Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court

Branch 20
Cagayan de Oro City


Civil Case No. 85246





For Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable
Court most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and

On April 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a Complaint for Annulment of Contract with Damages
against herein defendant.
On September 27, 2014, defendant received summons issued by the Honorable Court to
file an answer.
On October 8, 2014, defendant filed his answer against the plaintiff.

On October 15, 2014, preliminary conference was held in the presence of the plaintiff,
defendant, and their respective counsels.
Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honorable Court ordered the parties to
submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15) days from notice, otherwise, the case is
deemed submitted for decision.

The plaintiff contends that she, together with her husband, owned a one-bedroom
condominium which they have been occupying since their marriage in 2006. The said condo
unit was acquired by the plaintiffs husband in January 2001 when he was still single.
Sometime in January 2009, the plaintiff mentioned to Mr. Pascual that she and her husband
were planning to buy a house since theyve learned that they are expecting a baby. On the
same day, Mr. Pascual told her that he is willing to buy the condo unit should the couple finally
decide to sell it.
On April 2009 the plaintiff called Mr. Pascual and informed him that they had finally found a
house and that they are now selling the said condo unit for 2 million pesos. Mr. Pascual on the
other line told her that he will call her back once the deed of sale and managers check were
On May 2009 while the plaintiff was in the United States, the husband sold the said condo unit
to Mr. Pascual and that on June 2009; he had signed the deed of sale and had in his possession
the managers check.
The plaintiff files this suit for annulment of contract with damages against Mr. Pascual
contending that his husband sold the condo unit without her consent.

On the other hand, defendant argued that the sale was consummated due to the payment of
the purchased price of 2 million as represented by the managers check as well as the signing of
the husband of the deed of sale. Furthermore, he had also successfully able to have the
certificate of title transferred to his name.


1. Whether or not the condo unit constitutes a conjugal property.

2. Whether or not the plaintiff has the cause of action against the defendant to have
the contract annulled.
3. Whether or not the sale of the husband to that of the defendant was consummated.


1. The condo unit does not constitute a conjugal property.

2. The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing the annulment of the contract of sale
against the defendant.
3. The sale of the condo unit to the defendant was already consummated.

1. The plaintiffs action of annulling the contract of sale made by her husband to Mr.
Pascual is without value. It is imperative to establish that the said condo unit does not
come within the purview of a conjugal property. The said condo unit was acquired by
the plaintiffs husband way back in 2001 when he was still single or prior to their
marriage in 2006. Article 117 of the Family Code provides the following properties that
are to be considered as conjugal.
The following are conjugal partnership properties:
1. Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the
common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only
one of the spouses;
2. Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both
of the spouses;
3. The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage
from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive
property of each spouse;

4. The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the
finder or owner of the property where the treasure is found;
5. Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;
6. Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the
number of each kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and
7. Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or
betting. However, losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loserspouse.

Clearly, the said condo unit does not fall within the following specific items provided in the said
article of the family code on conjugal properties. For the wife to question the validity of the sale
and to ask for its annulment is insignificant considering that for this action to prosper, the said
condo unit should be a conjugal property of the spouses.
2. The succeeding issue is closely related to the first argument and to further support this
claim, article 109 of the family code provides what composes exclusive properties of
each spouse.
The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:

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

4. That which is purchased with the exclusive money of the wife or of the husband.

In the case of National Bank v. Quintos, 46 Phil. 370, under the conjugal partnership regime, all
properties brought into the marriage by the contracting parties belong to each of them
exclusively. The partnership does not produce the merger of the properties of each spouse.
Therefore, the owner spouse can exercise all the rights of dominion or of ownership of his or
her exclusive properties. The contention of the plaintiff that her consent was needed for the
contract of sale to be valid was irrelevant. Mr. Geronimo, being the sole owner of the said
condo unit can encumber, alienate or dispose of his exclusive property without the needed
approval of his wife. The husband has the right to sell the property to another without the
blessing of Ms. Geronimo.
The plaintiffs argument in the action to annul the contract of sale has no cause of action since
she does not have a right in her favor by whatever means and under whatever law and the facts
set forth is not sufficient to justify a right to bring the action.

In the present case, there is no property right that exists in favor of the petitioner and with
more basis; no obligation emerges in behalf of the defendant. There was no infringement of a
legal right of the petitioner.
3. Article 1318 of the Civil code provides for the essential requisites of consensual
contracts of which it states that:
There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
1. Consent of the contracting parties;
2. Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
3. Cause of the obligation which is established
Moreover, the 1st paragraph of article 1319 of the civil code distinctly states that: Consent is
manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which
are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A
qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer.
In the case of Abalos vs. Macatangay, Jr., September 30, 2004 it was held that being essentially
consensual, a contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon
the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. However, ownership of the
thing sold shall not be transferred to the vendee until actual or constructive delivery of the
It is settled that as to the validity of the contract of sale, it is evident that there were
consents of both the contracting parties which they had freely given. The information of its
availability and the offer of 2M pesos price was made on April 2009 of which the defendant was
earnestly interested and willing to buy. It was only then on June 2009 that the deed of sale was
signed by the husband as well as the acceptance of the managers check and eventually, the
transfer of the certificate of title to the name of the defendant.
The offeror may withdraw its offer and revoke the same before acceptance thereof by the
offeree. The contract is perfected only from the time an acceptance of an offer is made known
to the offeror. (Malbarosa v. Court of Appeals, April 30, 2003)
With regards to the plaintiffs argument of having the contract annulled is immaterial
considering that she was not a party in interest to the agreement. The plaintiff, not being the
rightful owner of the property in question has no business to the contract whatsoever and thus,
her approval or rejection is not decisive as to its validity. With this, the complaint should be


With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the defendant, through his counsel believes
that the plaintiff has no cause of action in filing the suit of the annulment of contract based on
the statement that her consent was vital as to its legality.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, defendant respectfully prays to the honorable court
that judgment be rendered in his favor as follows:

1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court dismissing the Complaint for lack
of cause of action;

2. Judgment be rendered upholding the validity of defendants copy of the Deed

of Sale signed by Mr. Geronimo and the Certificate of Title under his name;

3. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the amount of P40,000.00 as

Attorneys Fees and to pay cost suit.

Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

Cagayan de Oro City, October 20, 2014


Counsel for the Defendant


000, Corrales cor. Yacapin Sts.

Pursuant to section 11, rule 13 of Rules of Civil Procedure, Personal service copy of Trial
Memorandum could not be effected except by service through registered mail due to distance
and personnel constraints.


Copy furnished:
Atty. Pedro Ong
Counsel of the Plaintiff
5th floor ABCD Bdlg.,