Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

JUANA DELA CRUZ,

Defendant-Petitioner,-versusCIVIL CASE NO. L-12345
For: Ejectment
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff-Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
COME 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.P l a i n t i f f R e s p o nd e n t J a n e Do e i s o f l e g a l a g e , s i n gl e , a n d r e s i d i n
g o n 1 0 1 0 Gi n o o Boulevard, 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.

V.DISCUSSION
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 validow n e r s h i p o f a
l a n d . I n t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e c a s e o f Spouses Pascual v. Spouses
Coronel , t h e 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
visvis 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 was stated that a
certificateoftitleisconclusiveevidenceofownershipandthequestionabilityofthet i t l e
is immaterial in an ejectment suit. Futhermore, Article 428
o f t h e N e w C i v i l C o d e enumerates 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. T h e o w n e r h a s r i g h t o f
a c t i o n against 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
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, p r e mi s e c o n s i d e r e d , i t r e s p e c t f u l l y p r a ye d f o r t h a t t h
i s Ho n o r a b l e Supreme Court that Defendant-Petitioners prayer for writ of
injunction be DENIEDfor havingno cause of action and the petition
DISMISSEDfor being clearly unmeritorious.Other just and equitable relief under
the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.Respectfully submitted.Makati City for
Manila City, Philippines. April 8, 2011.