Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Cainta, Rizal
RAMON NIETO,
Appellant,
-vesus- CIVIL CASE NO. 100-2013
!o" E#ect$ent
KEITH ILAGAN,
Appellee%
&-------------------------------------------------------------------------&
MEMORANDUM
CO'E NO( PLAINTI!!-RE)PON*ENT, thou+h the un,esi+ne,
counsel, unto this -onoable Cout $ost espectfull. sub$it an, pesent this
'e$oan,u$ in the above-title, case an, ave that"
THE PARTIES
1. Appellant Ra$on Nieto is of le+al a+e, sin+le, an, esi,in+ at /00
'c1inle. R,% !obes Pa2, 'a2ati Cit., 3hee he $a. be seve,
3ith le+al pocesses an, notices issue, b. this -onoable Cout4
2. Appellee 1eith Ila+an is of le+al a+e an, esi,in+ on /56 7inibini
)teet, )an An,es, Cainta, Rizal, an, $a. be seve, 3ith le+al
pocesses an, othe #u,icial notices theeto%
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
/% Afte a e-sche,ulin+ of ,ates, the peli$ina. confeence 3as
con,ucte, on !ebua. /8, 50/8% The paties 3ee ,iecte, to
si$ultaneousl. file thei espective position papes on 'ach /8,
50/8% In his position pape file, on 'ach /8, 50/8,RA'ON NIETO
attache, his affi,avit 9Anne& :A: of the position pape; attestin+ to
the $ateial alle+ations in the co$plaint% 1EIT- ILAGAN also
attache, his affi,avit 9as Anne& :/:; to the position pape that 3as
file, also on even ,ate, 3hich suppote, the alle+ations in the ans3e%
5% On Apil //, 50/8, the 'TC of Cainta en,ee, a ,ecision 3hich
,is$isse, the co$plaint 9pa+e <, *ecision;% Acco,in+ to the tial
cout, RA'ON NIETO cannot avail hi$self of the povisions of Rule
<0 of the Rules of Cout, because an e#ect$ent case shoul, not
involve o3neship issues 9pa+e 6, *ecision;4 that even assu$in+
RA'ON NIETO can aise the issue of o3neship, the tial cout has
no #uis,iction to esolve the sa$e, since the popet. has a $a2et
value of P=>0,000%00 9pa+e 8, *ecision;4 that even if the tial cout
has #uis,iction to ,eci,e the espective clai$s of o3neship of the
paties, it 3oul, appea that ,efen,ant 1EIT- ILAGAN is the o3ne
of the sub#ect pe$ises, because he has an affi,avit of o3neship that
3as ,ul. e+istee, 3ith the 'unicipal Assesso of Cainta, Rizal
9pa+e >, *ecision;4 an, that, if it 3ee tue that RA'ON NIETO
ac?uie, ealie in /@=> the title to the popet., the ,efen,ant 3as
still issue, ta& ,eclaation ove the sa$e popet., an, his eal
popet. ta& pa.$ents theeon 3ee also eceive, b. the 'unicipal
Teasue of Cainta, Rizal, theeb. bel.in+ RA'ON NIETOAs clai$
of title 9pa+e >, *ecision;%
6% On Apil /8, 50/8, the paties eceive, thei copies of the ,ecision%
8% Apil />, 50/8, RA'ON NIETO file, a Notice of Appeal, statin+ that
he is appealin+ the ,ecision to the Re+ional Tial Cout of Antipolo
Cit., Rizal% Afte the pa.$ent of the appeal fees, the appeal 3as
+iven ,ue couse, on Apil /<, 50/8% On Apil 5=, 50/8, the entie
eco,s of the case 3ee tans$itte, to the RTC, 3hich theeupon
notifie, the paties of such fact on 'a. 5, 50/8%
-ence, the filin+ of the instant 'e$oan,u$%
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
>% Appellant o3ns a pacel of esi,entialBco$$ecial lan, consistin+ of
/,500 s?% $%, $oe o less, that is locate, in )an An,es, Cainta, Rizal%
-e ac?uie, title ove the sai, lan, in /@=>, b. 3a. of absolute sale
fo$ the pevious o3ne theeof, )TECE ONA, as sho3n b. the *ee,
of Absolute )ale% The sai, lan, is not covee, b. a Toens cetificate
of title%
D% As a esult of the sale, plaintiff 3as issue, Ta& *eclaation No%
/////-/@=>, a cop., as 3ell as official eceipts evi,encin+ the
pa.$ent of eal popet. ta&es fo$ /@=> up to 50/5%
<% Plaintiff then plante, tees an, othe plants on the popet.% -e also
eecte, a pei$ete fence aoun, the pe$ises% In Eanua. 500@, he
also built a /-oo$ nipa hut, 3hich since then he occupie, fo$ ti$e
to ti$e%
=% )o$eti$e in Eul. 500@, plaintiff 3ent to )in+apoe, -on+ 1on+,
'ala.sia, Eapan an, Cietna$ fo an e&ten,e, vacation% Upon his
etun in *ece$be 50/5, plaintiff 3ent to visit his popet. in )an
An,es, Cainta, Rizal% Plaintiff then ,iscovee, that ,efen,ant
1EIT- ILAGAN 3as occup.in+ the sub#ect popet.%
@% Plaintiff theeupon ,e$an,e, fo$ ,efen,ant to vacate the sub#ect
pe$ises% The ,efen,ant ,i, not hee, sai, ,e$an,% Plaintiff a+ain
sent anothe ,e$an, in 'ach 50/6, as sho3n b. a cop. of the lette
,ate, 'ach 6, 50/6% The ,efen,ant also ,i, not hee, this late
,e$an,%
/0%-e state, occup.in+ the sub#ect pe$ises in Octobe 500@, afte a
sto$ 9T.phoon On,o.; ,esto.e, his house in )an Isi,o, Cainta,
Rizal%
//%At that ti$e, the sub#ect pe$ises 3ee not occupie, o clai$e, b.
an. peson, inclu,in+ the plaintiff% In fact, thee 3as nothin+ in the
sai, pe$ises that in,icate, that the plaintiff o3ns the sub#ect
popet.% Thee 3as no fence to enclose the popet.% Thee 3ee no
stuctues eecte, theeat, not even those $entione, b. the plaintiff in
his co$plaint%
/5%The ,efen,ant ,eclae, the popet. fo ta&ation puposes in Octobe
500@, as sho3n b. Ta& *eclaation No% 5000-500@% )ai, ta&
,eclaation sho3s that the popet. has a $a2et value of
P=>0,000%00% -e also pai, eal popet. ta&es in 500@, 50/0, 50//
an, 50/5, as sho3n b. the official eceipts issue, to hi$ b. the
'unicipal Teasue of Cainta% The ,efen,ant li2e3ise e+istee, 3ith
the 'unicipal Assesso of Cainta, Rizal, an Affi,avit of O3neship
ove the sub#ect pe$ises%
/6%Plaintiff, theefoe, has no i+ht to clai$ the popet., $uch less oust
the ,efen,ant fo$ the possession theeof%
III. ISSUES OF THE CASE
A.) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT
ACTED CORRECTLY IN DISMISSING THE EECTMENT
CASE ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT
AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE !0 OF
THE RULES OF COURT BECAUSE AN EECTMENT CASE
SHOULD NOT INVOLVE OWNERSHIP ISSUES AND THAT
IT HAD NO URISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE SAME,
SINCE THE PROPERTY HAS A MARKET VALUE OF
P"#0,000.00 WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE URISDICTIONAL
LIMT SET BY LAW$
B.)WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT WAS USTIFIED IN
DETERMINING THAT APPELLEE IS THE OWNER OF THE
SUBECT PREMISES, BECAUSE HE WAS ISSUED A TA%
DECLARATION ON THE BASIS OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF
OWNERSHIP DULY REGISTERED WITH THE MUNICIPAL
ASSESSOR OF CAINTA RI&AL
IV. ARGUMENTS
A%; The Cout co$$itte, an eo in ,is$issin+ the e#ect$ent case
because the issue of o3neship 3as aise, in the pocee,in+ an, in
ulin+ it ha, no #uis,iction to esolve the case, since the popet. has
a $a2et value of P=>0,000%00%
7%;The Cout co$$itte, an eo in statin+ that the appellee has the i+ht
to possession ,ue to his appaent o3neship because of a ta&
,eclaation that 3as issue, b. the 'unicipal Assesso of Cainta, Rizal
on the basis of a ,ul. e+istee, affi,avit of o3neship%
V. DISCUSSION
A%; In e#ect$ent cases the, the sole ?uestion to be ,ete$ine, is the
ph.sical possession of the popet. in ?uestion% A clai$ of #ui,ical
possession o o3neship cannot ,epive the cout fo$ ta2in+
co+nizance of the case% Even if the issue of o3neship 3as aise, in
the plea,in+s, the cout $a. pass on the issue onl. to ,ete$ine
possession, especiall. if the. ae ine&ticabl. lin2e,% The tial cout
$a. $a2e an initial ,ete$ination on o3neship so it can esolve the
issue of possession absent an. othe evi,ence to suppot this% )uch
,ete$ination of o3neship is not final% It 3ill not affect the actual
o3neship of the popet. no be consi,ee, an a,#u,ication on the
$eits as to o3neship%
)ection 6695; of 7atas Pa$bansa 7l+% /5@, pescibes the #uis,iction of
infeio couts in e#ect$ent cases as follo3s"
)ec% 66% Euis,iction of 'etopolitan Tial Couts, 'unicipal Tial
Couts an, 'unicipal Cicuit Tial Couts in Civil Cases - 'etopolitan
Tial Couts, 'unicipal Tial Couts an, 'unicipal Cicuit Tial Couts
shall e&ecise"
&&& &&& &&&
E&clusive oi+inal #uis,iction ove cases of focible ent. an,
unla3ful ,etaine" Povi,e,, that 3hen in such cases, the ,efen,ant aises
the ?uestion of o3neship in his plea,in+s an, the ?uestion of o3neship
cannot be esolve, 3ithout ,eci,in+ the issue of o3neship, the issue of
o3neship shall be esolve, onl. to ,ete$ine the issue of possession%
In this case, the appellantAs cause of action fo e#ect$ent is +oun,e,
on his o3neship of the lan, base, on a ,ee, of absolute sale 3ith )teve
Ona, the pevious o3ne an, Ta& *eclaation No% /////-/@=>, alon+ 3ith
official eceipts fo the pa.$ent of eal popet. ta&es fo$ /@=> up to 50/5%
The fact that the appellee assets that his i+ht to possess the popet. base,
on a Ta& *eclaation fo$ 500@ to 50/5 3ithout an. othe fo$ of title othe
than his affi,avit of o3neship cannot be enou+h to ,efeat appellantAs clai$
an, confe upon hi$ possession of the popet. base, on his fli$s. clai$ of
o3neship% The fact that the appellant has pai, ta&es fo t3ent.-seven 95<;
.eas constitutes a ,elibeate intention to possess the popet.%
In Ges$un,o v CA, //< )CA* @/@, 65/ )CRA 8=< 9/@@@;, the )upe$e
Cout state, that"
(hile ta& ,eclaations an, eceipts ae not conclusive evi,ence of
o3neship, .et 3hen couple, 3ith poof of actual possession, ta&
,eclaations an, eceipts ae )TRONG evi,ence of O(NER)-IP%
9E$phasis supplie,;
Appellant in this case has also e&ecise, possession ove the popet.
b. plantin+ tees an, othe plants, buil,in+ a pei$ete fence an, a eectin+
a one 9/; oo$ nipa hut, 3hich he occupie, fo$ ti$e to ti$e% This is clea
in,ication of his contol an, possession ove the popet. as e&ecise, b. an
o3ne% -is ,ispossession 3ithout his 2no3le,+e ,oes not affect his i+ht to
possess the popet. as it 3as an act of secec. that necessitate, an, action
fo e#ect$ent%
Aticle >6< of the Civil Co,e, states"
At% 6><% Acts $eel. toleate,, an, those e&ecute, clan,estinel.
an, 3ithout the 2no3le,+e of the possesso of a thin+, o b. violence, ,o
not affect possession%
It is also clea that the appellant possesses the popet. b. vitue of his o3n
i+ht as the o3ne as evi,ence, b. a ,ee, of absolute sale bet3een hi$ an,
the pevious o3ne% Eve since the sale in /@=> he has continue, to e&ecise
possession in his o3n na$e, in the concept of an o3ne 3ho puchase, the
popet. in +oo, faith an, fo value%
It cannot also be sai, that the appellant ha, aban,one, the popet. ,ue to
bein+ a3a. on vacation fo such a lon+ peio,% -e ha, all the intention of
etunin+ to his popet. as he ,i, 3hen he foun, the appellee s?uattin+ on
the lan,, an, he has eve. intention of ecovein+ the popet. bac2 b. the
institution of a case fo e#ect$ent% It 3as onl. upon his etun that he
ealize, that so$eone ha, occupie, his popet.%
In U) v% Re., = Phil% >00, the Cout ,iscusses 3hat constitutes
aban,on$ent"
A popet. o3ne cannot be hel, to have aban,one, the sa$e until
at least he has so$e 2no3le,+e of the loss of its possession o the thin+%
&&& &&& &&&
%%%thee $ust be no $oe spes ecupean,i 9e&pectation to ecove;
an, no $oe ani$us eveten,i 9intention to etun;%
On the issue of the #uis,ictional a$ount% As cite, above, the infeio
couts shall have e&clusive an, oi+inal #uis,iction ove cases of focible
ent. an, unla3ful ,etaine% The Cout +ievousl. ee, in atiocinatin+ that
it $a. not ta2e co+nizance of the case because the popet. value 3as
P=>0,000%00%
7%;In a,,ition, the appelleeAs clai$ that a the ti$e he occupie, the sub#ect
pe$ises that it 3as not occupie, o clai$e, b. an. peson an, that
thee 3ee no plants an, stuctues an, thee 3as nothin+ on the
pe$ises to in,icate that the appellant o3ns the popet. ,oes not ipso
facto e?uate to o3neship on the pat of the appellee b. vitue of $ee
occupation on his pat% The e&ecution of an affi,avit of o3neship
base, on his actions 3hich a$ounte, to s?uattin+ is an in,ication of
ba, faith% Paentheticall., if the appellee clai$s that t.phoon On,o.
,esto.e, his ho$e at )an Isi,o, Cainta in 500@, then it is hi+hl.
li2el. that the appellantAs i$pove$ents $a. have been ,esto.e, b.
the t.phoon as 3ell, his assetion of o3neship ,ue to occupation has
no le+s%
The appellantAs title confes o3neship upon hi$ as evi,ence, b. a
,ee, of absolute sale% -e puchase, the popet. fo$ the o3ne in +oo,
faith an, fo value, 3ith no notice o in,ication of an. infi$it.% As the
o3ne he has the i+ht to ecove his popet. fo$ an. possesso 3ho he
has not assi+ne, an. of his i+hts of o3neship to%
The Civil Co,e states"
At% 85=% The o3ne has the i+ht to en#o. an, ,ispose of a thin+,
3ithout othe li$itations than those establishe, b. la3%
The o3ne has also the i+ht of action a+ainst the hol,e an, possesso of
the thin+ in o,e to ecove it%
It can be sai, that the ille+al occupation of the appellee ove the
sub#ect popet. is a li$itation on the o3neAs i+ht to possess the popet.%
-e theefoe has a i+ht of action to ecove un,e this suit fo e#ect$ent%
The CoutAs state$ent that the appellee is the appaent o3ne base, on the a
,ul. e+istee, ta& ,eclaation is a ,ouble e,+e, s3o, an, a$ounts to an
a,#u,ication on the issue of o3neship, 3hich is the ve. eason the Cout
itself use, to ,is$iss the pesent case%
Ac?uiin+ a ta& ,eclaation ove the popet. in his na$e an,
pa.in+ the ta&es can ,o nothin+ to bolste his clai$ of o3neship as he has
no le+al no coloable title of o3neship% As cite, in the case of Eeve v%
Escaos, L-5D@@6, *ec, /@, /@=0"
A ta& ,eclaation cannot +eneall. pevail ove a,vese possession fo a lon+
peio, of the ,ispute, lot no ove a pivate ,ee, of sale%
Appellant has o3neship base, on a public ,ocu$ent such as his ,ee,
of absolute sale 3ith the pevious o3ne Ona, paie, 3ith his lon+
possession of t3ent. seven 95<; .eas% AppelleeAs acts of ille+all. entein+ a
pivate popet. he ha, no i+ht to ta2e possession of an, his subse?uent
ac?uisition of a Ta& *eclaation in his na$e of a popet. he ,oes not o3n
,oes not $a2e hi$ a possesso in +oo, faith%
In conclusion, an, base, on the foe+oin+ facts an, la3, the
-onoable Cout ee, in its ,ecision ,is$issin+ the case fo e#ect$ent
a+ainst the appellee an, ,ete$inin+ hi$ as the o3ne of the popet. on
baseless clai$s unsubstantiate, b. an. fo$ of title o pope possession,
an, bel.in+ the appellantAs clai$ of o3neship% The suit fo e#ect$ent $ust
pevail%
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, pe$ise consi,ee,, it espectfull. pa.e, fo that
this -onoable Cout that that Eu,+$ent be ovetune, o,ein+ the
,efen,ant 1EIT- ILAGAN to peaceabl. tun ove the ph.sical possession
of the sub#ect popet. to plaintiff RA'ON NIETO4 that ,efen,ant be
,iecte, to pa. plaintiff the su$ of P6,000%00 as easonable co$pensation
fo the use of the sub#ect popet., fo eve. $onth statin+ !ebua. 50/6
until the plaintiff is actuall. estoe, to the ph.sical possession of the
popet.4 an, that ,efen,ant be co$$an,e, to e$ove an. an,
i$pove$ents he eecte, on the popet.%
Othe #ust an, e?uitable elief un,e the foe+oin+ ae li2e3ise bein+
pa.e, fo%
Respectfull. sub$itte,%
'a2ati Cit. fo )an An,es, Cainta, Rizal, Philippines% 'a. /6, 50/8%
PUFAT AN* A))OCIATE) LA( O!!ICE)
Counsel fo Appellant
/0th !loo, Ne3 7uil,in+,
'a2ati Avenue, 'a2ati Cit.
7."
ATTF% GIL PUFAT IC
I7P Lifeti$e No% D<=@/4 >B/0B500@
PTR No% 88>D=4 /B/0B50/>
Roll of Attone. No% 500@-00/056
'CLE Co$pliance No% III G 000=@@
Cop. !unishe,"
ATTF% GENE)I) PAUL IRAO
Counsel fo Appellee
Unit /500, Tall 7uil,in+ Con,o$iniu$,
Cainta, Rizal