Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appelle,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. L-12345

For: Ejectment

LEONARD VOLE,
Accused-Appellant.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW ACCUSED-APPELANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and 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 she may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this
Honorable Court;

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 thereto.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On February 11, 2008, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment dated
February 7, 2008 against Defendant-Petitioner;

2. On December 22, 2008, an Answer dated December 15, 2008 was filed by the Defendant-
Petitioner;

3. On February 3, 2009, a Decision was rendered by Branch 1 of Metropolitan Trial Court

of Pasay City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent;

4. On August 6, 2009, a Motion for Reconsideration filed July 5, 2009 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;
 6. On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff-Respondent through legal 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-Petitioner;

8. On May 21, 2010, a Resolution was rendered by the Court of Appeals denying
Defendant-Petitioner’s Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO);

9. Accordingly, the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit their
respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise regardless whether or not
Memoranda were filed, the petition shall be submitted for decision;

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Accused-Appellant is charged for the murder of widow named Mrs. Emily French on the
14th day of October. Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty.
2. Accused-Apellant made the acquaintance of

III. ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO HAVE ALLOWED ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S
WIFE TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIM.

B.) 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. 1517;

C.) WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD), 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.

IV. ARGUMENTS

A.) The court committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing Christine Vole, wife of
accused-appellant Leonard Vole as provided by Sec. 22 of Rule 130.

B.) There is no bar in this instant case for an unlawful detainer to avail the benefits and
privileges provided by Section 6 P.D. 1517 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. DISCUSSION
 A.) The first issue pertains to Sec. 22, of Rule 130 providing that
“Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants. (20a)”||| (Revised Rules on Evidence (Rules 128-134),
Bar Matter No. 411, [July 1, 1989])
The prosecution assail that there is no bar to let Christine Vole to testify against. Accused-
Appellant as she was already married prior to her second marriage to the Accused-Appellant
making the latter marriage void. However, the Court shall take notice of the fact that
Accused-Appellant is not aware of the subsisting marriage of his wife. She disposed herself
as a single woman and agreed to marry Accused-Appellant to enable her to flee her country
during war. He in fact just learned of it during the trial itself that their marriage is void.
Christine Vole, in bad faith acted as if she was a single woman, married the Accused-
Appellant with the latter believing in good faith that she is his lawfully wedded wife. Rules
of court being a procedural right, bla bla bla bakit siya pwede kasi

B.) The Plaintiff-Respondent’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 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,
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.

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 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 6 of

P.D. 1517 (as found in Annex “A” of this Memorandum) based on statutory construction:

“We agree. A close reading of Proclamation No. 1967 reveals that, before a preemptive
right can be exercised, the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be both an
APD and a ULRZ.

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. Within the Urban
Zones[,] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more
[,] who have built their homes on the land[,] and residents who have 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 and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and
Land Management 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.:

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

by urban land reform in Metropolitan Manila for purposes of making specific the
applicability of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 935.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by 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. 1893 by declaring 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as Areas for
Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones as described in the attached
annex.

“The provisions of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 935 shall apply
only to the above[-]mentioned Areas of Priority Development and Urban Land
Reform Zones.

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. 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.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, 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.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. April 8, 2011.

AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES

Counsel for 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. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III – 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
Espana, Manila