REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 14
ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN

BASHA EUGENIO,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

CIVIL CASE NO. A-1234

REGISTER OF DEEDS of ALAMINOS CITY,

PANGASINAN, et al.,
Defendant.
x--------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF, by counsel andin compliance with the resolution dated 20
November, 2008 to file the respective memoranda of the parties to this
Honorable Court, respectfully submits thisMemorandum as follows:
I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The plaintiff filed this action for annulment of titles issued by the Registry
of Deeds of Alaminos City in favor of the private defendants. The plaintiff claims
overnership over the parcels of land covered by the titles sought to be annulled
and that the titles of the defendants emanate from a void Emancipation
Certificate as determined by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
II
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

As shown by T.D. No. 23 (Exh. B), Basha A. Eugenio is the owner of the
following described real property:
A parcel of land, Lot 78-H, being a portion of Lot 78, Cad
80-D, Alaminos Cadastre, situated in the Barangay of Poblacion,
Alaminos City, Pangasinan, containing an area of 13,982 sq. m.,
more or less. Bounded on the NE., along line 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 56 by Lot 78-C of the subdivision plan; on the SE., along line 6-7 by
Lot 73; on the SW along line 7-8 by Provincial Road and on the
NW. along line 8-9, 9-10, 10-11, 11-12 by Lot 78-G of the subd.
plan. It is assesses at Php 52,380.00 under T.D. 23.
As can be gleaned from the description of the subject property, and as
admitted by defendant Popoy Gonzales in his Answer, subject property used to
be a portion of Lot 78, Cad 25-D, which has a ttal area of 91,590. Lot 78 was
subjected to land reform and was the object of a subdivision survey approved on
February 11, 1986 as Csd-1-80-D, copy of which plan is attached as Annex 1 of
said defendants Answer dated August 9, 2004. The property was subdivided
among plaintiffs tenants, one of whom was defendant Gonzales to whom was
volutarily trabsferred Lot 78-C which is on the NE of the land in question (Lot 78H). The land in question is plaintiffs retained portion in Lot 78.
Sometime in August 1999, Basha Eugenios court-appointed guardian,
Budjoy Eugenio (Exh. A), discovered that Lot 78-H, the subject property, was
registered in and transferred to the name of defendant Gonzales for tax
purposes.
An investigation conducted by Budjoy Eugenio revealed that
defendant Gonzales was in fact also issued an Emancipation Patent (EP No.
41/OCT 67) on October 29, 1998over Lot 78-H. A deeper investigation revealed
that a few months after its issuance, OCT 67 was cancelled on January 11, 1999
and in its place was issued TCT 19278 that reflected the names of supposed
buyers, namely, defendants Ern Tab, Rob Cam, Lei Jim, Mau Per, Nil Car and
Cec Sis. Furthermore, sometime in March of the same year, defendants Car and
Jim sold their shares to defendant spouses Jov and Ade Ram, while defendant
Tab and Per sold portions of their acquisitions to defendant spouses Pin and Wil
Wee, who in turn, together with spouses Jov and Ade Ram, sold their total
acquisitions to spouses Geo and Jud Cha resulting in the issuance of TCT 38 on
June 8, 1999.
Subsequently, defendant Tab again sold a portion of the land to defendant
Eve Ron, that led to the issuance of TCT 40 (Exh. K).
Meanwhile, the portion covered by TCT 38 was subdivided by the coowners leading to its cancellation and the issuance of TCT 69 (Exh. L) over a
200 sq. m. portion in favor od Sps. Geo and Jud Cha, and TCT 23971 (Exh. M)
over a 1,100 sq.m. portion in favor of spouses Jov and Ade, Ram.

Because of the disturbing developments, Basha Eugenio complained to

the Department of Agrarian Reform about the issuance of an emancipation
patent over Lot 78-H in favor of defendant Gonzales. An Ad Hoc Committee was
created by the DAR Regional Office by virtue of Regional Special Order No. 18,
series of 2002 to look into the matter.
An ocular inspection an investigation was conducted by the Ad Hoc
Committee and the corresponding investigation report (Exh. P and series) was
submitted on June 27, 2002. The following were the observations and
recommendations of the committee:
It has been observed that the history of the aggregate
landholdings/properties of the late Vic Mon were covered under the
Operation Land Transfer (OLT). One of the elements in order that a
landhollding covered under this operatiion is that the same is land
devoted to rice and/or corn. Clearly, the lot in issue cannot be the
subject of OLT since it was used as a dumpsite by the Municipality
of Alaminos and classified under Tax Declaration 23 as pasture
land, more so, that is within the residential zones being 50 meters
near the highway and within the development plan of the same
municipality.
The documentation for the issuance of the alleged EP No.
159491 cannot be located as there is nothing such records turned
over by the former MARO Jos Cam to the succeeding MARO Ter
Orl. Even worsem the alleged EP with serial No. 91 is non-existing
in the Emancipation Patent Information System (EMPIS) database
since there is no report (Subsidiary Ledger) by the ROD to the
DARPO of the registration of the EP in controversy. The Said
report is the basis of the EMPIS personnel to encode the supposed
registered EP in the database. Considering tat the documentation
for the generation and issuance of the subject Title is not in order
and highly anomalous, the validity therefore of EP No. 49/OCT No.
67 is doubtful.
Furthermore, the transfer and conveyance of the subject
property to several buyers/co-owners to the effect that the alleged
EP was cancelled by virtue of a new Transfer Certificate of Title No.
19278 has no basis and in violation of existing DAR Administrative
orders, rules and guidelines as there is nothing in the record of the
DAR that a Transfer Action Order/s was/were approved by the DAR
Regional Director and nothing of such order could be found in the
Register of Deeds of Alaminos City. At any rate, since the validity of
the original title is highly qustionable, the transfer of the subject

property from the original FB to Ern Tab et al., which is the fruit of a
non-existing title cannot be countenanced.
Popoy Gonzales is no longer entitled to the subject land as
his homelot considering that he had already been awarded a parcel
of land with an area of 14,715 square meters, more or less under
OLT pursuant to the provision of P.D. 27 as shown by Original
Certificate Title No. 195 EP No. A-52 through a direct sale.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings and
observations, the undersigned members of the Ad Hoc Committee
hereby recommend, that the necessary proceedings for the
cancellation of the new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19278 be
undertaken and filed in the proper forum by the landowners
concerned. Further, the EP with serial no. 91/OCT 67 be first
declared null and void before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB). It is further recommended that Tax
Declaration No. 23 in the name of Bart Eugenio be recalled and the
New Tax Declaration No. 40 in the name of Popoy Gonzales be
cancelled in the Assessors Office.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the said Ad Hoc Committee,
Basha Eugenio filed a case with the DARAB and the Emancipation Patent
(EP with serial no. 91/OCT 67) covering the land in question was declared
null and void in DARAB Case No. WP-02 in a Resolution dated March 14,
2003 (Exh. O & O-1) which reads:
WHEREFORE, E.P. No. 91 is hereby declared null and void
from the beginning as observed by the Ad Hoc Committee
Investigation Report dated June 27, 2002.
Further to the recommendation of the said Ad Hoc Committee, that
the necessary proceedings for the cancellation of the new Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 19278 be undertaken and filedin the proper forum
by the landowners concerned, the instant case was filed on May 21,
2003.
Because of the defendants tenacity to hold on to the plaintiffs
property, they embarked on laundering their illegally acquired property by
transferring portions of the property in question after the Ad Hoc
Committee came up with its report, thus TCT 19940, 23968, 23970 and

23971 were subsequently issued to some of them before the plaintiff could
file the case at bar.
III
ISSUES
The Honorable Court is called upon to resolve the following issues:
1) Whether or not TCT 78, 40, 69, 70 and 71 issued to the defendants
are null and void;
2) Whether or not the defendants are purchasers in good faith;
3) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the award of attorneys
fees.
IV
ARGUMENTS
(a)
Defendants TCTs must be annulled
and cancelled for being issued
through a void Emancipation Patent.
All the land titles in question emanated from OCT No. 67 (Exh. F) which
was issued pursuant to an Emancipation Patent covering Lot 78-H issued in
favor of Popoy Gonzales and granted by the President of the Philippines on
November 25, 1998.
On Basha Eugenios complaint about the issuance of the Emancipation
Patent, an investigation was conducted by an Ad Hoc Committee created by the
Regional Office of the DAR pursuant to a Special Order from the Central Office.
The committee found out that the Emancipation Patent (No. 91/OCT No. 67)
(Exh. F) was spurious, illegal and void for the following reasons:
1)

EP 91/OCT 67 was issued and registered without the necessary documentations

and processing. There was no notice of coverage, no deed of conveyance
signed by the landowner, and no payment made. More important, the EP does

not exist in the Emancipation Patent Information System (Electronic) database of

the Department of Agrarian Reforms. In short, it was fictitious.
2)

The beneficiary, defendant Gonzales, is already a landowner, having been earlier

awarded an Emancipation Patent in the 1980s over Lot 78-C, hence, he can not
again be the beneficiary of Lot 78-H.

3)

The area covered by the EP (Lot 78-H) is exempt from the operation of the land
reform law because it is commercial/pasture land near the towns development
center and was actually used before as sumpsite of Alaminos, Pangasinan.
The Deed of Sale being flaunted by Gonzales in his Answer was for the
rice land voluntarily transferred by Basha Eugenio, represented by her brother Gil
Eugenio, to him in 1984 and denominated as Lot 78-C, which has a different
area, different classification and different boundaries from Lot 78-H, the property
in question. In other words, defendant Gonzales RECYCLED an old deed of
voluntary land transfer as basis to grab sometime in 1998 Lot 78-H because he
does not have any deed of conveyance over the same.
Verily, the title and Emancipation Patent of Gonzales over Lot 78-H is fake
because it does not even exist in the Department of Agrarian Reforms Electronic
Database (EPIS) as found by the Ad Hoc Committee. Besides, the prior
voluntary transfer of Lot 78-C to defendant Gonzales in 1984, has extinguished
any tenancy relationship with Basha Eugenio; he is now considered a landowner
in his own right. Thus, he can not anymore be entitled to another landholding.
His claim in his Answer that the land in question is his home lot is baseless
because a home lot cannot be bigger than 1,000 sq, m. and a lot in a commercial
zone cannot be a home lot within the contemplation of the agrarian law.
Being a void Emancipation Patent, the title generated by it must likewoise
be void on the principle that nothing comes from nothing. And so with the
subsequent tites issued pursuant to the transaction over the property in question;
they are all void because ethe came from a void title.
(b)
Defendants are purchasers in bad
faith.
Even assuming arguendo that Gonzales title was validly issued, his fellow
defendants are not purchasers in good faith. It is a well settled rule that a
purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man
upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that

there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that
such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the
existence of a defect in his vendors title, will not make him an innocent
purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective,
and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its
discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonable
be required of a prudent man in a like situation (Lee Yeung Yee vs. Strong
Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644; RFC vs. Javillomar, 107 Phil. 664; Maacop vs.
Casio, 111 Phil. 166).
Thus, when defendants Rob Cam, Lei Jim, Nil Car, Cec Sis and Ern Tab
bought portions of the property in question from defendant Gonzales in 1998,
they must have examined the title, OCT 67 (Exh. F) for if they did not examine
it, the they are purchasers in bad faith; for if they read the title before buying
portions of the property, then they would have noted that on the face of the title
was clearly printed the following restriction:
To Have And To Hold said parcel of agricultural land in
absolute ownership with all the rights and privileges appurtenant
thereto, subject to the condition that it shall not be transferred
except by hereditary succession or to the Government in
accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27,
Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines, and other existing
laws and regulations, and to the further condition that the herein
grantee shall remain a member of a duly registered farmers
cooperative and he shall not at anytime employ tenants in the
cultivation of the land.
With the above-warning, the vendees should have been put on alert and
had they reserached on the pertinent laws, rules and regulations mentioned on
the face of the title, they would have found out that under Sec. 27 of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. 6657), there is a prohibition
to transfer within ten (10) years from the date the land was awarded, or for (10)
years counted from October 29, 1998.
Regretfully, all the transfers made by defendant Gonzales to his fellow
defendants were all made within the prohibited period. The patent was issued on
October 29, 1998 and portions were sold between the period of November 30,
1998 and December 31, 1998, and registered on January 11, 1999, leading to
the cancellation of OCT No. 5867 and the issuance of TCT 19278 (Exh. J).

As a matter of fact, all the titles herein sough to be annulled were all
issued within the ten-year prohibition period.

To illustrate:

TCT No. 78 (Exh. J) in the name of defendants

Popoy Gonzales, Ern Tab, Rob Cam, Lei Jim,
Mau Per, Nil Car, and Cec Sis was issued on
June 11, 1999. (N.B. No sale was made in
favor of Mau Per yet his name was added in
the title).

TCT No. 40 (Exh. K) in the name of defendant Eve

Ron was issued on June 8, 1999.

TCT No. 69 (Exh. L) in the name of defendant Mau

Per was issued on January 24, 2003.

TCT No. 70 (Exh. M) in the name of defendant

spouses Geo Cha and Jud Cha was issued on
January 24, 2003.

TCT No. 71 (Exh. N) in the name of defendants

Ces Sis and spouses Jov and Ade Ram was
issued on January 24, 2003.

The later buyers, namely: defendant spouses Ping and Wil Wee, spouses
Jov and Ade Ram, spouses Geo and Jud Cha, and Eve Ron cannot feign lack of

knowledge in the irregularity of their acquisition because had they read carefully
the tite of their predeceddors-in-interest, they would have not missed the warning
written on its face to the effect that it originated from OCT No. 67 pursuant to
a Free Patent in the name of Popoy Gonzales granted by the President of
the Philippines on the 25 th day of November in the year nineteen hundred
and ninety eight x x x.

Even if the origin of the title was erroneously written as Free Patent, they
should have known that from the approval of the application and for a term of five
(5) years from and after date of issuance of the patent, lands acquired under free
patent cannot be subject to encumbrance or alienation. Thus, the said
defendants acquisition in 1999 and 2002, which were all within the prohibited
period are not only acquisitions in bad faith but also by itself null and void for
violating the 10-year restriction against transfers.

(c)
The plaintiff is entitled to moral and
exemplary
damages,
including
attorneys fees and costs of suit.
By the actions of Gonzales, as well as of the other defendants, of
obtaining a spurious title and claiming over plaintiffs property, the plaintiff
suffered damage and was constrained to engage the services of counsel to
protect its interests and institute the instant complaint.
For the recovery of possession of such land so held in bad faith, moral
and exemplary damages may be recoverable by the plaintiff (St. Peter Memorial
Park, Inc. vs. Cleofas, 92 SCRA 389).
PRAYE R
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court render
judgment in favor of the plaintiff:

1) Declaring TCT Nos. 78, 40, 69, 70 and 71 and their correspondig tax
declarations null and void;
2) Ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and solidarily, to the plaintiff
moral and exmplary damages in such amount as this Honorable Court
may deem just and equiable, plus attorneys fees.

Lingayen, Pangasinan this 30th day of November, 2008.

ATTY. CATHY GARCIA-MOLINA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
123 St. North West
Lingayen, Pangasinan 3010
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
P.T.R. No. 12345, 01/02/2008, Ling., Pang.
I.B.P. No. 1234, Pangasinan Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-00010, 03/08/2008
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Br 54, Alaminos City
Greetings:
Kindly submit the foregoing for the consideration and approval by the
Honorable Court upon receipt hereof.
Counsel
COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. CHARO SANTOS-CONCIO

Counsel for the Defendants
2nd Floor, ABC Building, Ramos Ave.
Lingayen, Pangasinan