Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal Memorandum - Ejectment2
Legal Memorandum - Ejectment2
Legal Memorandum - Ejectment2
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 See Annex A
2 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. On September 4, 2009, the petitioner file a Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals;
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
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
3 See Annex C
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
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
4 See Annex B
5 See Annex C
6 See 535 SCRA 28
7 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