Anto Antoni nio o Bang Bang-I -I desp de spit ite e the the fa fact ct that that it was was al alre read ady y sold sold to the the Manangans. The Court finds that this actuation of  the th e accu accuse sed d of in sell sellin ing g the the prop proper erty ty to Sps. Sps. Bangdoen despite the fact that the same property was already sold to the Manangans is a deceitful act with with the the inten intentio tion n of defra defraudi uding ng and and taking taking advantage of the fact that the property is still in her name as per per ta tax x decla eclara rati tion ons. s. Her mere ere declaration that she is the owner of the properties 14

 

when she knew that she was not is a false pretense. More so, her assurances that she will be the one responsible for evicting the occupants just for her to get money from the private complainants shows clearly of accused’s criminal intent. Sps. Bongdoen relied on these assurances of the accused and they were made to believe, trusting her that she indeed is the owner of the property and that the same is free from lien and encumbrances. For this reason, (Emphasis sis accu ac cuse sed d must must be li liab able le fo forr her her acts acts.. ” (Empha Supplied)

45. In all the above-mentioned civil cases and criminal cases, the courts have held appellee Victor does not have a better right to the subject parcel of land over and above the right of the appellants; 46. App Appell ellee ee Vic Victor tor del delive ivered red the lan land d subjec subjectt of thi this s case to the appellants, executed the confirmatory deeds of the earlierr deliv earlie delivery, ery, and recei received ved the purcha purchase se price for the same, in full, in addition to other numerous amounts which were not devoted to the purpose for which they were given; 47.  The Honorable Court a quo’s findings that that the appellants were not able to prove their right of ownership and poss po sses essi sion on de fact facto o de desp spit ite e es esta tabl blis ishe hed d fact facts s of ap appe pell llee ee Vict Vi ctor or’s ’s deli delive very ry an and d de dece ceit it,, is a gr grav ave e bu butt re reve vers rsib ible le er erro rorr which the Honorable Appellate Court can correct; 48. Appellee Victor cannot feign ignorance of the fact that she already sold the subject lot to the appellants in this case. Her denial of the fact that she already sold the subject lot to the appellants is in effect speaking against her own acts to th the e in inju jury ry of th the e ap appe pell llan ants ts.. due Th The erespect, eq equi uita tabl ble e pr prin inci cipl ple e of  estoppel prevents this. With all the Honorable Court a quo gravely erred in disregarding the previous cases which had long settled the issue of ownership and possession;

49. Even appellee Victor’s co-heirs had confirmed the sale of the lot subject of the instant case between appellee Victor as the seller and the appellants as the buyer; 50.  The appellees keep questioning why the Tax Declaration Decla ration was not transf transferred erred in the name of the appel appellants lants if indeed they are the rightful owners of the subject property  when they know very well that it was the responsibility of the appellee Victor to cause the transfer of the same. There is evidence on record of this, which with all due respect, the 15

 

Honorab Hono rable le Co Court urt a qu quo o ig igno nore red. d. In he herr Ju Judi dici cial al Af Affi fida davi vit, t, appellant Jayla Manangan stated that: Since Defendant Elsie Victor was a good family friend, aside from the payment of the lot that we were giving giving her, we also gave her money whenever she asked. And since we trusted her very much, we never asked for any receipt. The money  that we to ts Elsie, was for the tr trans ansfe fer, r,gave permi permits for for according buil buildi ding ng,, to appl apher, plic icat atio ion n payment fo forr wate water r and an d electrici elec tricity ty and other expenses for the lot. Our relationship with wi th Defe Defend ndan antt Elsi Elsie e Vict Victor or st star arte ted d to sour sour af afte terr we questioned her regarding the money we gave her for the tran transf sfer er of owne owners rshi hip p of the the said said lo lott beca becaus use e fo forr the the several years that she was asking money from us, she was not able to give us any document pertaining to the transfer, permits for building, application for water and electricity.  We also asked Engr. Viray to stop their work in the house they constructed, although the construction of the house hou se was nearly nearly finished finished and it was alread already y livabl livable. e. She could not liquidate the amounts that we had been giving her for the purpose of the transfer of the property in the name of my co-plaintiffs, and for the necessary permits

for us to continue with the construction and eventual occupancy of the house.  (Emphasis supplied)

51. Clearly, it was not through the appellants’ fault that the Tax Declaration was not transferred in the name of the appellants, contrary to the findings of the Honorable Court a quo qu o. Th The e no nonn-tr tran ansf sfe era rall wa was s a br brea each ch of th the e ag agre reem eme ent reached by the appellants and Elsie Victor; 52. It turn rns s out that Elsie Vic Victor re ren neged on her obligation to tra ran nsfer the pro rop pert rty y in the name of the appellants since she had plans to sell the subject property to multiple people; THE AP THE APPE PELL LLAN ANTS TS HA HAVE VE A BETTER RIGHT TO PHYSI PHY SICAL CAL PO POSS SSES ESSI SION ON OF THE PROPERTY. alll th the e ab abov ovee-me ment ntio ione ned d ca case ses s in invo volv lvin ing g the the 53. In al property subject of this case, various courts have ruled that it is the appellants who have a better right to possess the subject property over the other parties involved in those cases, based on their ownership of the same owing to the fact that appellee Victor has caused the delivery of the property in question to the appellants;

16

 

54. Again, all of the above-mentioned cases involve Elsie Victor as an opposing party or a successor-in-interest, in the case of the Bang-is. In all these cases, Elsie Victor was not able ab le to pr prov ove e th that at sh she e had a bett better er righ rightt to po poss sses ess s th the e prop pr oper erty ty ye yett sh she e de defi fian antl tly y di disr sreg egar ards ds the the or orde ders rs of th thes ese e courts; 55.  Time and again, appellee Victor, by herself or through her cohorts, has barged in the premises of the private prop pr oper erty ty of th the e ap appe pell llan ants ts to co cont ntin inue ue se sell llin ing g it to ot othe herr persons; 56. Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides: Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should Shou ld it be immovab immovable le property, property, the ownershi ownership p shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should Shou ld ther there e be no insc inscri ript ptio ion, n, the the owne owners rshi hip p shal shalll pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presen presents ts the the oldest oldest title, title, provid provided ed there there is good good faith.  (Emphasis supplied)

57.  The appellants have already successfully proven thei th eirr ow owne ners rshi hip p as th they ey we were re th the e firs firstt pe pers rson ons s to wh whom om appellee Victor sold the subject property to, and the fact that they th ey ha have ve to tole lera rate ted d th the e in intr trus usio ion n an and d po poss sses essi sion on of th the e appellees for lengthened periods of time until the appellant  Jayla Manangan caused the sending of a demand to vacate.  The passage of time in between the filing of the cases prior to the instant case on appeal woul uld d go to show that the appell app ellees ees’’ ent entry ry into into the pro proper perty ty wer were e tol tolera erated ted for cer certai tain n periods, before they were asked to vacate, only for them to leave and enter the property again. There is no cogent reason to ru rulle th tha at th the e app ppel ella lant nts s do no nott ha have ve a be bett tter er righ rightt to possess the subject property, contrary to the findings of the lower court; 58. With all due respect, the appellants are fl flab abbe berg rgas aste ted d as to wh why y th the e Ho Hono norab rable le Co Court urt a quo   would suddenly rule against them the when all other courts have upheld their better right to possess subject property; 17

 

59.  The appellees still continued in their illegal possession of the property in question even after they received the final demand to vacate from the appellants 19, and have refu re fuse sed d to co conf nfro ront nt th the e ap appe pell llan antt Ja Jayl yla a Ma Mana nang ngan an in the the barangay 20; 60.  The possession of the property by the appellees despite the fact that the appellants no longer want to tolerate the same is illegal;  The Supreme Court, in Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual 21, ruled: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary 

allowin wing g sev severa erall yea years rs to pas pass s wit withou houtt req requir uiring ing th the e  x x x In allo occupant to vacate the premises nor filing action to eject him, plaintiffs have acquiesced to defendant's possession and use of  the premises. premises. It has been held that a person who occupies the land of an anoth other er at th the e lat latter ter's 's to toler leranc ance e or per permis missio sion, n, wit witho hout ut an any  y  contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment

is

the

proper

remedy

against

them.

x

x

x.

THE SELLER CANNOT BE ALLOW OWE ED TO DI DIS SOWN OR DISAVOW THE TITLE OF THE BUY BUYER ER CON CONTR TRARY ARY TO ESTABLISHED LEGAL   PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS. 61. Despite the foregoing, the validity and veracity of  the deeds of conveyance in favor of the appellant spouses is 22 ient no now w ag agai ain n appellee be bein ing g bela beVictor, late tedl dly y who at atta tack cked edbeen an anew ew, co conv nven enie ntly ly her in  absentia by had in, hiding  after conviction for Estafa concerning the same property in Criminal

 Exhibit “F” for the Appellants.

19

 Exhibit “G” for the Appellants is the Certificate to file action.

20

21

 128 Phil. 160 (1967) cited in Perez v. Rasacena, et al. G.R. No. 211539, October 17, 2016. 22

 Appellee Elsie Victor has already been arrested last February 29, 2020.

18

 

Case No. 12774723 prior to her most recent arrest on February  29, 2020;

62. App Appell ellee ee Vic Victor tor is es estop topped ped fro from m que questi stioni oning ng the title of the appellants and their right of possession over the subject property. The appellants’ tolerance of the intrusion of  appellee Victor at times should not now preclude them from exercising their right to recover the possession of the property  thro th roug ugh h a ca case se for for un unla lawf wful ul de deta tain iner er.. Th The e Supr Suprem eme e Co Cour urtt states that:  The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, represent ations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom wh om they they were were direct directed ed and and who reason reasonab ably ly relied relied 24 thereon.  (Emphasis supplied)

63. In other multiple cases which have already become res judicata , it has been proven that appellee Victor already  sold the sub sold subjec jectt pro proper perty ty to the app appell ellant ants. s. App Appell ellee ee Vic Victor tor cannot be allowed by the Honorable Court to disclaim the fact that th at th the e su subj bjec ectt pr prop opert erty y ha has s al alrea ready dy a ne new w ow owne nerr in th the e instant case and have the Honorable Court grant her prayer that she still be allowed to possess the subject property. Doing so woul would d in effe effect ct en enco cour urag age e he herr to co cont ntin inue ue in he herr ille illega gall trade of selling the subject parcel of land to multiple buyers;

64.  To reiterate, the issue regarding the appellants’  ri righ ghtt to po poss sse ess ssiion de fact facto  o   an and de ju jure  re   base based d on th thei eirr ownership has already been settled by the courts in no less than th an tw two o oth ther er ca case ses s wh wher ere e th the e issu issue e of own wner ers shi hip p and possession of the property arose, and in other cases filed at the instance of Elsie Victor wherein she has miserably failed to prove her preposterous claims that she has a better right over the th e pr prop oper erty ty than than th the e ap appe pell llan ants ts,, an and d th that at th the e de deed eds s of  conveyance in appellants’ favor were faked; 65. It is for the foregoing reasons that the appellants seek the reversal of the ruling of the Honorable Municipal Trial Court.

23

 Previously marked as Exhibit  "I" for the Plaintiffs and made part of the records of the case.

24

 Megan Sugar Corporation v. Regional Trial Court , G.R. No. 170352,  June 1, 2011

19

 

PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed of th this is Ho Hono norab rable le Co Court urt,, af afte terr du due e no noti tice ce an and d hear hearin ing g that that  judgment be rendered:   1.

Re Reve vers rsin ing g tthe he De Deci cisi sion on date dated d1 11 1 Jan Janua uary ry 20 2019 19;;

2. Or Orde deri ring ng tthe he a app ppel elle lees es a and nd a all ll tthe he pers person ons s clai claimi ming ng auth au thor orit ity y un unde derr th them em to va vaca cate te th the e su subj bjec ectt pr prem emis ises es an and d surrender possession thereof to the appellants; 3. Or Orde deri ring ng a app ppel elle lees es tto o pa pay y appe appell llan ants ts mor moral al d dam amag ages es in an amount which the Honorable Court deems fair and just; 4. Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs atto at torn rney ey’s ’s fees fees in th the e am amou ount nt of Tw Twen enty ty Th Thou ousa sand nd Pe Peso sos s (P20,000.00), in addition to the amount of Two Thousand Five Hund Hu ndred red Pe Peso sos s P2 P2,5 ,500 00.0 .00 0 pe perr ap appe peara aranc nce e fees fees wh whic ich h th the e Plaintiff Plaint iffs s pro promis mised ed to pay cou counse nsel, l, and litiga litigatio tion n expens expenses es which amount will be proven during the proceedings, as well as to pay the costs of suit. Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, under the premises, are likewise prayed for. Done this 6th day of March 2020, in the City of Baguio.

THE LAW FIRM OF DOMOGAN, CHAN, & MABALOT Counsel for the Appellants  Units 5 and 6 Ground Floor, Megatower Residences Sandico St. corner Tecson St., Salud Mitra Barangay, Baguio City Telephone Number: (+6374)300-3668

JANICE MARIE N. DOMOGAN 4492897;; 1.7.2020; Baguio City  PTR No. 4492897 IBP Lifetime Membership No. 09811 Roll of Attorneys No. 58555; 5.25.2010; Manila MCLE Compliance No: VI-0019079; 3.19.2019; Pasig City  Email: janice.domogan@domoganc Email:  [email protected] hanmabalot-law.com Copy Furnished: Atty. Rodel D. Galleto 20

 

Counsel for Appellee Gando  Galleto Law Office Rm. 303, 3rd Floor, Jose Miguel Building, Abanao St., cor. Yandoc St., 2600 Baguio City 

Atty. Kenjie Colas Ameda Counsel for Appellee Victor  Km. 5 Pelizloy Building, Pineshill Business Center 2601 La Trinidad, Benguet EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil  Procedure)   The appellees’ copy of this Memorandum on Appeal was served via registered mail due to time, distance and lack of  of offi fice ce pers person onne nell cons constr trai aint nts s th that at ma make ke pe pers rson onal al se serv rvic ice e impracticable.

JANICE MARIE DOMOGAN

21