Republic of the Philippines Court of Appeals Manila City

MAI GANADEN, Defendant-Petitioner, -versusCIVIL CASE NO. L-88888

RICO CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Respondent. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF Plaintiff-Respondent, by counsel and unto this Honorable court, most respectfull states that; THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Respondent Rico Castillo is of legal age, single, and residing on #17, Gastrambide, Manila City, where he may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court; 2. Defendant-Petitioner Mai Ganaden is of legal age and residing on 123 Nakakatuwa Street, Cavite City, and may be served with legal processes and other judicial notices thereto.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On August 30, 2006 herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment dated July 30, 2006 against Defendant-Petitioner; 2. On November 1, 2006, an Answer dated September 15, 2006 was filed by the Defendant-Petitioner; 3. On September 3, 2007, a Decision was rendered by Branch 1 of Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cavite City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent;

4. On December 1, 2007, an Appeal filed October 30, 2007, by DefendantPetitioner through legal counsel was denied by Judge Raulo Sy of Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City; 5. On January 11, 2008, a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 3, 2008 was filed to the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City; 6. On June 29, 2008, a Motion for Reconsideration filed April 20, 2008 by Defendant-Petitioner through legal counsel was denied by Judge Maria Mercedes of Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court Cavite City; 7. On January 30, 2009, a Petition for Review dated January 9, 2009 was filed to the Court of Appeals by Defendant-Petitioner;

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8. Plaintiff-Respondent seeks that a parcel of land designated as Lot. No. 2-C, covered by TCT no. 859 situated in Cavite City be returned to her possession, but due to Defendant-Petitioners occupancy thereat, the former cannot claim possession which left her with the option of residing at #17, Gastrambide St., Manila City. It is noteworthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent is the registered owner of the land subject under TCT No. 859 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite City. The property was sold to them by the now deceased original owner, Ej Saludo; 9. Defendant-Petitioner, on the other hand, is an alleged lessee of the original owners of the land since September 1960. They had repeatedly assailed the ownership of the herein Plaintiff-Respondent; 10. Due to the foregoing failure to claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusal of the Defendant-Petitioner, Plaintiff-Respondent was compelled to hire the services of a legal counsel to commence the enforcement of ejection under the wings of the courts of law.

III. ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HAD RAISED IN DEFENSE THAT SAID PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT IS NOT THE LAWFUL OWNER;

IV. ARGUMENTS A The court committed no error in deciding that an unlawful detainer action be enforced upon herein Defendant-Petitioner despite the assailed contention of the former that said land belongs to Sonny Agustin and subsequently Blesilda Tingson

V. DISCUSSION

A.) It is essential to stress that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the genuine owner of the parcel of land titled as Lot. No. 2-C, situated in Cavite City under TCT No, 859 of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City. In the Philippines, the presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real property is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name the certificate of title is entitled to.Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or Act No. 496, it provides that the original certificates in the registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of the court, and also the owners duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the cour ts of the Philippine Islands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far as otherwise provided in this Act.Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving validownership of a land. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Respondent respectfully prays that this Honorable Court of Appeals that Defendant-Petitioners prayer for writ of injunction be DENIED for having no cause of action and the petition DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious. Other impartial and just relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for. Respectfully submitted. Cavite City for Manila City, Philippines. April 1, 2011.

LEGAL MEMORANDUM

Submitted by:

Christine Marie Fortich Pacol

Submitted to: JUDGE HAROLD CESAR C. HULIGANGA