Maria Christina E.

Gaviola LEGFORMS 3B

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

CA G.R. No. 111122

PATRICIA VILLANUEVA
Plaintiff-Appellee

-versus-

JOSE ANTONIO ANG

Defendant-Appellant

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

BUENSENCO & BALUYOT LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

1
 SUBJECT INDEX

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

AND FACTS _____

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS/GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL _____

ARGUMENTS

1. The Honorable Court erred in holding that possession

is linked with the issue of ownership so that the lower
court cannot receive evidence on possession to determine
the nature of possession _____

2. The Honorable Court erred in holding that the contract

between the parties is, in reality, an equitable mortgage _____

RELIEF _____

AUTHORITIES CITED
1. Statute

 Article 1458 of the New Civil Code

2. Jurisprudence

 Refugia v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 118284, 15 July 1996]

 Coronel vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 103577, 7 October 1996]
 Arcal vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 127850, 26 January 1998]

2
 Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PATRICIA VILLANUEVA
Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus Civil Case No. 187560

For: Unlawful Detainer
(Ejectment)

JOSE ANTONIO ANG

Defendant-Appellant,
x----------------------------------------------------------x

APPELLEE’S BRIEF
Plaintiff-Appellee, PATRICIA VILLANUEVA, by undersigned counsel and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully submits that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. On 9 May 2006, Plaintiff-Appellee filed a Complaint against Defendant-Appellant

Jose Antonio Ang for Unlawful Detainer or Ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 12.

2. On 11 August 2006, Summons for Preliminary Conference dated 29 July 2006 was
received by Plaintiff-Appellee. The preliminary conference was calendared on 9 September 2006
at 10:30 in the morning, in the Municipal Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12. On the same day, the
Presiding Judge referred the case for mediation proceedings and ordered the parties to appear
before the Philippine Mediation Center Unit in the GSIS Compound, Ermita, Manila on 27
September 2006. The said office, however, returned the case to the Honorable Court without the
parties arriving at an amicable settlement.

3. On 16 June 2007, Plaintiff-Appellee received the Order of the Honorable Court dated
30 May 2006 requiring the parties to file their respective position papers, affidavits and evidence
marked ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

4. On 25 June 2007, Appellee’s Position Paper was filed and was duly received by the
Honorable Court on the same day and was delivered to Defendant-Appellant’s counsel by
registered mail..

3
 5. On 25 July 2007, the Honorable Court issued the Decision in favor of Plaintiff-
Appellee, the dispositive part of which states:

“WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in

favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. The Defendant JOSE ANTONIO ANG and
all persons claiming rights under him are hereby ordered to vacate the property located at
10 Alunan Street, Taft, Manila and to restore the plaintiff to the peaceful possession
thereof.

The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff the following:

1. The sum of P5,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the subject premises starting January 2005 until she
surrenders its possession to the plaintiff; and
2. The sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The counterclaim of defendant Jose Antonio An is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.”

6. On 15 August 2007, Defendant-Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Regional

Trial Court, Clerk of Court, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 40 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Plaintiff-Appellee, Patricia Villanueva, is the lawful owner of the parcel of land

described as:
“A parel of alnd (Lot 2, Block 4, of the subdivision plan, Pcs-102829, being a
portion of Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & Alley 3, all of Block 1, Psd-13-00145738; Lot 13
Block 3345, Manila Cadastre & Lots 15-A-4, Psd-80996, L.R.C. (GLRO Rec. No 13),
situated in the District of ______, City f Manila, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the SE,
along line 1-2 by Lot 4; on the SW., along line 2-3 b Lot 4; on the NW, along line 3-4 by
Footpath 11; and on the NE., along line 4-1 by Lot 7, all of the const. Subd. Plan.
Beginning at the point marked “1” on plan…”

A copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title is marked as “Exhibit 1”

2. That in early 2001, Plaintiff-Appellee’s aunt, Rona Caritos, visited the Defendant-
Appellant in his house. At that time, Defendant-Appellant, who was a good friend of Appellee’s
aunt, approached the latter and asked help in looking for a buyer to his house. According to
Defendant-Appellant, he was planning to dispose of all his properties in the Philippines as he was
planning to move to Batangas and live with his sister, Bibiana Ang.

3. On 2 July 2001, Defendant-Appellant was brought by Caritos to Plaintiff-Appellee’s

house at Defendant’s request. There, they were able to agree to sell the subject property but that
the Defendant-Appellee be given the right to repurchase said property. Furthermore, Defendant-
Appellee requested Plaintiff-Appellee that he be allowed to remain in the house in the meantime
and while finalizing his move to Batangas and to give him time to look for a different house or
residence to move in to. Out of the goodness of Plaintiff-Appellee, considering that Defendant-

4
Appellant had a wife and several minor children, she acquiesced to such request upon the
condition that reasonable monthly rentals be paid for such occupancy.

4. On 3 July 2001, Defendant-Appellant returned to Plaintiff-Appellant’s residence

where they executed the “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” in the presence of Plaintiff-
Appellant’s aunt, Rona Caritos, as well as Defendant-Appellant’s wife, Chiara Baluyot-Ang

5. From the time of the signing of the alleged “Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase”
on 3 July 2001 up to the present, Defendant-Appellant has remained in possession of the property,
however, only because of the tolerance and goodness of Plaintiff-Appellee.

6. Meanwhile, on 22 November 2002, Defendant-Appellant returned to Plaintiff-

Appellee’s house asking for a loan of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00)
allegedly because of financial constraints and because his wife allegedly came down with a
disease that required hospitalization. Again, Defendant-Appellant appealed to Plaintiff’s
goodness and prevailed upon Plaintiff to allow them to stay a while longer in the property sold to
and, hence, owned by Plaintiff-Appellee.

10. However, Defendant-Appellant suddenly stopped paying his monthly dues and
refused to meet or talk to Plaintiff-Appellee.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. The Honorable Court erred in holding that the issue of ownership is linked with
possession thereby allowing the lower court to receive evidence on possession to determine the
nature of possession.

II. The Honorable Court erred in holding that the contract is an Equitable Mortgage.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I. The issue of ownership is NOT

linked with the issue on ownership.
Thus, the lower court cannot receive
evidence on possession de jure to
determine the nature of possession

In Refugia v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 118284, 15 July 1996], we ruled that the lower
court:
“…cannot, however, resolve the issue of ownership, that is, by declaring who
among the parties is the true and lawful owner of the subject property, because the

5
 resolution of the said issue would effect an adjudication on ownership which is not
sanctioned in the summary action for unlawful detainer.”.

Thus, adjudication on owneship is not the proper subject of an unlawful detainer case.

II. The contract between the parties a

loan. Thus, the Deed of Sale with
Right of Repurchase is, in reality, an
Equitable Mortgage

Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines a “sale” as a “contract whereby one of the
contracting parties obligated himself to transfer ownership of, and to deliver, a determinate thing;
and the other party obligates himself to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent:.
In Coronel vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 103577, 7 October 1996] enumerates the essential
elements of a valid contract of sale: (1) Consent or meting of the minds to transfer ownership in
exchange for the price; (2) Determinate or determinable Subject Matter; (3) Price certain in
money or its equivalent. All such elements are present in this case. Thus, a perfected contract of
sale arose. The Defendant-Appellant simply loaned Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P250,000.00) from the Plaintiff-Appellant with the understanding that such amount shall be
secured by a mortgage on her property in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee.

A careful examination of the facts of the case would reveal that the possession by
Defendant-Appellant of the property is merely by the tolerance of the owner. The rule, as stated
in the case of Arcal vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 127850, 26 January 1998] is that a person
who occupies a land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand,
failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. careful
evaluation of the same

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court that the
Decision dated 25 July 2007 of the court a quo reinstated.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 04 October 2007.

6
 BUENSENCO & BALUYOT LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

By:

Maria Christina E. Gaviola

Copy Furnished:

Hon. Judge Arturo Pano

Municipal Trial Court Branch 12
Manila

Diaz, Dominguez, Alcantara Law Office

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
No. 66 Starboard Street, La Hista, Makati City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Undersigned counsel informs this Honorable Court that this Memorandum of Appeal was
furnished and filed by registered mail due to lack of messengerial services.