Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

10th Judicial Branch
Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon

IRENE Civil Case No. 12-345678

Plantiff, For: Ownership
- versus -
JANE
Defendant
x------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in the case:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Irene (herein Irene) alleges that the deed of absolute sale dated November 15,1964
was null and void because it was vitiated by undue influence. Thus, defendant (herein Jane)
has no right on the said property.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On May 29, 1964, Harry sold lot 1980 to Irene for P5000 with a 70,000-square meter
and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.975;

2. In a deed of absolute sale dated November 15,1964, Irene sold lot 1981 with 80,000-
square meter to her former employer, Jane, for P3000;

3. Lot 1981 adjoined lot 1980;

4. Jane also took from Irene the owners duplicate copy of TCT NO. 975;

5. Lot 1981 was registered in the name of Irene under TCT No.127 on October 16, 1980;

6. Irene tax-declared lot 1981 under her name;

7. In 1988, plaintiff paid the realty taxes due thereon while the plaintiff religiously paid
the taxes on lot 1981, Jane had been enjoying its products;

8. Irene claims that after she acquired lot 1980 from Harry on May 29, 1964, she
borrowed P3000 from Jane who demanded for the owners duplicate copy of TCT
No. 975 as loan security;

9. Jane, taking advantage of her moral ascendancy over Irene, obtained the latters
signature to the November 15, 1964 Deed of Sale.
 10. Irene believed that what she signed was a Mortgage Contract over lot 1980, and not a
Deed of Sale over lot 1981.

11. The Deed of Sale was without consent of plaintiffs husband.

ISSUES

Given the facts and circumstances, the issues in this case are as follows:

1. Whether or not Irene is the rightful owner

2. Whether or not the deed of sale was null and void
ARGUMENTS
I. Irene is the rightful owner of the said property

1. The transaction between Jane and Irene was only of a debtor-creditor in which the
TCT No. 975 served as loan security. It is supported by the fact Jane only had the
duplicate of the TCT No. 975.
2. Absence of a Transfer of Title from Irene to Jane is an evidence enough that Irene is
still the rightful owner.
3. It is strengthen by the facts that on October 16, 1980, lot 1981 was registered under
Irenes name and she even tax-declared it and paid the realty taxes due thereon.
4. Irene was in good faith when she claims that the Deed of Sale was null and void as
she believed that what she signed was a Mortgage Contract over lot 1980 and not a
Deed of Sale over lot 1981in which the defendant used her moral ascendancy to take
advantage of the plaintiff and made her sign in the deed of sale.
5. Article 1305 provides that contract is a meeting of minds between two persons
whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render
some service. In the case at bar, it falls short of the requisites of a contract since there
was no meeting of minds here since in Irenes mind lot 1981 was only for the security
of her loan to jane while on Janes point of view it was a Contract of Sale. This makes
it Irene the rightful owner.
6. Plaintiff was in good faith when she signed the alleged Deed of Sale and as an
ordinary employee who has no bad thought she wholeheartedly trusts her former
employer and sign the document believing it was a mortgage contract.

II. The deed of sale was null and void

1. The marriage of Irene and her husband Kyle was before the effectivity of the family
code so the property regime governing them is conjugal partnership of gains so when
the plaintiff acquired those properties it is conjugal with her husband, Kyle. Therefore
Irene cannot sell those properties without the consent of her husband.
2. Assuming that it was a Contract of Sale and Irenes consent was given without undue
influence the deed of sale would still be null and void because of the lack of consent
and knowledge of the husband in the selling of their conjugal property and it implies
that the defendant maybe realize later on that the deed of sale is null and void in
which she obtained a written agreement signed by Irene and her husband. This only
shows how Jane is abusing her moral ascendancy over Irene and with the implied
consent of his husband is an inconsistency in her claims in which at first she said
Irene sold her the lot which she presented a Deed of Sale but as she realized that the
 Deed of Sale was null and void she then shifted her allegations into a mere
Agreement of Exchange.
3. Article 106 provides that Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the
husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income
from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through
their efforts or by chance, and upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership,
the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall be divided equally
between them, unless otherwise agreed in the marriage settlements. It makes the
property conjugal.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Irene respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of

plaintiff and against defendant by:
1) FINDING Irene as the rightful owner of the lot 1981 as there was no Contract of
Sale and Transfer of Title made and the deed of sale was null and void on the grounds
of lack of consent of the husband of the plaintiff.
2) ORDERING Jane to return the property to its rightful owner in which is Irene.

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, July 17, 2017.

(SGD.) ATTY. RICARR ANN CHIONG

Counsel for Plaintiff
Chiong Law Office
Rm. 1, G/F, XE Bldg,
Upper Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. CHACY ATAN
Counsel for Defendant