Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION

JUANA DELA CRUZ Represented by her attorney-in-fact Atty. Jeffrey A. Archer Petitioner,

-versus-

C.A.G.R.SP No. For: Ejectment

JANE DOE Respondent,

X-------------------------------------------------------X MEMORANDUM

COME NOW PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Memorandum in the above-entitled case and aver that: PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is a Petition for Review pursuant to Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court assailing the decision rendered by the Hon. Judge Lorenzo Menzon of the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 of Pasay City dated June 29,2009 where the dispositive portion of which reads and quotes: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 of Pasay City is hereby affirmed in toto So ordered. and an order made in August 6, 2009 denying the Motion for Reconsideration made by the petitioner where the dispositive portion reads of which reads and quotes: WHEREFORE, for lack of merit-defendant-appellants Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied The plaintiff, now the respondent, files against the defendant, now the petitioner, an action of Unlawful Detainer. The respondent wherein claims that she is the titled owner of the said parcel of land being leased by the petitioner and prays that the petitioner be ejected from the said property of the respondent. The petitioner, in answering the complaint, maintained that she cant be ejected invoking P.D.1517, P.D. 2016, APD 1-12 Pasay City and other related laws which grants statutory rights to bona fide tenants to acquire the said property through purchase of the said property in question. The petitioner is willing and able to buy the said property.

The Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 of Pasay City has decided the case in favor of the ownership of the property which was evidently unprocedural considering that in an action of unlawful detainer, only issue of possession de facto can be raised and ignoring the said Presidential Decrees, Proclamations and Issuances which take part of the law of the land. This decision a quo made by the Metropolitan Trial Court and affirmed by the Regional Trial Court in toto which ought to be reversed or modified

THE PARTIES

1. The Petitioner Juana Dela Cruz (herein referred to as the Petitioner), is of legal age, widow and with residence and postal address at 123 Binibini St., Pasay City where she can be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court; 2. The Respondent Jane Doe (herein referred to as the Respondent), is of legal age, single and with postal address at 1010 Ginoo Blvd., Pasay City;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The petitioner entered into an oral contract of lease with the original owners of the said parcel of land, the late spouses Marcela and Marcelo Del Pilar (herein referred to as the SPS. Del Pilar and/or spouses), the size of which is a 65 square meters and located at 123 Binibini St., Pasay City; 2. In line with the lease agreement, the petitioner constructed their house and continued to reside therein up to the present; 3. From the day they started to lease the said land, the petitioner never defaulted in the payment of the agreed monthly rentals; 4. On February 18, 1995, unknown from the petitioner the respondent has bought to the said property from the spouses and the respondent has titled it on her own name; 5. Thereafter, the respondent has taken her own steps to eject the petitioners from the said property until finally, she filed an action of unlawful detainer against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 of Pasay City;

STATEMENT OF THE CASES

1. On February 12, 2008, the respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment against the Appellee at the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 of Pasay City1; 2. On December 22, 2008, the petitioner filed a Position Paper;

3. On February 2, 2009, the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 of Pasay City decided in favor of the respondent2;

1 2

See Annex A See Annex B

4. On February 20, 2009 , the petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 of Pasay City 5. On June 29, 2009, the Hon. Judge Lorenzo Menzon of the Regional Trial Court Branch 10 of Pasay City affirmed in toto the judgment rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court3; 6. On July 5, 2009, a Motion for Reconsideration is filed by the petitioner thru his counsel praying that the decision rendered on June 29,2009 be set aside and another rendered for the Appellee; 7. On August 6, 2009, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City has denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner; thus, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for review; 8. Appeals; On September 4, 2009, the petitioner file a Petition for Review to the Court of

9. On May 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals order both parties to submit their memoranda within 15 days

Hence, the filing of this memorandum

Issues

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD RAISED IN DEFENSE THE LESSEES RIGHT UNDER P.D.1517, P.D.2016 AND APD 1-12 PASAY CITY WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THE BONAFIDE LESSEES RIGHT TO AVAIL OF THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SECTION 6 OF P.D. 1517 WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD), REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF STREETS SUBJECT TO ZONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION BY METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF. WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACT OF THE PETITIONER OF INSTITUTING A COMPLAINT TO THE HOUSE AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB) CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Arguments WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD RAISED IN DEFENSE THE LESSEES RIGHT UNDER P.D.1517, P.D.2016 AND APD 1-12 PASAY CITY
3

See Annex C

Under the Rule 70 of Rules of Court, an action for Unlawful Detention resolves only the issue of possession de facto even if the evidence of ownership may be referred to or considered only to determine its possession. This is, if the defendant, now the petitioner, is unlawfully withholding possession of the said property or the refusal of the petitioner is unlawful as held by the Supreme Court in Huibonhoa v. Court of Appeals, GR. 95897, Dec. 14, 1997. In our present case, the possession of the petitioner is lawful and even her refusal to vacate the said property is also lawful. Since the petitioner has been lawfully leasing the said property to the original owners, the Sps. Del Pilar, it clearly presents us a situation wherein the petitioner is lawfully in possession of the said property and justifies her refusal to vacate the same property. Furthermore, although the contract between the original owners and the petitioners, the respondent were not able to overthrow the counterclaim of the petitioner which was overlooked by the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court when she resolved the case in favor of the respondents. In her disquisition, the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court said and quotes: After the thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, the court believes that the defendants can be lawfully ejected from the subject premises. Clearly, the plaintiff is the registered owner of the property on question as evidenced by the Transfer Certificate of the Title Number 12345. Such being the case and as an exercise of ownership the plaintiff can lawfully take possession of the property (pars. 1 & 2 pp.2 Decision 2-3-09)4 the pronouncement made by the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court humbly submits that it is not in conformity with the rules governing ejectment cases which concerns itself solely with the issue of possession . In fact, ownership was never raised as an issue in this case. In refusing to vacate the property, petitioner invokes her statutory rights found under the Section 6 of P.D. 1517 which provides the property in question to be purchased by a qualified lessee. The petitioners lease period and in fact that her oral contract with the original owners of the land makes her the legal tenant thereof. Also, under P.D. 2016, prevents her eviction when the entire Barangay San Roque where Binibini Street is located an area of priority development. Furthermore, the issuance of the decree is used to prevent urban landowners from ejecting the tenants in violation of P.D. 1517 and other related laws which are intended to develop such slum areas in the Metro Manila Since such decree and issuances became part of the land, the petitioners claim and evidence relating to such decrees and issuances should have been appropriate and laudible for the trial judge to consider it and not hastily decide the case because the respondent is the titled owner of the said property.

WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THE BONAFIDE LESSEES RIGHT TO AVAIL OF THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY SECTION 6 OF P.D. 1517 When the Honorable Judge Lorenzo Menzon, affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, he invoked the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Five Star Marketing, Co., Inc. v. Booc (535 SCRA 28) which reads and quotes: The avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have been made summary in
4

See Annex B

nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of the property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measureof self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. (par. 2 pp 2. Decision 6-29-09)5 In the present case, the evil sought to be prevented in the said Five Star case6 is not present. First of all, the petitioner is no illegally in possession of the said property as indicated in the previous agreement made by the petitioner for she was the lessee of the original owners of the said land, the Sps. Del Pilar. Furthermore, her resistance to vacate the premises is that she availed her right granted under PD1517 on which the avowed policies are laid down under its preamble to wit: WHEREAS, it is declared objective of the New Society to effect social, economic and political reforms attuned to the establishment of a secure national community and to an improved quality of life for all citizens and for all others who may sojourn our shores; WHEREAS, the quality of human life in our times is inescapably determined by the relationship among population, resources, the environment, and intelligent policies; WHEREAS, human settlement is an integrative concept embracing the interdependence of man's environment, human shelters and structures, and the design and organization of human communities consistent with a national framework plan, all for the people's security and well-being. WHEREAS, land is the ultimate platform of all man's activities, and the crucial factor in determining the shape of human settlements; WHEREAS, the basic law of the land explicitly provides for the regulation of the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property and for the equitable diffusion of property ownership and profits which includes land and land resources; WHEREAS, the traditional concept of landownership has aggravated the problem arising from urbanization such as the proliferation of blighted areas and the worsening of the plight of the urban poor and has spawned valid and legitimate grievances in urban centers giving rise to social tension and violent conflicts; WHEREAS, a social reform objective of the New Society is to renew blighted areas, improve the conditions of the
5 6

See Annex C See 535 SCRA 28

urban poor and resolve and redress legitimate grievances arising therefrom, while at the same providing incentives to progressive landowners and developers who wish to develop their lands in accordance with government plans and programs responsive to community welfare;7 The then late President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation 1967 as amended by Proclamation No. 2284 to ensure a meaningful realization of the said policies therein in PD 1517. Furthermore, PD 2016 was also issued to prevent the Circumvention of the Urban Reform Law by the heartless landowners. From the avowed principles of the said laws, courts should not render these laws nugatory but instead to decide to effectively implement these laws for the benefit of the slum dwellers. In PD 2016, the equitable diffusion of property ownership of land and land resources is the primary reason why in such Presidential Decree prohibits the ejectment of the qualified tenants residing in areas for priority development. Furthermore, such reason is one of the paramount objectives of the Urban Reform Law which in turn, cannot be rendered nugatory by the avowed objective of the action for Unlawful Detainer which had been made summary in character WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT (APD), REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF STREETS SUBJECT TO ZONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION BY METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF. The property in question where the petitioner built her house more than 60 years ago is located at Binibini Street Barangay San Roque, Pasay City. APD 1-12 covers a large portion of Pasay City bounded on the North by the Manila-Pasay boundary; on the East, by Tripa de Gallena somewhere near M. dela Cruz; on the South by EDSA and on the West by ZamoraBurgos Streets. The following Barangays are included in the APD 1-12 are the following: San Isidiro, San Roque and Sta. Clara. Some streets are also listed within the whole area proclaimed as subject to zonal development. Binibini Street wherein the property is located is located at Barangay San Roque. Although the said street is not included in the list as an area for priority development but considering that the entire Barangay San Roque is covered by the proclamation as blighted area and subject to priority zonal development Binibini Street is necessarily included. It would be absurd that not to include a street and the whole Barangay is put as a part of the areas for priority development.

See Annex D

Prayer

WHEREFORE, in consideration of all the foregoing, the petitioner respectfully prays that the Honorable Court of Appeals reverse or modify the decision of the Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 1 of Pasay City dated June 29, 2009 and the order of the Honorable Regional Trial Court Branch 10 of Pasay City dated August 6, 2009.Furthermore, a new order be rendered declaring the areas in Binibini Street be subject to APD 1-12 Pasay City as areas of priority development and petitioner be entitled to the benefits and privileges provided under Sec 6 of P.D. 1517 It is further prayed that the alleged sale of the said parcel of land of the Spouses Marcela and Marcelo Del Pilar to the respondent, Jane Doe, on February 18, 1991 be declared null and void due to the violation of the Urban Reform Law Finally, other reliefs that are just and equitable under the present circumstances are likewise prayed for. Respectfully submitted Manila, Philippines, this 28th day of May 2010

DE GUZMAN TUGELIDA DE CASTRO AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for Petitioner Address: Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium, Espana, Manila By: Atty. Jeffrey A. Archer IBP Lifetime No. 12345; 5/10/2005 PTR No. 777654; 1/10/2011 Roll of Attorney No. 2005-006341 MCLE Compliance No. III 000897