Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appellees Brief CIVIL
Appellees Brief CIVIL
Gaviola LEGFORMS 3B
PATRICIA VILLANUEVA
Plaintiff-Appellee
-versus-
1
SUBJECT INDEX
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS/GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL _____
ARGUMENTS
RELIEF _____
AUTHORITIES CITED
1. Statute
2. Jurisprudence
2
Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
PATRICIA VILLANUEVA
Plaintiff-Appellee,
APPELLEE’S BRIEF
Plaintiff-Appellee, PATRICIA VILLANUEVA, by undersigned counsel and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully submits that:
2. On 11 August 2006, Summons for Preliminary Conference dated 29 July 2006 was
received by Plaintiff-Appellee. The preliminary conference was calendared on 9 September 2006
at 10:30 in the morning, in the Municipal Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12. On the same day, the
Presiding Judge referred the case for mediation proceedings and ordered the parties to appear
before the Philippine Mediation Center Unit in the GSIS Compound, Ermita, Manila on 27
September 2006. The said office, however, returned the case to the Honorable Court without the
parties arriving at an amicable settlement.
3. On 16 June 2007, Plaintiff-Appellee received the Order of the Honorable Court dated
30 May 2006 requiring the parties to file their respective position papers, affidavits and evidence
marked ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
4. On 25 June 2007, Appellee’s Position Paper was filed and was duly received by the
Honorable Court on the same day and was delivered to Defendant-Appellant’s counsel by
registered mail..
3
5. On 25 July 2007, the Honorable Court issued the Decision in favor of Plaintiff-
Appellee, the dispositive part of which states:
1. The sum of P5,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the subject premises starting January 2005 until she
surrenders its possession to the plaintiff; and
2. The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. That in early 2001, Plaintiff-Appellee’s aunt, Rona Caritos, visited the Defendant-
Appellant in his house. At that time, Defendant-Appellant, who was a good friend of Appellee’s
aunt, approached the latter and asked help in looking for a buyer to his house. According to
Defendant-Appellant, he was planning to dispose of all his properties in the Philippines as he was
planning to move to Batangas and live with his sister, Bibiana Ang.
4
Appellant had a wife and several minor children, she acquiesced to such request upon the
condition that reasonable monthly rentals be paid for such occupancy.
5. From the time of the signing of the alleged “Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase”
on 3 July 2001 up to the present, Defendant-Appellant has remained in possession of the property,
however, only because of the tolerance and goodness of Plaintiff-Appellee.
10. However, Defendant-Appellant suddenly stopped paying his monthly dues and
refused to meet or talk to Plaintiff-Appellee.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. The Honorable Court erred in holding that the issue of ownership is linked with
possession thereby allowing the lower court to receive evidence on possession to determine the
nature of possession.
II. The Honorable Court erred in holding that the contract is an Equitable Mortgage.
In Refugia v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 118284, 15 July 1996], we ruled that the lower
court:
“…cannot, however, resolve the issue of ownership, that is, by declaring who
among the parties is the true and lawful owner of the subject property, because the
5
resolution of the said issue would effect an adjudication on ownership which is not
sanctioned in the summary action for unlawful detainer.”.
Thus, adjudication on owneship is not the proper subject of an unlawful detainer case.
Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines a “sale” as a “contract whereby one of the
contracting parties obligated himself to transfer ownership of, and to deliver, a determinate thing;
and the other party obligates himself to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent:.
In Coronel vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 103577, 7 October 1996] enumerates the essential
elements of a valid contract of sale: (1) Consent or meting of the minds to transfer ownership in
exchange for the price; (2) Determinate or determinable Subject Matter; (3) Price certain in
money or its equivalent. All such elements are present in this case. Thus, a perfected contract of
sale arose. The Defendant-Appellant simply loaned Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P250,000.00) from the Plaintiff-Appellant with the understanding that such amount shall be
secured by a mortgage on her property in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee.
A careful examination of the facts of the case would reveal that the possession by
Defendant-Appellant of the property is merely by the tolerance of the owner. The rule, as stated
in the case of Arcal vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 127850, 26 January 1998] is that a person
who occupies a land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand,
failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. careful
evaluation of the same
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court that the
Decision dated 25 July 2007 of the court a quo reinstated.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
6
BUENSENCO & BALUYOT LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
110 Zobel Street, Makati City
By:
Copy Furnished:
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Undersigned counsel informs this Honorable Court that this Memorandum of Appeal was
furnished and filed by registered mail due to lack of messengerial services.