REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES

MUNICIPALTRIALCOURTINCITIES
7THJUDICIALREGION
BRANCH1
MANDAUECITY

ROBERTVILLANUEVAPEREZ
Plaintiff,
CIVILCASENO:7097
- versus

FOR:DAMAGESFORDAMAGE
TOPROPERTY,MORAL
DAMAGESAND
ATTORNEYS,FEES

MARKANTHONYRETIZANOYNAY
andNORMANLIM
Defendants.
x/

COMMENTONTHEPOSITIONPAPEROFTHEDEFENDANTS
(WITHNOTICEOFCHANGEADDRESS)
COMES NOW the complainant, through counsel, and to this Honorable
Office,asCommentonthePositionPaperofthedefendants,mostrespectfully
state:

PLAINTIFFISAREALPARTYININTEREST

ContrarytotheinsinuationofthedefendantsintheirPositionPaper,the
plaintiff is a real partyininterest. The contention of the defendants that the
plaintiffisnotarealpartyininterestconsideringthatheisnottheownerrather
onlyalessorofthevehicleownedandregisteredunderthenameofJulitaBorbajo
isbereftofmerit.

AscanbegleanedfromtheAgreement1(ContracttoSell)executedbythe
plaintiffandJulitaBorbajo,itwasagreedthattheplaintiffwouldrenttoownthe
jeepneyvehiclewhichisownedandregisteredunderthelattersnameonadaily
basisinanamountofP500.00startingonApril01,2015untilApril01,2017.A
perusalofthesaidAgreementwouldapparentlyshowthattheplaintiff,indeed,has
amaterialinterestoverthesaidvehicle.
Jurisprudenceisrepletewithcasesinholdingthatonewhohasnorightor
interesttoprotectcannotinvokethejurisdictionofthecourtaspartyplaintiffin
actionforitisjurisprudentiallyordainedthateveryactionmustbeprosecutedor
defendedinthenameoftherealpartyininterest 2.Itisfurtherelucidatedinseveral
rulingsoftheSupremeCourtthattheterm"interest"ismaterialinterest,aninterest
inissueandtobeaffectedbythedecree,asdistinguishedfrommereinterestinthe
questioninvolved,oramereincidentalinterest.Moreover,theinterestoftheparty
mustbepersonalandnotonebasedonadesiretovindicatetheconstitutionalright
ofsomethirdandunrelatedparty3.Thematerialinterestoftheplaintiffoverthe
jeepneyishisfutureownershipofthesaidvehicleuponthearrivaloftheperiod
agreeduponbetweenhimandtheregisteredownerprovidedthattheremustbe
faithful compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thus, the
plaintiffcouldrightfullybringanactiontorecoverdamagesandtoprotecthis
interestoverthedamagedvehiclesubjecttoaContracttoSell.Byvirtueofthe
Contract to Sell, the plaintiff was constrained to shoulder the expenses of the
repairofthedamagevehicleafterthedefendantsfailedtomaketherepairdespite
repeateddemands.Otherwise,theplaintiffwillbeleftinasituationwhereinhe
willwaitwhenwouldthedefendantsmaketherepairofthevehicleandwhile
earningnothingasdailyincometosustainhisfamilysneeds.
1 Attached and marked as Annex F.
2 Borlongan v. Madrideo, 380 Phil. 215, 224 (2000), citing the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 3, Section 2.
3 225 SCRA 568, 576, August 24, 1993, per Bellosillo, J. See also Hechanova v. Adil,
144 SCRA 450, September 25, 1986; Calderon v. Solicitor General, 215 SCRA 876,
November 25, 1992; St. Luke's Medical Center v. Torres, 223 SCRA 779, June 29, 1993
and Ortigas & Campany Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 234 SCRA 455, July 25, 1994.

Moreover,theplaintiffbeingoneofthepartiestotheAgreementisenough
toestablishthatheisarealpartyininterest.Sinceacontractmaybeviolatedonly
bythepartiestheretoasagainsteachother,inanactionuponthatcontract,thereal
partiesininterest,eitherasplaintifforasdefendant,mustbepartiestothesaid
contract. The action must be brought by the person who, by substantive law,
possessestherightsoughttobeenforced4.Theregisteredownerandtheplaintiff,
asthelessor,arethepartieswhowilldirectlybenefitfromorbeinjuredbya
judgmentinthiscase.Boththeownerandtheplaintiffhaverespectiverightsover
thevehiclebecausetheyarethepartiestotheContracttoSell.Itiswellwithinthe
rightoftheplaintifftofilethisinstantcaseagainstthedefendants.Thus,contrary
todefendantscontention,theplaintiffistherealpartyininterest,anditislegally
incorrecttosaythathisComplaintdoesnotstateacauseofactionbecauseheis
nottheregisteredownerofthesubjectvehicle.
II.
CONTRACTTOSELLISVALIDEVENIFNOTNOTARIZED

IntheirarduouseffortstoconvincethisHonorableCourttodismissthis
instantcase,thedefendantsassailsthevalidityoftheContracttoSellexecuted
betweentheplaintiffandtheregisteredownerofthesubjectvehicleforbeing
unnotarized.Assuch,saidcontractcreatesnobindingeffectonthemforbeing
thirdparties.ItmustberememberedthatunderArticle1305oftheCivilCodea
contractisdefinedasameetingofmindsbetweentwopersonswherebyonebinds
himself,withrespecttotheother,togivesomethingortorendersomeservice.As
longasthereisanagreementorameetingofmindsregardingtheobligationto
givesomethingortorenderservice,thelawconsidersitasacontract.Inorderfor
the contract to be valid, it must be made with the consent of the contracting
parties,theremustbeanobjectthatisthesubjectofthecontract,andacauseof
4 Vidal v. Escueta, 463 Phil. 314, 337 (2003).

theobligation(Article1318,CivilCode).Aslongastheelementsof consent,
subjectandcausearepresent,contractsarevalidinwhateverformtheytake.This
meansthatcontractsmayeitherbeverbalorwritten.
Albeit,underArticle1356,CivilCodeprovidesthatwhenthelawrequires
thatacontractbeinsomeforminorderthatitmaybevalidorenforceable,orthat
a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and
indispensable.SaidArticleisfurtherstrengthenedbyArticle1358,CivilCode
whereinitenumeratesthecontractsthathavetobesetdowninapublicdocument,
towit:
Article1358.Thefollowingmustappearinapublicdocument:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation,
transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable
property;salesofrealpropertyorofaninterestthereinaregovernedbyArticles
1403,No.2,and1405;
(2) Thecession,repudiationorrenunciationofhereditaryrightsorof
thoseoftheconjugalpartnershipofgains;
(3)Thepowertoadministerproperty,oranyotherpowerwhichhasforits
objectanactappearingorwhichshouldappearinapublicdocument,orshould
prejudiceathirdperson;
(4)Thecessionofactionsorrightsproceedingfromanactappearingina
publicdocument.
AllothercontractswheretheamountinvolvedexceedsFivehundredpesos
mustappearinwriting,evenaprivateone.Butsalesofgoods,chattelsorthings
inactionaregovernedbyArticles1403,No.2and1405.(128a)
ConsideringthatthesubjectofaContracttoSellinthisinstantcaseisa
vehicleandtheamountinvolvedexceedsFiveHundredpesosnotarizationisnot
necessaryandessentialforitsvalidity.Whatthelawrequiresisthatthecontract

must be in writing. Hence, notwithstanding that the Contract to Sell was not
subscribedandsworntobeforeanotarypublic,itisneverthelessvalidandhasa
binding effect tothirdpersons. Granting arguendo that theContract toSell is
unenforceable,nonetheless,thedefendantsbeingstrangerstothecontractcannot
attackthevaliditythereof5.
III.
NOTICEOFCOUNSELSCHANGEOFADDRESS

Plaintiffherebymanifeststhatundersignedcounselhastransferredoffice
effectively last January 4, 2016. The new office address where all processes,
ordersor decisions maybeserved uponthe counselfor the complainantisas
follows:

SUITE222CSLADIABLDG.,P.DELROSARIOST.,
COR.JUNQUERA,BRGY.SANANTONIO,6000CEBUCITY
Telephoneno.(032)2545545/Telefax:2557005

WHEREFORE, itismostrespectfullyprayed,thatthePositionPaperof
theDefendantsbesetasideforutterlackofmeritandthatthiscasebesetfortrial
andthatthemanifestationforundersignedcounselschangeofaddressbetaken
duenotice.
Otherreliefs,justandequitableunderthepremisesarelikewiseprayedfor.

CebuCity,March21,2016.
RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED.

5 Ayson v. Court of Appeals, 97 Phil. 965

THE LAW FIRM OF PIRAMIDE FAMOR JR CORPUZ

PATIO & PIRAMIDE
(Counsel of the Complainant)
Suite 222 C.S. Ladia Bldg., P. Del Rosario St.,
cor. Junquera St., Cebu City
Tel No. (032) 254-0453

By:

JURIL B. PATIO
Roll of Attorney No. 63966 April 27,2015
PTR OR No. 8513641/11/2016
IBP OR No. 1014806 01/05/16 Cebu City Chapter
MCLE COMPLIANCE No. Exempt
Email add: juril.patino@yahoo.com

Copyfurnished:
ATTY.JOSEJ.LIM
CounselfortheDefendants
RabayaSt.,Nonoc,Tabunoc
TalisayCity
EXPLANATION
The service of the foregoing Comment on the Position Paper of the
Defendantsthroughcounselismadethroughregisteredmailbyreasonof
the distance of the office and current lack of office personnel to effect
personalservice.

JURILBROKAPATIO

RegistryRecieptNo:_____________________________

Date:_________________________________________