REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

Gregoria Dela Cruz-Smith,

Plaintiff-Appellant

CA GR CV NO. 123456
RTC CIVIL CASE NO. 01-234
-versus-

Sam Smith
Defendant-Appellee
 Pursuant to the

Notice of this Honorable Court,

Plaintiff-Appellant

GREGORIA DELA CRUZ-SMITH

by counsel, most respectfully submit her

APPEALANT’S BRIEF
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Philippine Jurisprudence Page

Borromeo vs Descallar, G.R. No.159310, Feb. 24, 2009

Cheeseman vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74833, January 21, 1991

Matthews vs Taylor, G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009

Frenzel vs Catito, G.R.No. 143958, July 11, 2003

Muller vs Muller, G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006

Beumer vs Amores, G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012

Fullido vs Grilli, G.R. No. 215014, Feb 29, 2016

Philippine Statute

New Civil Code, Art. 1412

Philippine Constitution

Art XII, Sec, 7 of the 1987 Constitution

 SUBJECT INDEX

I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

IV. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

V. APPEALED DECISION

VI. ISSUES

VII. ARGUMENTS

VIII. RELIEF
 II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF-

APPELANT’S JUDICIAL ADMISSION AND OTHER OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING HER PARTICIPATION, INTEREST AND
OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION

II. THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF-

APPELANT HAS NO TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND MAY NOT
THEREFORE RECONVEY ANY RIGHTS AND INTERESTS

III. THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE WELL-

REASONED CASE AND IMPOSING DOUBLE COSTS AGAINST HEREIN
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

III. Statement of Facts

1. This is an appeal from the orders of the Court a quo dismissing a complaint for
reconveyance of property filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant against the Defendant-
Appellee for encumbering the property in Makati.

2. The case arose when the appellee in the case hindered the appellant from using
the property situated in Makati as covered by TCT – 123545.

3. The appellant is a Filipina and the appellee who was a German national were
intimate. They both purchased a land in Makati as covered by TCT – 12345
placed solely under the name of the appellant on February 14, 2010. After 6 years
of cohabitation, the couple’s relationship turned sour which prompted the appellee
to hinder the appellant from using the property in dispute.
4. The appellant tried her best to talk with the appellee but the latter refused and
argued that the property in dispute was owned solely by him because he used is
exclusive money to buy the property in dispute. This prompted the appellee to file
a case in court for the reconveyance of the property.

IV. Summary of Proceedings

5. On January 28, 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant instituted the instant case before the
Makati City Regional Trial Court by filing a complaint for “Damages and
Reconveyance of Property”. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 01-234,
was filed against herein Defendants-Appellees.

6. The case was subsequently raffled off to the Court a quo, the sala of Judge Juan
Dela Cruz, presiding judge of Branch 69 of the Makati City Regional Trial Court

7. In an Order dated February 10, 2017, the said court a quo set the summary
hearing on February 25, 2017 at 2pm

8. On February 18, 2017, the Defendant-Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on the

ground, among others, that the complaint states no cause of action

V. Appealed Decision

9. The dispositive portion of the appealed Order dated March 26, 2017 states:
“WHEREFORE, premises, considered, the plaintiff’s application for
damages and reconveyance of property is hereby DENIED.”

So ORDERED.”
 VI. Issues

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN

DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF-APPELANT’S JUDICIAL ADMISSION
AND OTHER OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING HER
PARTICIPATION, INTEREST AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
IN QUESTION
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELANT HAS NO TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND MAY NOT THEREFORE RECONVEY
ANY RIGHTS AND INTERESTS

VII. Arguments

10. The Trial Court committed reversible error in holding that the plaintiff-appelant has
no title to the properties in question and may not therefore reconvey any rights and
interests over the subject property

11. In Borromeo vs Descallar[1], aliens may not own lands in the Philippines as it is
prohibited under the Philippine Constitution[2] .

12. The Trial Court did not give credence to the deed of absolute sale that was solely
under the name of the appellant.

____________________
1.
G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009
2.
Art. XII, Section 7, 1987 Philippine Constitution
 13. In Philippine jurisprudence[3][4][5][6] the Supreme Court did not grant the alien
reimbursement for the properties he bought in the Philippines because it was contrary
to the Constitution and of public policy. The court cannot aid a person in
accomplishing his illegal objectives.

14. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly

VIII. Relief

WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Plaintiff-Appelant respectfully pray that this Honorable
Court:

1. REVERSE the decision of the Court a quo dated March 26, 2017, dismissing the
petition for damages and reconveyance of property

2. DECLARE the plaintiff-appellant the rightful owner of the property located in Makati
covered by TCT – 12345

3. ORDER the reconveyance of the aforementioned property to the rightful owner and
charge the defendant-appellee for damages in favor of plaintiff-appellant

______________________
3.
Cheeseman vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74833, January 21, 1991
4.
Muller vs Muller, G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006
5.
Frenzel vs Catito, G.R.No. 143958, July 11, 2003
6.
Fullido vs Grilli, G.R. No. 215014, Feb 29, 2016