Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court

Branch II
Pasig City

RAVEN V. UY
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 9111111

- versus- FOR: EJECTMENT

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Defendant

x --------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in
the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On August 1, 2016, plaintiff sent a Demand Letter to for

the payment of the default and to vacate the premises against
herein defendant.

On September 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a Complaint for

Ejectment against herein defendant.

On November 9, 2017, defendant received summons

issued by the Honorable Court to file an answer.

On November 14, 2017, defendant filed his answer

against the plaintiff.
 On November 20, 2017, preliminary conference was held
in the presence of the plaintiff, defendant, and their respective
counsels.

Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the

Honorable Court ordered the parties to submit their respective
Memoranda fifteen days (15) days from notice, otherwise, the
case is deemed submitted for decision.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff seeks that a parcel of land located at 305 Lt. J.

Francisco St., Krus na Ligas, Diliman, Pasig City with
improvements made by Defendant be returned to his
possession, but due to Defendants occupancy thereat, the
former cannot claim possession which left him with the option
of residing at 93 O. F. Roman St. Brgy. Balong Bato St. San
Juan City. It is noteworthy to stress that Plaintiff is the
registered owner of the land subject under TCT No. 123456789
of the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City. The property was sold to
him by the now deceased original owners, Spouses Teodora
and Procopio Rizal. Said spouses were once a client of
Defendant as their previous legal counsel and the said
property was the subject in litigation during that time.

Defendant, on the other hand, is an alleged Lessee of the

original owner of the land for a period of 1 year and has been
residing therein since January 1, 2016 and has begun making
improvements on the premises for his rice-offering business;

Plaintiff was not able to claim immediately the land for it

was previously subject to a pending legal proceeding and that
there was still no urgent necessity of utilizing or occupying it.
When the event came that Plaintiff was able to enforce his
right over the land, Defendant, despite earnest and peaceful
efforts still refused to vacate the land. This led him to seek for
assistance from the Barangay authorities for intervention
and/or to have an orderly settlement in accordance with law.
However, the Defendant still persistently occupied the land
without heed to the serious and constant demand of the
Plaintiff which rendered it unattainable to reach an
agreement;
 Due to fact that the parcel of land cannot be claimed
attributed to the uncooperative refusal of the Defendant,
Plaintiff was force to employ the services of a legal counsel to
commence the enforcement of ejection under the judgment of
the courts of justice.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A.) WHETHER OR NOT THE TITLE OF PLAINTIFF

OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VOID;

B.) WHETHER OR NOT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

HAS PROPER JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE;

C.) WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT BEING A BUILDER

IN GOOD FAITH SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THE
IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON THE LEASED PREMISES.

ARGUMENTS

A.) The title of Plaintiff over the said property is

void.

B.) The Plaintiff should have filed the case in the

Regional Trial Court which has proper jurisdiction over
the case.

C.) The Defendant should be reimbursed for the

improvements made on the said property.

DISCUSSION

A.) It is necessary to underline that the Plaintiff is the registered

owner of the parcel of land located at 305 Lt. J. Francisco St.,
Krus na Ligas, Diliman, Pasig City, under TCT No, 123456789
of the Register of Deeds of Pasig City. In the Philippines, the
introduction of a legitimate certificate of title of the real
property is a convincing evidence of ownership of the person
whose name the certificate of title is entitled to.

Recognized jurisprudence maintains the significance of a

certificate of title in proving valid ownership of a land. The
general rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a
land is entitled to possession thereof.

The ruling of Dizon v. Court of Appeals was used as basis. It

was stated that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of
ownership and the questionability of the title is immaterial in
an ejectment suit. Moreover, Article 428 of the New Civil Code
enumerates the rights of an owner. The owner has the right to
enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations other
than those established by law. The owner has right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to
recover it.

The contention of the Defendant that the title of Plaintiff

over the leased property is void due to the fact that it was later
found out that his title over the property is void because the
said property is once the object of litigation which he intervene
subject to his profession as legal counsel of deceased Procopio
Rizal (Annex A). Moreover, it has been alleged that the Deed
of Absolute Sale is simulated resulting into a null and void ab
initio for lack of consideration.

It is questionable that the certificate of title of one 305 Lt. J.

Francisco St., Krus na Ligas, Diliman, Pasig City, under TCT
No, 123456789 of the Register of Deeds of Pasig City entitles
Plaintiff the right to exercise the aforementioned rights,
specifically, in this instant case, the right of action against the
holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land.

In the case of Fornilda v. Br. a lawyer is prohibited from

acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or
rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which
they intervene by virtue of their profession. The prohibition on
purchase is all embracing to include not only sales to private
individuals but also public or judicial sales. The rationale
advanced for the prohibition is that public policy disallows the
transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved i.e.,
the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control
exercised by these persons.

In the case of Lequin v. Vizconde, it is a well-entrenched rule

that where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has
been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is
null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. Moreover,
Article 1471 of the Civil Code, provides that if the price is
 simulated, the sale is void, which applies to the instant case,
since the price purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of
sale was simulated for no payment was actually made.

B.) Defendant forcefully assails that the case should have

been tried or commenced in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City which has the proper jurisdiction not in the Metropolitan
Trial Court.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines and National Power

Corporation v. Sunvar Realty Development Corp., it is ruled
that if the reckoning period is pegged from the expiration of
the main lease contract and/or sublease agreement, then
petitioners proper remedy should have been an accion
publiciana to be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Furthermore, the requirement that the complaint should aver,
as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the property
was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the
timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC), and not when the jurisdiction of the MTC is
assailed because the case is one for accion publiciana
cognizable by the RTC.

In unlawful detainer cases, the one (1) year period is counted

from the date of the last demand to vacate. Wherein, the
Plaintiff herein last day of demand and notice was in August 1,
2016 but it took more than a year and exceeded the contract
of lease before Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Metropolitan
Trial Court where it should have been in fact filed its
complaint in the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City.

C.) The third issue questions whether or not herein

Defendant should be reimbursed for the improvements made
by him on the said premises.

Under the case of Philippine National Bank v. Fernando

Pineda, citing the provision under the New Civil Code
specifically Article 1678 which provides that if the lessee
makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable
to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the
form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the
termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the
value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor
refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the
improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer
damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more
impairment upon the property leased than is necessary. With
regard to the ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be
entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the
ornamental objects, provided no damage is caused to the
principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them
by paying their value at the time the lease is extinguished.

Defendant, has the option to remove the improvements, even

though the principal thing suffers damage when the Plaintiff-
Respondent refuses to reimburse the former for one-half of the
value of the improvements.

CONCLUSION

With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the

defendant, through his counsel believes that the plaintiff has
no right over the property because his title over it is void. And
the plaintiff should have filed the case in the court which has
proper jurisdiction which is the Regional Trial Court.
Moreover, the defendant should be reimbursed for the
improvements made by him.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant

respectfully prays to the honorable court that judgment be
rendered in his favor as follows:

1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court

dismissing the Complaint for lack of cause of action;

2. Judgment be rendered upholding that the right of

the plaintiff over the property is void;

3. Judgment be rendered ordering plaintiff to

reimburse defendant not exceeding one-half of the expenses
incurred for the improvements;

4. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the

amount of P20, 000.00 as Attorneys Fees and to pay cost suit.
 Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just
and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Pasig City, 1st day of December, 2017.

YUAR INTROBLE LAW

OFFICE
Counsel of the Defendant
Deped Bldg, Lignon Hill Site
Pasig City

By:

NEVAR YU
Roll No. 86236
IBP O.R. No. 123456
Pasig Chapter
PTR No. 03101996C

EXPLANATION

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised

Rules of Court, personal service of copy of Trial Memorandum
could not be effected except by service through registered mail
due to distance and personnel constraints.

NEVAR YU

Copy Furnished:(By Registered Mail)

ATTY. ABO G. ADO

Counsel of the Plaintiff
7th Floor, Dreams Building,
Pasig City