Introduction

After determining the issues that arise from the particular case, it is essential for us to incorporate the
arguments as part of the writing stage. With this, we need to provide a cohesive structure that will yield
our sound legal arguments because the effectiveness of the same depends on how we write convincingly
to prove our point of view.

I. Opening Statement
First, we can commence with our arguments by stating our opponent’s claim with the
intention of establishing the key points that our arguments will assail. Generally, we can
use the structure of stating the topic sentence (i.e, the opposing claim) followed by the
arguments.

II. Three Statements of Arguments

Conventionally, legal arguments begin with a statement of the applicable rule, followed by
a statement of the case fact, and end with a conclusion statement. Nonetheless, this
particular structure of our writing will not affect the effectiveness of our arguments as long
as we are able to relate and connect every statement that we provide.

1. Rule Statement
We need to incorporate relevant rulings such that they are applicable in relation to case
fact (i.e., the rules we propose have similar facts in relation to our particular case).

B. Case Fact Statement

We need to ascertain the facts since the rule statement will depend on whether the key
fact to which it applies is similar to or different from the facts of the particular case.
Hence, it is the statement of the case fact that needs to be strengthened.

C. Conclusion Statement
In drawing the conclusion, we need to infer on whether the fact of a particular case opens
it up or closes it to the application of the rule that governs the case.

III. Closing Statement and Relief

We need to depart and end our pleading on a positive note after providing every
applicable legal argument in support of our position with regard to the particular case. On
the other hand, our closing statement should not appear to argue even if we appeal to the
judge to decide on our favor. The decision must stand on the strength of the arguments
and evidences presented alone.

IV. Case Application

 
Statement of the Case
 
Plaintiff Elpidio Agcaoili (Elpidio, for brevity) alleged that defendants Maribel Laroza (Maribel, for brevity),
Maileen Laroza (Maileen, for brevity), and Myrna Del Rosario (Myrna, for brevity) conspired together to
fraudulently transfer the property, now under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 001-2012002485, in
favor of Maileen Laroza. This prompted the Plaintiff to file a civil case before this court for reconveyance
of title and damages. Defendants Maileen and Maribel denied the allegation and sought the dismissal of
the complaint with counterclaim for damages.
 
 Statement of the Facts
 
Spouses Elpidio and Lucena Agcaoili are owners of a parcel of land (hereinafter, Subject Property)
located in Sta. Quiteria, Caloocan City covered by TCT No. 58169 issued by the Registry of Deeds of
Caloocan City.
Sometime in May 2012, after learning that Elpidio was intending to mortgage the Subject Property for
Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P4,500,000.00), Myrna introduced Elpidio to Siblings Maribel
and Maileen, who are engaged in the lending business, to discuss Elpidio’s loan application.
 
Following several meetings with the Larozas and upon verification of the authenticity of the title, Maribel
and Maileen informed Elpidio that the loan would be processed immediately. Elpidio was made to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement and a Deed of Absolute Sale where the date and amount were left blank. In
the said document, Elpidio was named as the Vendee and Maileen was named as the Vendor. He was
later asked by Maribel to deliver the owner’s duplicate copy of the title allegedly for the final approval of
the loan and was issued a receipt therefor in the presence of his daughter, Maria.
 
After several months, the Larozas told Elpidio that the Memorandum of Agreement was cancelled
because the loan was disapproved. They promised, however, that the owner's duplicate copy of the title
would be returned to Elpidio.
 
In January 2013, when he was about to pay the Real Property Tax for the Subject Property, Elpidio found
out that the tax declaration was already under the name of Maileen Laroza. The Registry of Deeds of
Caloocan City further confirmed that the title had been transferred in the name of Maileen under TCT No.
001-2012002485 by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated June 25, 2012, for and in consideration of
One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) which was purportedly executed by and
between Spouses Elpidio and Lucena Agcaoili, and Maileen Laroza.
 
 
ISSUE
 
1. Whether or not Elpidio Agcaoili may recover the subject property now under
  TCT No. 001-2012002485; and
2. Whether or not Elpidio Agcaoili is entitled to damages for the alleged
  fraudulent transfer of the subject property.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PLAINTIFF ISSUE
[Opening Statement]: Whether or not
Mr. Agcaoili is entitled to reconveyance Elpidio Agcaoili
of the alleged property since the title can recover the
was transferred through fraud and alleged
misrepresentation. Furthermore, he property
prays for recovery of actual damages.  
   
 
 
[The Rule]: Section 53(3) of  
Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that
registration procured by fraud gives the
 
 
owner a right to pursue all legal and
equitable remedies against the parties to  
such fraud without prejudice. Any  
subsequent registration procured by the  
presentation of a forged duplicate
certificate of title, or a forged deed or
 
 
other instrument, shall be null and void.
[The Case Fact]: When the Deed of  
Absolute Sale was executed on June  
25, 2012, plaintiff claims that his wife,   provides that through estoppel, an
who is the co-owner of the alleged
property, was already dead as
 
 
evidenced by the death certificate. In
this case, the signature appearing on  
the said document was not personally  
authored by his wife.  
[Conclusion Statement]: Therefore,
the defendant’s contention that the Deed
 
 
of Absolute Sale was valid holds no
merit since the signature of his wife was  
forged.  
   
   
   
   
 
  Whether or not
  Elpidio Agcaoili
  can recover
damages for
  the alleged
 
fraudulent
  transfer of the
[The Rule]: Article 1346 of the New Civil property
Code provides that an absolutely  
simulated or fictitious contract is void. In
Intac v. Court of Appeals, the Court
ruled that an absolute simulation
provides a colorable contract which has
DEFENDANT
[Opening Statement]:
In support of the plaintiff’s proposition that
Mr. Agcaoili is entitled to reconveyance of
the property and recover damages
thereof, the plaintiff claims that the title to
such property was transferred through
fraud and misrepresentation. The
respondents rebut the foregoing
arguments.
[The Rule]: Section 53(3) of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 states that registration
procured by fraud gives the owner a right
to pursue all legal and equitable remedies
against the parties to such fraud without
prejudice. Any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged
duplicate certificate of title, or a forged
deed or other instrument, shall be null
and void, is not applicable in this case.
Article 1431 of the New Civil Code
admission or representation is rendered
conclusive upon the person making it,
and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon.
[The Case Fact]: The plaintiff claims that
the deed was fraudulent since his wife
whose signature appears thereon is
already dead upon the execution of the
contract. However, since Agcaoili
represented/ introduced the old lady who
accompanied him as his wife (co-owner),
such representation if proven wrong shall
not be used by the plaintiff against the
defendant who relied on such
representation
[Conclusion Statement]: By estoppel,
the Plaintiff’s claim that her wife was
already dead when the contract was
executed can no longer be admitted.
Hence, the documents signed thereof in
the presence of the old lady which the
plaintiff claimed to be his wife is deemed
to be validly executed and without defect.
[The Rule]: Section 9 of Rule 130 of
Rules of Evidence provides that when the
terms of an agreement have been
no substance as the parties had no reduced to writing, it is considered as
intention to be bound by it. “The main containing all the terms agreed upon and
characteristic of an absolute simulation these can be, between the parties.
is that the apparent contract is not really Furthermore, acknowledgement or
desired or intended to produce legal certification of a document as provided by
effect or in any way alter the juridical law such as notarization serves as prima
situation of the parties”. As a result, the facie evidence of execution thereof and
parties may recover from each other carry with it the presumption of regularity.
what they may have given under the
contract. [The Case Fact]: The transfer of the
[The Case Fact]:The blank Deed of property of Elpidio Agcaoli to the
Absolute Sale was signed by the plaintiff defendant is evidenced by a valid Deed
as part of the loan application process. of Sale signed by both parties that was
However, the said loan was not duly notarized. The Deed of Sale shows
approved by the defendants. the parties’ intention to transfer the
[Conclusion Statement]: Therefore, ownership of such property and the
the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale consideration thereof.
was only for the purpose of securing the
loan. There can be no doubt that the  
contract lacked the intention to sell the
property. Moreover, the element of [Conclusion Statement]: Hence, the
consideration was absent since the price plaintiff’s arguments that the sale is void
purportedly paid as indicated was since there was no intention to sell such
simulated for no payment was made, property is not amenable given that the
hence, the sale is void. Deed of Sale signed by both parties
  shows otherwise.
 
[The Rule]: In Intac v. Court of Appeals,  
the petitioners did not become the
owners of the subject property even  
after a TCT had been issued in their
names. After all, registration does not
vest title. Certificates of title merely  
confirm or record title already existing
and vested. They cannot be used to  
protect a usurper from the true owner,
nor can they be used as a shield for the  
commission of fraud, or to permit one to
enrich oneself at the expense of others.  
Hence, reconveyance of the subject
property is warranted. Moreover, the
Court finds that one of the most striking  
badges of absolute simulation is the
complete absence of any attempt on the [The Rule] In Arambulo v Gungab, the
part of a vendee to assert his or her right Court ruled that Torrens title is evidence
of dominion over the property. of indefeasible title to property in favor of
the person in whose name the title
  appears. It is conclusive evidence with
[The Case Fact]: Plaintiff has continued
respect to the ownership of the land
possession of the alleged property on
described therein. It is also settled that
the grounds that he is still living there
the title holder is entitled to all the
and he intended to pay the real property
attributes of owners of the property
taxes due thereon. Whereas, the
including possession.
defendants did not claim ownership and
take actual possession nor did they pay
the real property tax.  
 
[Conclusion Statement]: Moreover, Under Torrens System, the
Therefore, it is a clear indication that the name that appears in the title is a
plaintiff is the rightful owner because he conclusive evidence of ownership
was not demanded by the defendants to thereof, regardless of the actual
vacate the property, thus, defeating the possession thereof.
purpose of the alleged sale.
In addition, the intention to pay the real  
property tax is a positive act indicating
ownership.
[The Rule]: Article 2208 (5) of the New
 
Civil Code, attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial  
costs, can be recovered when the
defendant acted in gross and evident [The Case Fact]: The title of said
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the property was legally transferred under the
plaintiff’s valid and demandable claim. name of the defendants even if the actual
[The Case Fact]: Plaintiff has suffered possession of such is still with the
damages in filing the case against the plaintiff.
defendants amounting to P50,000 as
attorney’s fees and litigation expenses  
of P3,000 per court appearance.
   

[Conclusion Statement]:  Under

Torrens System, the name that appears
in the title is a conclusive evidence of
ownership thereof, regardless of the
actual possession thereof.

[The Rule]: The general rule is that

attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as
part of damages because of the policy
that no premium should be placed on the
right to litigate. They are not to be
awarded every time a party wins a suit.
The power of the court to award
attorney’s fees under Article 2208
demands factual, legal, and equitable
justification. (Mameroto vs Rural Bank
San Jose et.al)
Paragraph 5 which state “can be
recovered when the defendant acted in
gross and evident bad faith in refusing to
 satisfy the plaintiff’s valid and
demandable claim” is not applicable.
 
[The Case Fact]: Defendant who
possessed such Deed of sale in which
both parties signed and in the presence
of a witnesses cannot constitute “gross
and evident bad faith” because mere
affixing signatures means meeting of
minds / agreement.
 
[Conclusion Statement]:
Plaintiff, therefore cannot avail  the
attorney’s fee
Because their claim is not sufficient to
show that there is “grave of bad faith” .
 
 

Closing Statement of the Plaintiff

In light of the foregoing arguments, Elpidio Agcaoili is entitled to recover the property and claim damages.
Where the testimonies and evidences are inconsistent with the factual circumstances of the case. That
should be disregarded by the court in rendering its decision.
 
 
Closing Statement of the Defendant
Maribel Laroza and Maileen Laroza legally acquired the title of the property hence, the plaintiff is not
entitled to reconveyance.  The plaintiff’s allegation that it was acquired through fraud and
misrepresentation is weak, if not without basis, given t hat the documentary evidences such as Deed of
Sale and reason proves otherwise. The existence of a notarized deed of sale which the plaintiff
admitted he signed personally proved that there was meeting of mind between the two parties and
valid execution thereof. The court should honor such document as primary evidence and disregard
the plaintiff’s claim.