REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA CITY
FLORENCE RENEE BACAY,
Plaintif,
- versus

CIVIL CASE No.

JEANNE ESPOLONG
Damages

For: Specific Performance and

and
JOHN ROBERT SAM JUAN,
Defendants
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
COME NOW DEFENDANT, JOHN ROBERT SAM JUAN, through the
undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully
submit and present this memorandum in the above title case and aver that:

THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Florence Renee Bacay of legal age, single and residing on 20
Ricardo Street Carmel 1 Subdivision, Quezon City where she may be served
with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;
2. Defendant Jeanne Espolong of legal age, single (to be supplied), where she
may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable
Court;
3. Co-defendant John Robert Sam Juan of legal age and residing 8 Eisenhower
Street, San Juan, Greenhills, Metro Manila.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On Dec. 3, 2013 herein Plaintiff filed a complaint for specific performance
and damages against defendants for failure to pay the amount of the lease
agreement ;
2. On Dec. 18 ,2013 an Answer was filed by the defendants ;

3. On Feb. 3,2014 , a decision was rendered by Branch 5 of the Metropolitan

Trial Court
of Quezon City in favor of defendants ;
4. On June 6, 2014, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by plaintiff through
a legal counsel was denied by Judge Pasco of Branch 148 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City;
5. On August 14, 2014, a Petition for Review dated August 9, 2014 was filed
to the Court of Appeals by plaintiff ;
6. On August 30, 2014, Defendants through legal counsel filed a Comment
dated August 28, 2014 ;
7. On September 30, 2014, as per Verification and Report from Judicial
Records Division (JRD) no Reply was made by Plaintiff ;
8. On Oct 10, 2014 a Resolution was rendered by the Court of Appeals
denying plaintiffs claim of specific performance and liquidated damages of
unpaid amount monthly rentals amounting (P1,050,000) and damages.
9. Accordingly, the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit
their respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise
regardless whether or not Memoranda were filed, the petition shall be
submitted for decision;
Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. Defendants seeks the dismissal of complaint filed against them for nonpayment of monthly rental of the property leased from plaintiff located at
Congressional Avenue, Quezon City contrary to what the memorandum of
agreement has been stipulated, defendants have paid fully the amount of
rentals of the lease due to them from August to October 2013 as evidenced
by (Annex 1-A) of the MOA par.2 which states that the monthly lease is for P
150,000.
11. It is noteworthy to stress that Defendants received information regarding
plaintiff misrepresenting herself as real owner of said property (Annex 3).
That prior to the lease agreement, plaintiff usufruct in said property and that
said usufruct had already expired thereby making plaintiff improper party to
received payments; that defendant immediately notified proper bank to
cancel/dishonor issued check (Annex 4).
12. Co-defendant on the other hand claims that He has fully paid his
obligations to defendant-lessee as regards to the amount he bound himself
rendered to give as shown by Official Receipt herein attached as Annexes B,

C and D; that defendant has no further recourse against him.

13. Plaintiff consistently alleges non-payment of monthly rentals and further
moves for the defendant to vacate the premises as evidenced by the
Memorandum of Agreement entered into by them;
14. Defendants refused claim that plaintiff is the proper party to receive
payment for the lease and that plaintiff abused his rights as a lessor as
provided in Art. 1654 of the New Civil Code, maintaining the lessee in the
peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
contract. Due to the action of plaintiff ordering his men to barricade the
premises of the property, plaintiff herein violated defendants right over said
property as lessee and sublessee.
15. Due to unlawful detainer, defendants were compelled to hire the services
of a legal counsel to commence an action for unlawful detainer and
misrepresentation against the plaintiff under the wings of the courts of law.

III.ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.)WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE PROPERTY PARTY TO
RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR THE LEASE;
B.)WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF ABUSED HIS RIGHTS AS A LESSOR AS
PROVIDED IN ART. 1654;
C.)WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS WERE UNLAWFULLY EVICTED FROM
THE LEASED PREMISES;
D.)WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF VIOLATED DEFENDANTS RIGHT OVER
SAID PROPERTY AS LESSEE AND SUBLESSEE;
E.)WHETHER OR NOT CO-DEFENDANT/SUBLESSEE JUAN IS SOLIDARILY
LIABLE TO DEFENDANT ESPOLONG TO THE PAYMENT OF THE MONTHLY
DUES;
IV . ARGUMENTS
A.) PLAINTIFF IS NOT THE PROPER PARTY TO RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR
THE LEASE, Therefore her receiving the monthly rental due were
unjust enrichment
B.) PLAINTIFF violated their rights as a lessor as shown by the facts
that he was merely a usufruct , in which the usufruct granted to her
has ceased prior to it.
C.) Defendants were unlawfully evicted from the lease premises
without justifiable cause
D.) Plaintiff did indeed violate defendants rights over said property
as lessee and sublessee.

E.) Co-defendant Juan is solidarily liable to defendant Espolong as

sublessee
V. DISCUSSION
A. It is necessary to emphasize that plaintiff cannot be made a
proper party to receive payment from the monthly rental of the
lease as evidenced by (Annex 3) wherein defendant-lessee
received information regarding plaintiff misrepresenting herself
as real owner of said property. That prior to the lease
agreement, plaintiff has usufruct in said property and that said
usufruct had already expired thereby making plaintiff improper
party to received payments; as evidenced by oral testimony
from the real owner of the property (Annex 15)
B. As provided in the New Civil Code of the Philippines , Art.
567. Contracts affecting the usufructuary's liability, The
usufructuary may lease, alienate, or encumber his right. All such
contracts cease of right at the end of the usufruct. If the usufructuary
leases, alienates, or encumbers his right, he is responsible to the
naked owner for the abuse that the person with whom he has
contracted makes of the property.
Recognizance jurisprudence tells us that Plaintiff herein, was a mere
usufructuary in which under the law was granted the power to
lease,alienate,or encumber her right. However, given that the contract
of usufructuary had ceased as shown in TCT Title no. 805, as evidenced
by (Annex 12); around September 2013, she was no longer empowered
to receive payment for the lease from the defendants.
Equity and justice would tell us that the person entitled to received the
monthly payment from August to October 2013 was the real owner of
the property (to be supplied) whom which granted the plaintiff the
usufruct in the first place. Plaintiff is entitled to return the property to
real owner because it would constitute unjust enrichment on her part.
C.In the third issue, defendants argument in this issue in intimately
connected with the preceding argument. As established in the
preceding argument, Plaintiffs is not the property party therein for the
lease, her acts of barricading the leased premises from the defendants
with the aide of policemens constituted a violation of the rights of the
lessee as provided in Art. 1654 (3) To maintain the lessee in the
peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration
of the contract. As a lessee of the said property, the lessor/
usufructuary has to respect the duration of the contract stipulated,
because it would violate the real purpose of the lease.
D. The 4th issue is more connected to the liability of the two defendants
Juan and Espolong, as to the lease stipulated in the Memorandum of

Agreement, it is a known fact that Defendant Juan is indeed solidarily

liable to Defendant Espolong as he is a sub-lessee in said leased
property (Annex 8). That agreement stated that defendant and codefendant will be held solidarily liable in case of default in payment of
said leased property. (Annex 8-A)
11. ORIGINAL LEASE: The sublease agreement incorporates and is subject to
the original lease agreement between the sublessor and his lessor, a copy of
which is attached hereto, and which is hereby referred to and incorporated as
if it were set out here at length. The subtenant agrees to bind himself
solidarily with the sublessor and assumes all of the obligations and
responsibilities of the sublessor under the original lease for the duration of the
sublease agreement.
Co-defendant-sublessee Juan has reiterated that he has fully paid his
obligations to defendant-lessee as regards to the amount he bound himself
rendered to give as shown by Official Receipt herein attached as Annexes B,
C and D; that defendant has no further recourse against him. By applying
jurisprudence under our New Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1652. The
sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any rent due from the lessee.
However, the sublessee shall not be responsible beyond the amount of rent
due from him, in accordance with the terms of the sublease, at the time of the
extrajudicial demand by the lessor.
With this, reiteration is necessary to lay emphasis that as a sublessee cannot
be made liable to pay more than that stipulated within the term of the
sublease. It is clear that the contract of the lessee Espolong is that
presumably with plaintiff Bacay, and the sublease is contract between that of
Espolong and Juan. These parties cannot deviate or merely opt to choose
which parties they wish enter into because it would violated public policy and
law.
With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, Plaintiffs action would
necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this
Honorable Supreme Court that Plaintiffs prayer for specific performance and
damages be denied for having no cause of action and the petition be
DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.
To grant defendant's counterclaim by awarding defendant: (a) Two Million
Pesos (PPH 2,000,000.00) as Actual Damages and/or Moral damages and (b)
Fifty Thousand as Attorney's Fees. Other just and equitable relief under the
foregoing are likewise being prayed for.
Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. April 8, 2014

ATTY. JAIME ANTONIO MONTINO

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005

PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011

Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000899