Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

JUANA DELA CRUZ,

Defendant-Petitioner,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. L-
12345
For: Ejectment
JANE DOE,
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 above-titled case and aver that:

THE PARTIES

1.Plaintiff-Respondent Jane Doe is of legal age, single, and

r e s i d i n g o n 1 0 1 0 G i n o o Boulevard, Pasay City, where she may be served with
legal processes and notices issued by thisHonorable 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. O n D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , a n A n s w e r d a t e d D e c e m b e r
1 5 , 2 0 0 8 w a s f i l e d b y t h e 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. O n A u g u s t 6 , 2 0 0 9 , a M o t i o n f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f i l e d J u l y
5, 2009 by Defendant -Petitioner through legal counsel was
d e n i e d b y J u d g e L o r e n z o M e n z o n o f B r a n c h 1 0 o f t h e 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

10. Plaintiff-Respondent seeks that a parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street,
Pasay bereturned to her possession, but due to Defendant-Petitioner’s
occupancy thereat, the former cannot claim 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 landsubject
under TCT No. 12345 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. The property was
sold tothem by the now deceased original owners, Spouses Marcelo and
Marcela del Pilar;

11. Defendant-Petitioner, 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-Respondents
till 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 without heed to
the serious and constant demand of the Plaintiff-Respondent 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-Respondent was
compelled to hire the services of a legal counsel to commence the enforcement
of ejection under the wings of the courts of law.
 III. ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) 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 HADRAISED IN
DEFENSE THE LESSEE’S RIGHTS UNDER P.D. 1517, P.D. 2016,APD 1-12 –
PASAY CITY;

B.) WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THEBONA

FIDE LESSEE’S RIGHT TO AVAIL THE PRIVILEGES AND
BENEFITSPROVIDED 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 THELIST OF THE STREETS SUBJECT TO THE ZONAL
DEVELOPMENT ANDNOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE
DELINEATION BY METES ANDBOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE
PROCLAMATION ITSELF.

IV.ARGUMENTS

A.) The court committed no error in deciding that an unlawful detainer

action beenforced upon herein Defendant-Petitioner despite the assailed contention
of theformer under P.D. 1517 and P.D. 2016.

B.)There is no bar in this instant case for an unlawful detainer to avail the benefits
andprivileges provided by Section 6 P.D. 1517 provided it is applicable.

C.)The determination of the scope and limitation of Areas for Priority

Developmentshall be based on the list of specific areas prescribed by the proclamation.

V.DISCUSSION

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 valid certificate of title of the
real property is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name
the certificate of title isentitled to.Under Section 47 of the Land Registration
Act, or Act No. 496, it provides that “the originalcertificates in the
registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature
of theclerk, 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 as evidence in all the courtsof the Philippine Islands and shall
be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far as otherwise
 provided in this Act.”Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of
a certificate of title in proving valid o w n e r s h i p o f a l a n d . I n t h e
d e c i s i o n o f t h e c a s e o f Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel ,
t h e 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 v. 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 v. Gungab, the Court held that the registered owner is
preferred to possess the property subject 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.”The ruling of Dizon v. Court of Appeals was also
used as basis for this argument. It was stated that a certificate of title is
conclusive evidence of ownership and the questionability of thet i t l e i s
immaterial in an ejectment suit. Futhermore, Article
4 2 8 o f t h e N e w C i v i l C o d e enumerates the rights of an owner.
“The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,without
other limitations other than those established by law. T h e o w n e r
h a s r i g h t o f a c t i o n against the holder and possessor of the thing in order
to recover it.

”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
entitles Petitioner-Respondent the right to exercise the aforementioned rights,
specifically, in this instant case, the right of action against the holder and
possessor of the thing in order to recover the land.

In the Philippines, 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. Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or
Act No. 496, it provides that “the original certificates in the registration book,
any copy thereof duly certified 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 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.”Recognized
jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid
ownership of a land.

I n t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e c a s e o f Spouses Pascual v. Spouses

Coronel, t h e 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 v. Mercado, the Courtdeclared 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 v. Gungab, the
Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject 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. ”The ruling of Dizon v. Court of
Appeals was also used as basis for this argument. 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
4 2 8 o f t h e N e w C i v i l C o d e enumerates the rights of an owner. “The
owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,without other
limitations other than those established by law.

T h e o w n e r h a s r i g h t o f a c t i o n against the holder and possessor of the thing

in order to recover it.
”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 entitles
Petitioner-Respondentthe right to exercise the aforementioned rights,
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 -Petitioner that the verbal lease
agreement they had madewith 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
firstrefusal before they may be ejected from a land, but this is only feasible under
certain conditions.I t i s a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e l a n d i s
i n c l u d e d i n t h e l i s t o f A r e a s f o r P r i o r i t y Development (APD) before an
owner can be granted of the right of first refusal. The land subjecto f t h i s c a s e i s
clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of
A P D . T o reiterate the Court of Appeals decision in CA -G.R. No. CV 12345:
“Insofar as the property inlitigation, appellant Jane Doe is, consequently, correct
in objecting to appellee’s exercise of theright of first refusal granted under Section 6
of Presidential Decree No. 1517. The fact that it isnot included in the areas for priority
development specifically identified under Proclamation No.1967 indicates that
appellee have no cause of action for annulment of sale, reconveyan ce,
and preliminary injunction against appellants.”
B.)
The Plaintiff-Respondent’s argument in this issue is intimately
connected with the p r e c e d i n g a r g u m e n t . D e f e n d a n t - P e t i t i o n e r
v i g o r o u s l y a s s a i l s t h a t t h e r e i s n o b a r t o t h e availability of the
privileges and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee whenever there is
anunlawful 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 firstrefusal. 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 actionin this issue.
C.)
The third issue questions the coverage of the APD prescribed by
t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n , whether or not it refers to the list of streets subject to
the Zonal Development or to the areasincluded in the delineation of the metes
and bounds indicated.Reiteration is therefore necessary to lay emphasis on
the decision of the Court of Appealsthat in the List of Areas for Priority
Development (APD’s), labeled as the South Sector of PasayCity, 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-a r e a s ( p l e a s e r e f e r t o A n n e x “ C ” f o r d i a g r a m )
w h i c h a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1 ) F . V i c t o r , 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 PriorityDevelopment in Pasay City.”The
m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e l i s t d o e s n o t i n c l u d e B i n i b i n i S t r e e t 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
preemptiveright can be exercised, the disputed land should be situated in an area
declared to be both anAPD and a ULRZ.An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set
forth in Section 6, PD 1517, as follows:S e c . 6 .

Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas

W i t h i n t h e U r b a n 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 andLand
Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree.Proclamation No. 1967
further delimited the areas or zones wherein this preemptive rightcould be availed of
viz
.:

Continue with the arguments

With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, the Defendant -

Petitioner’s action wouldnecessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, p r e m i s e c o n s i d e r e d , i t r e s p e c t f u l l y p r a y e d f o r t h a t
t h i s H o n o r a b l e Supreme Court that Defendant-Petitioner’s prayer for writ of
injunction be
DENIED for havingno 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-Respondent10
10th Floor, New Building,Makati Avenue, Makati City

By:

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011Roll of Attorney No.
2005-001023MCLE Compliance No. III – 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER

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