Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City
JUANA DELA CRUZ,
Defendant-Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. L-12345
or! E"ect#ent
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff-Respondent$
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%
MEMORANDUM
COME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, throu&h the undersi&ned counsel, unto
this 'onorable Supre#e Court #ost respectfully sub#it and present this Me#orandu# in the
above-titled case and aver that!
THE PARTIES
($ Plaintiff-Respondent )ane Doe is of le&al a&e, sin&le, and residin& on (*(* +inoo
,oulevard, Pasay City, -here she #ay be served -ith le&al processes and notices issued by this
'onorable Court.
/$ Defendant-Petitioner )uana Dela Cru0 is of le&al a&e and residin& on (/1 ,inibini Street,
2ue0on City, and #ay be served -ith le&al processes and other "udicial notices thereto$
I. PROCEDURAL BACKROUND
($ On ebruary ((, /**3, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Co#plaint for E"ect#ent dated
ebruary 4, /**3 a&ainst Defendant-Petitioner.
/$ On Dece#ber //, /**3, an 5ns-er dated Dece#ber (6, /**3 -as filed by the Defendant-
Petitioner.
1$ On ebruary 1, /**7, a Decision -as rendered by ,ranch ( of Metropolitan Trial Court
of Pasay City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent.
8$ On 5u&ust 9, /**7, a Motion for Reconsideration filed )uly 6, /**7 by Defendant-
Petitioner throu&h le&al counsel -as denied by )ud&e :oren0o Men0on of ,ranch (* of the
Re&ional Trial Court Pasay City.
6$ On Septe#ber (8, /**7, a Petition for Revie- dated Septe#ber 7, /**7 -as filed to the
Court of 5ppeals by Defendant-Petitioner.
9$ On 5pril /1, /*(*, Plaintiff-Respondent throu&h le&al counsel filed a Co##ent dated
5pril (7, /*(*.
4$ On May (1, /*(*, as per ;erification and Report fro# the )udicial Records Division
<)RD= no Reply -as filed by the Defendant-Petitioner.
3$ On May /(, /*(*, a Resolution -as rendered by the Court of 5ppeals denyin&
Defendant-Petitioner>s Prayer for Te#porary Restrainin& Order <TRO=.
7$ 5ccordin&ly, the 'onorable Court of 5ppeals ordered the parties to sub#it their
respective Me#oranda fifteen <(6= days fro# notice, other-ise re&ardless -hether or not
Me#oranda -ere filed, the petition shall be sub#itted for decision.
'ence, the filin& of the instant Me#orandu#$
II. FACTUAL BACKROUND
(*$ Plaintiff-Respondent see?s that a parcel of land located at (/1 ,inibini Street, Pasay be
returned to her possession, but due to Defendant-Petitioner>s occupancy thereat, the for#er
cannot clai# possession -hich left her -ith the option of residin& at (*(* +inoo ,oulevard,
Pasay City$ @t is note-orthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent is the re&istered o-ner of the land
sub"ect under TCT Ao$ (/186 of the Re&istry of Deeds of Pasay City$ The property -as sold to
the# by the no- deceased ori&inal o-ners, Spouses Marcelo and Marcela del Pilar.
(($ Defendant-Petitioner, on the other hand, is an alle&ed lessee of the ori&inal o-ners of the
land since Septe#ber (766$ They had repeatedly assailed the verbal contract of lease for #ore
than 6* years.
(/$ Plaintiff-Respondent -as not able to clai# i##ediately the land for it -as previously
sub"ect to a pendin& le&al proceedin& and that there -as still no ur&ent necessity of usin& and
occupyin& it$ Bhen the event ca#e that Plaintiff-Respondent -as able to enforce her ri&ht over
the land, Defendant-Petitioner, despite earnest and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff-Respondent
still refused to vacate the land$ This led her to see? help fro# the ,aran&ay officials for
#ediation andCor conciliation in accordance -ith la-$ 'o-ever, the Defendant-Petitioner still
persistently occupied the land -ithout heed to the serious and constant de#and of the Plaintiff-
Respondent -hich rendered it unattainable to reach an a&ree#ent.
(1$ Due to the fore&oin& failure to clai# the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusal
of the Defendant-Petitioner, Plaintiff-Respondent -as co#pelled to hire the services of a le&al
counsel to co##ence the enforce#ent of e"ection under the -in&s of the courts of la-$
III. ISSUES OF THE CASE
A.! WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED
CORRECTL" IN DECIDIN THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE
BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD
RAISED IN DEFENSE THE LESSEE#S RIHTS UNDER P.D. 151$, P.D. 2%1&,
APD 1-12 ' PASA" CIT"(
B.! WHETHER OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THE
BONA FIDE LESSEE#S RIHT TO AVAIL THE PRIVILEES AND BENEFITS
PROVIDED B" SECTION & OF P.D. 151$(
C.! WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMININ THE COVERAE OF AREAS FOR
PRIORIT" 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 B" METES AND BOUNDS AS
INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF.
IV. ARUMENTS
A.! T*+ ,-./0 ,-11200+3 4- +//-/ 24 3+,23245 0*60 64 .47689.7 3+0624+/ 6,02-4 :+
+49-/,+3 .;-4 *+/+24 D+9+43640-P+0202-4+/ 3+<;20+ 0*+ 6<<627+3 ,-40+402-4 -9 0*+
9-/1+/ .43+/ P.D. 151$ 643 P.D. 2%1&.
B.! T*+/+ 2< 4- :6/ 24 0*2< 24<0640 ,6<+ 9-/ 64 .47689.7 3+0624+/ 0- 6=627 0*+ :+4+920< 643
;/2=27+5+< ;/-=23+3 :> S+,02-4 & P.D. 151$ ;/-=23+3 20 2< 6;;72,6:7+.
C.! T*+ 3+0+/124602-4 -9 0*+ <,-;+ 643 72120602-4 -9 A/+6< 9-/ P/2-/20> D+=+7-;1+40
<*677 :+ :6<+3 -4 0*+ 72<0 -9 <;+,292, 6/+6< ;/+<,/2:+3 :> 0*+ ;/-,761602-4.
V. DISCUSSION
A.! @t is necessary to e#phasi0e that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide o-ner of the
parcel of land located at (/1 ,inibini Street, Pasay City under TCT Ao, (/186 of the Re&ister of
Deeds of Pasay City$ @n the Philippines, the presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real
property is a conclusive evidence of o-nership of the person -hose na#e the certificate of title is
entitled to$
Under Section 84 of the :and Re&istration 5ct, or 5ct Ao$ 879, it provides that Dthe ori&inal
certificates in the re&istration boo?, any copy thereof duly certified under the si&nature of the
cler?, or of the re&ister of deeds of the province or city -here the land is situated, and the seal of
the court, and also the o-ner>s duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the courts
of the Philippine @slands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein e%cept so far
as other-ise provided in this 5ct$E
Reco&ni0ed "urisprudence also uphold the si&nificance of a certificate of title in provin& valid
o-nership of a land$ @n the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel, the
ponente cited t-o cases -hich hi&hli&ht the si&nificance of a valid certificate of title in clai#in&
o-nership over a land$ @t -as held that DFin the recent case of Umpoc v. Mercado, the Court
declared that the trial court did not err in &ivin& #ore probative -ei&ht to the TCT in the na#e of
the decedent vis--vis the contested unre&istered Deed of Sale$ :ater in Arambulo v. Gungab, the
Court held that the re&istered o-ner is preferred to possess the property sub"ect of the unla-ful
detainer case$ The a&e-old rule is that the person -ho has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof$E
The rulin& of Di0on v$ Court of 5ppeals -as also used as basis for this ar&u#ent$ @t -as
stated that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of o-nership and the Guestionability of the
title is i##aterial in an e"ect#ent suit$ uther#ore, 5rticle 8/3 of the Ae- Civil Code
enu#erates the ri&hts of an o-ner$ DThe o-ner has the ri&ht to en"oy and dispose of a thin&,
-ithout other li#itations other than those established by la-$ The owner has right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.E
@t is indubitable that the certificate of title of (/1 ,inibini Street, Pasay City under TCT Ao$
(/186 -hich is re&istered in the Re&ister of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent
the ri&ht to e%ercise the afore#entioned ri&hts, specifically, in this instant case, the ri&ht of action
a&ainst the holder and possessor of the thin& in order to recover the land$
The contention of the Defendant-Petitioner that the verbal lease a&ree#ent they had #ade
-ith the no- deceased ori&inal o-ners Marcelo and Marcela Del Pilar for over 6* years shall
entitle the# to the privile&es under P$D$ (6(4 and P$D$ /*(9 <5nne% D5E and D,E, respectively=
is untenable$ @t is e%pressly stated that Section 9 of P$D$ (6(4 &rants lessees the ri&ht of first
refusal before they #ay be e"ected fro# a land, but this is only feasible under certain conditions$
@t is an indispensable Gualification that the land is included in the list of 5reas for Priority
Develop#ent <5PD= before an o-ner can be &ranted of the ri&ht of first refusal$ The land sub"ect
of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enu#erated in the list of 5PD$ To reiterate
the Court of 5ppeals decision in C5-+$R$ Ao$ C; (/186! D@nsofar as the property in liti&ation,
appellant )ane Doe is, conseGuently, correct in ob"ectin& to appellee>s e%ercise of the ri&ht of first
refusal &ranted under Section 9 of Presidential Decree Ao$ (6(4$ The fact that it is not included
in the areas for priority develop#ent specifically identified under Procla#ation Ao$ (794
indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annul#ent of sale, reconveyance, and
preli#inary in"unction a&ainst appellants$E
B.! The Plaintiff-Respondent>s ar&u#ent in this issue is inti#ately connected -ith the
precedin& ar&u#ent$ Defendant-Petitioner vi&orously assails that there is no bar to the
availability of the privile&es and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee -henever there is an
unla-ful detainer action$ @t is ho-ever true$ ,ut this is sub"ect to circu#stances that #ay Gualify
a lessee to the privile&es and benefits under Section 9 of P$D$ Ao$ (6(9 such as the ri&ht of first
refusal$ Unfortunately, the land possessed by the Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under the
a#bit of Section 9 of P$D$ Ao$ (6(4$ Therefore, the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action
in this issue$
C.! The third issue Guestions the covera&e of the 5PD prescribed by the procla#ation,
-hether or not it refers to the list of streets sub"ect to the Honal Develop#ent or to the areas
included in the delineation of the #etes and bounds indicated$
Reiteration is therefore necessary to lay e#phasis on the decision of the Court of 5ppeals
that in the :ist of 5reas for Priority Develop#ent <5PD>s=, labeled as the South Sector of Pasay
City, the area for priority develop#ent -as defined as Tra#o :ines alon& ,aran&ays San @sidro,
San RoGue, and Santa Clara$ @t -as thereafter specifically enu#erated the list of covered sub-
areas <please refer to 5nne% DCE for dia&ra#= -hich are the follo-in&! (= $ ;ictor, /= ;entanilla
Street, c= )uan :una Street, d= D$ )or&e Street, e= ;iscarra Street, f= Conchita Street, &= Dolores
Street, h= :eonardo Street, i= 5lvare0 Street, "= ,asilio Street, ?= Rodri&ue0 Street, and i= ;illa
,arbara$ DThere is conseGuently no &ainsayin& the fact that -ith its ,inibini Street location, the
property in liti&ation is not included a#on& the sites identified as 5reas for Priority Develop#ent
in Pasay City$EThe #ere fact that the list does not include ,inibini Street necessarily i#plies that
it is dee#ed e%cluded fro# it$
Citin& Solanada Enterprises v$ Court of 5ppeals, it #ade a profound analysis of Section 9 of
P$D$ (6(4 <as found in 5nne% D5E of this Me#orandu#= based on statutory construction!
DBe a&ree$ 5 close readin& of Procla#ation Ao$ (794 reveals that, before a pree#ptive
ri&ht can be e%ercised, the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be both an
5PD and a U:RH$
5n urban tenantIs ri&ht of first refusal is set forth in Section 9, PD (6(4, as follo-s!
Sec$ 9$ and Tenanc! in Urban and "eform Areas$ Bithin the Urban
HonesJ,K le&iti#ate tenants -ho have resided on the land for ten years or #ore
J,K -ho have built their ho#es on the landJ,K and residents -ho have le&ally
occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not be
dispossessed of the land and shall be allo-ed the ri&ht of first refusal to
purchase the sa#e -ithin a reasonable ti#e and at reasonable prices, under
ter#s and conditions to be deter#ined by the Urban Hone E%propriation and
:and Mana&e#ent Co##ittee created by Section 3 of this Decree$
Procla#ation Ao$ (794 further deli#ited the areas or 0ones -herein this pree#ptive ri&ht
could be availed of vi#$!
B'ERE5S, Procla#ation Ao$ (371 -as issued on (( Septe#ber (747, pursuant
to Section 8 of P$D$ Ao$ (6(4, declarin& the entire Metropolitan Manila area as
Urban :and Refor# Hone$
B'ERE5S, @t is no- necessary and appropriate to identify specific sites covered
by urban land refor# in Metropolitan Manila for purposes of #a?in& specific the
applicability of P$D$ Aos$ (6(4, (98* and (98/ and of :O@ Ao$ 716$
AOB, T'EREORE, @, ERD@A5AD E$ M5RCOS, President of the
Philippines, by virtue of the po-ers vested in #e by the Constitution and e%istin&
la-s, and in relation to Procla#ation Ao$ (371 declarin& the entire Metropolitan
Manila area as an Urban :and Refor# Hone, and :O@ 716, hereby a#end
Procla#ation Ao$ (371 by declarin& /88 sites in Metropolitan Manila as 5reas for
Priority Develop#ent and Urban :and Refor# Hones as described in the attached
anne%$
DThe provisions of P$D$ Aos$ (6(4, (98* and (98/ and of :O@ Ao$ 716 shall apply
only to the aboveJ-K#entioned 5reas of Priority Develop#ent and Urban :and
Refor# Hones$
%%% %%% %%%E
The aforecited whereas clauses e%press a clear intent to li#it the operation of PD
(6(4 to specific areas declared to be located in both an 5PD and a U:RH$ The
con"unctive and in the last sentence of the Guoted provision confir#s this
intention$ And in statutory construction i#plies con"unction, "oinder or union$

5s
understood fro# the co##on and usual #eanin& of the con"unction and$ the provisions
of PD (6(4 apply only to areas declared to be located -ithin both an 5PD and a
U:RH$E
Bith the fore&oin& reco&ni0ed "urisprudence said, the Defendant-Petitioner>s action -ould
necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action$
PRA"ER
WHEREFORE, pre#ise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this 'onorable
Supre#e Court that Defendant-Petitioner>s prayer for -rit of in"unction be DENIED for havin&
no cause of action and the petition DISMISSED for bein& clearly un#eritorious$
Other "ust and eGuitable relief under the fore&oin& are li?e-ise bein& prayed for$
Respectfully sub#itted$
Ma?ati City for Manila City, Philippines$ 5pril 3, /*(($
AZURIN BUHAIN BONTU"AN AND ARICA"OS LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent
(*
th
loor, Ae- ,uildin&,
Ma?ati 5venue, Ma?ati City
,y!
ATT". PAOLO COELHO
@,P :ifeti#e Ao$ 9437(. 6C(*C/**6
PTR Ao$ 88693. (C(*C/*((
Roll of 5ttorney Ao$ /**6-**(*/1
MC:E Co#pliance Ao$ @@@ L ***377
Copy urnished!
ATT". JEFFRE" A. ARCHER
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit (/**, Tall ,uildin& Condo#iniu#,
Espana, Manila