Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila City

JUANA DELA CRUZ,

Defendant-Petitioner,-versusCIVIL CASE NO. L-12345
For: Ejectment
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff-Respondent.x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUMCOME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
through the undersigned counsel, untothis Honorable Supreme Court most
respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in theabove-titled case and aver
that:
THE PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff-Respondent Jane Doe is of legal age, single, and residing on 1010
GinooBoulevard, Pasay City, where she may be served with legal processes and
notices issued by thisHonorable Court;
2.
Defendant-Petitioner Juana Dela Cruz is of legal age and residing on 123 Binibini
Street,Quezon City, and may be served with legal processes and other judicial
notices thereto.
I.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1.
On February 11, 2008, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment
datedFebruary 7, 2008 against Defendant-Petitioner;
2.
On December 22, 2008, an Answer dated December 15, 2008 was filed by
theDefendant-Petitioner;
3.

On February 3, 2009, a Decision was rendered by Branch 1 of Metropolitan Trial

Courtof Pasay City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent;
4.
On August 6, 2009, a Motion for Reconsideration filed July 5, 2009 by DefendantPetitioner through legal counsel was denied by Judge Lorenzo Menzon of Branch 10
of theRegional Trial Court Pasay City;
5.
On September 14, 2009, a Petition for Review dated September 9, 2009 was filed to
theCourt of Appeals by Defendant-Petitioner;

6.
On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff-Respondent through legal counsel filed a Comment
datedApril 19, 2010;
7.
On May 13, 2010, as per Verification and Report from the Judicial Records
Division(JRD) no Reply was filed by the Defendant-Petitioner;
8.
On May 21, 2010, a Resolution was rendered by the Court of Appeals
denyingDefendant-Petitioners Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO);
9.
Accordingly, the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit their
respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise regardless whether
or notMemoranda were filed, the petition shall be submitted for decision;Hence, the
filing of the instant Memorandum.
II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10.
Plaintiff-Respondent seeks that a parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street, Pasay
bereturned to her possession, but due to Defendant-Petitioners occupancy thereat,
the former cannot claim possession which left her with the option of residing at
1010 Ginoo Boulevard,Pasay City. It is noteworthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent
is the registered owner of the landsubject under TCT No. 12345 of the Registry of

Deeds of Pasay City. The property was sold tothem by the now deceased original
owners, Spouses Marcelo and Marcela del Pilar;
11.
Defendant-Petitioner, on the other hand, is an alleged lessee of the original owners
of theland since September 1955. They had repeatedly assailed the verbal contract
of lease for morethan 50 years;
12.
Plaintiff-Respondent was not able to claim immediately the land for it was
previouslysubject to a pending legal proceeding and that there was still no urgent
necessity of using andoccupying it. When the event came that Plaintiff-Respondent
was able to enforce her right over the land, Defendant-Petitioner, despite earnest
and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff-Respondentstill refused to vacate the land. This
led her to seek help from the Barangay officials for mediation and/or conciliation in
accordance with law. However, the Defendant-Petitioner still persistently occupied
the land without heed to the serious and constant demand of the PlaintiffRespondent which rendered it unattainable to reach an agreement;
13.
Due to the foregoing failure to claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate
refusalof the Defendant-Petitioner, Plaintiff-Respondent was compelled to hire the
services of a legalcounsel to commence the enforcement of ejection under the
wings of the courts of law.
III.ISSUES OF THE CASEA.) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT
ACTEDCORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THEBASIS
OF THE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP AFTER DEFENDANT HADRAISED IN DEFENSE THE
LESSEES RIGHTS UNDER P.D. 1517, P.D. 2016,APD 1-12 PASAY CITY;B.)WHETHER
OR NOT AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BARS THEBONA FIDE LESSEES RIGHT TO
AVAIL THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITSPROVIDED BY SECTION 6 OF P.D. 1517;

C.)WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMINING THE COVERAGE OF AREAS FOR PRIORITY

DEVELOPMENT (APD), REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THELIST OF THE STREETS
SUBJECT TO THE ZONAL DEVELOPMENT ANDNOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE
DELINEATION BY METES ANDBOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION
ITSELF.IV.ARGUMENTS
A.)

The court committed no error in deciding that an unlawful detainer action

beenforced upon herein Defendant-Petitioner despite the assailed contention of
theformer under P.D. 1517 and P.D. 2016.B.)There is no bar in this instant case for
an unlawful detainer to avail the benefits andprivileges provided by Section 6 P.D.
1517 provided it is applicable.
C.)
The determination of the scope and limitation of Areas for Priority Developmentshall
be based on the list of specific areas prescribed by the proclamation.V.DISCUSSION
A.)
It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner of
the parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No, 12345 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 isentitled to.Under Section 47 of the Land
Registration Act, or Act No. 496, it provides that the originalcertificates in the
registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of theclerk, 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 courtsof 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. In the decision of the case of
Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel
, the ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of
title in claimingownership over a land. It was held that in the recent case of
Umpoc v. Mercado
, the Courtdeclared that the trial court did not err in giving more probative weight to
the TCT in the name of the decedent
vis--vis
the contested unregistered Deed of Sale. Later in
Arambulo v. Gungab
, theCourt held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property
subject of the unlawfuldetainer case. The age-old 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 also used as basis for this argument. It wasstated that a
certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and the questionability of
thetitle is immaterial in an ejectment suit. Futhermore, Article 428 of the New Civil
Codeenumerates 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 actionagainst the holder and possessor of the thing in order
to recover it.
It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under
TCT No.12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City entitles
Petitioner-Respondentthe 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.