DEAR SIR;

Good day!
Jurisprudence is replete with cases showing that it is very difficult to
file a complaint in intervention unless it can be shown that the
intervenor has a direct legal interest on the matter and not merely
collateral. Attached herewith is only one of the example.
In our case attorney, it would be difficult for the client to convince
the court to grant the motion for intervention for the following
reasons:
1. There was already a decision in the case of heirs of Pantalan vs
Heirs of Licuanan adjudicating the ownership to the herein Licuanan
as a result of the finality of the decision in Civil case
No. 1555 titles over property in question were issued on April 16,2002
in the name of Heirs of Licuanan.
2. And in that case, it points out that LICUANAN is not a privy to
the Deed of Sale executed by and between Yap and Heirs of
Pantalan and therefore since the property is registered to Heirs of
Licuanan , the Municipality of Lupon can successfully expropriate
granting that it meet the requirements under the law.
3. That our herein client merely only have an inchoate right over
the pending disputed property between Heirs of Yap v Heirs of
Licuanan wherefore would have a very little chances to have her
motion be given consideration. (Issue then would be: whether
SARENAS, has the exclusive, clear and vested statutory right to the
award of the subject land in controversy in the pending case?)
4. That the controversy is now pending before SC nonetheless
would be the proper venue to ventilate their claims as this is an
independent controversy between the original parties and the
intervenors.
5. Nonetheless, this Court has ruled that the interest
contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, material, direct
and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant. It must be
of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will
either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgment. (We can argue however that all their efforts in elevating
the case to SC would be put in vain because of the expropriation
proceeding.)
6. In general, an independent controversy cannot be injected
into a suit by intervention, hence, such intervention will not be
allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand
the scope of the remedies. It is not proper where there are certain
facts giving the intervenor’s case an aspect peculiar to himself and
differentiating it clearly from that of the original parties; the proper
course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his claim in a
separate suit.
7. Therefore, the very least the remedy which I’ve incorporated in
my DRAFT COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION is the only thing that I see
viable.
8. Or a motion for intervention with special affirmative defense
may be done finding fault on the procedural requirements for
expropriation may be done as well.

Thank You.

JENY