The contention of the Defendant-Petitioner that the verbal lease agreement

they had madewith the now deceased original owners Marcelo and Marcela
Del Pilar for over 50 years shallentitle them to the privileges under P.D. 1517 and
P.D. 2016 (Annex A and B, respectively)is untenable. It is expressly stated that
Section 6 of P.D. 1517 grants lessees the right of first refusal before they may be
ejected from a land, but this is only feasible under certain conditions.I t i s a n
indispensable qualification that the land is included in the list of
A r e a s f o r P r i o r i t y Development (APD) before an owner can be granted of the right
of first refusal. The land subjecto f t h i s c a s e i s c l e a r l y n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e
s p e c i f i c a r e a s e n u m e r a t e d i n t h e l i s t o f AP D . To reiterate the Court of
Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. CV 12345: Insofar as the property
inlitigation, appellant Jane Doe is, consequently, correct in objecting to appellees
exercise of theright of first refusal granted under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No.
1517. The fact that it isnot included in the areas for priority development specifically
identified under Proclamation No.1967 indicates that appellee have no cause of
action for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and preliminary injunction against
appellants.
B.)
The Plaintiff-Respondents argument in this issue is intimately
connected with the p r e c e d i n g a r g u m e n t . D e f e n d a n t - P e t i t i o n e r
v i g o r o u s l y a s s a i l s t h a t t h e r e i s n o b a r t o t h e availability of the
privileges and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee whenever there is
anunlawful detainer action. It is however true. But this is subject to circumstances that
may qualifya lessee to the privileges and benefits under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1516
such as the right of firstrefusal. Unfortunately, the land possessed by the
Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under theambit of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517.
Therefore, the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of actionin this issue.
C.)
T h e t h i r d i s s u e q u e s t i o n s t h e c o v e r a g e o f t h e AP D p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e
p r o c l a m a t i o n , whether or not it refers to the list of streets subject to the
Zonal Development or to the areasincluded in the delineation of the metes and
bounds indicated.Reiteration is therefore necessary to lay emphasis on the
decision of the Court of Appealsthat in the List of Areas for Priority Development
(APDs), labeled as the South Sector of PasayCity, the area for priority development
was defined as Tramo Lines along Barangays San Isidro,San Roque, and Santa
Clara. It was thereafter specifically enumerated the list of covered sub-
areas (please refer to Annex C for diagram) which are the fo
l l o w i n g : 1 ) F . V i c t o r , 2 ) Ventanilla Street, c) Juan Luna Street, d) D.
Jorge Street, e) Viscarra Street, f) Conchita Street, g)Dolores Street, h) Leonardo
Street, i) Alvarez Street, j) Basilio Street, k) Rodriguez Street, and i)Villa Barbara.

There is consequently no gainsaying the fact that with its Binibini Street
location,t h e p r o p e r t y i n l i t i g a t i o n i s n o t i n c l u d e d a m o n g t h e s i t e s i d e n t i
fied as Areas for
P r i o r i t yD e v e l o p m e n t i n P a s a y C i t y. T h e m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e l i s t d o e s
n o t i n c l u d e B i n i b i n i S t r e e t necessarily implies that it is deemed excluded from
it.Citing Solanada Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, it made a profound analysis of
Section 6 of P.D. 1517 (as found in Annex A of this Memorandum) based on statutory
construction:
We agree. A close reading of Proclamation No. 1967 reveals that, before a
preemptiveright can be exercised, the disputed land should be situated in an area
declared to be both anAPD and a ULRZ.An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set forth
in Section 6, PD 1517, as follows:S e c . 6 .
L a n d Ten a n c y i n U r b a n L a n d R e f o r m A r e a s
. W i t h i n t h e U r b a n Zones[,] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten
years or more[,] who have built their homes on the land[,] and residents who have
legallyoccupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not
bedispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal
to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms
and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation andLand Management
Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree.Proclamation No. 1967 further delimited the
areas or zones wherein this preemptive rightcould be availed of
viz
.:

WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 1893 was issued on 11 September 1979, pursuantto

Section 4 of P.D. No. 1517, declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area
asUrban Land Reform Zone.WHEREAS, It is now necessary and appropriate to identify
specific sites covered by urban land reform in Metropolitan Manila for purposes of
making specific theapplicability of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No.
935. N O W , T H E R E F O R E , I , F E R D I N A N D E . M A R C O S , P r e s i
d e n t o f t h e Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution
and existinglaws, and in relation to Proclamation No. 1893 declaring the entire
MetropolitanM a n i l a a r e a a s a n U r b a n L a n d R e f o r m Z o n e , a n d L O I
9 3 5 , h e r e b y a m e n d Proclamation No. 1893 by declaring 244 sites in Metropolitan
Manila as Areas for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones as described
in the attachedannex. T h e p r o v i s i o n s o f P.D . N o s . 1 5 1 7 , 1 6 4 0 a n d 1 6 4 2
a n d o f L O I N o . 9 3 5 s h a l l apply only to the above[-]mentioned Areas of
Priority Development and UrbanLand Reform Zones.xxx xxx xxxThe aforecited
whereas
clauses express a clear intent to limit the operation of PD 1 5 1 7 t o s p e c i f i c
areas declared to be located in both an APD and a ULRZ.
T h e conjunctive
and
in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirm
s t h i s intention.
And
in statutory construction implies conjunction, joinder or union.

Asunderstood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction

and,
the provisionso f P D 1 5 1 7 a p p l y o n l y t o a r e a s d e c l a r e d t o b e l o c a t e d
w i t h i n b o t h a n AP D a n d a ULRZ.With
the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, the Defendant-Petitioners
action wouldnecessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.
PRAYER WHEREFORE,
p r e m i 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 y e d f o r t h a t t h i s H o n o r a b l e Su
preme Court that Defendant-Petitioners prayer for writ of injunction be
DENIED
for havingno cause of action and the petition
DISMISSED
for 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.
AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent10
th
Floor, New Building,Makati Avenue, Makati CityBy:

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011Roll of Attorney No. 2005-
001023MCLE Compliance No. III 000899Copy Furnished:
ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER
Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,Espana, Manila