Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MEMORANDUM
(For Defendants-Appellants)
THE PARTIES
The Honorable Judge, Enriquez III, citing the case of Rebecca Fullido
vs Gino Grilli (G.R. No. 215014, Feb. 29, 2016) and Article 499 of the Civil
Code dismissed the plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint. The said Honorable
Court also stated the even a case for Forcible Entry was inexistent. Hence,
this appeal to the Honorable Regional Trial Court from the Metropolitan
Trial Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
12. Despite not being a party to the two (2) Lease Contracts,
Marinette Abarico, without being joined by the actual lessors (Aries and
Rebellion Calderon), filed a complaint for Ejectment with the Office of the
Barangay Chairman of Barangay Ususan;
17. It was good that the Honorable Presiding Judge, Juan Jose P.
Enriquez, III, after carefully studying the complaint and the Answer, found
no valid ground for the prosecution of plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint; so,
he dismissed the same for lack of cause of action;
Did the court a quo err in dismissing the above-entitled appealed case
for lack of cause of action?
DISCUSSION
1. No cause of action
When the court a quo assessed the Complaint and Answer, the said court
all the more found out that indeed cause of action was totally wanting.
The Honorable Juan Jose P. Enriquez, III, found no cause of action for
“Unlawful Detainer” because the two (2) contracts are still subsisting and
have not expired yet. Neither did the Honorable Judge find a cause of
action for “Forcible Entry”, because defendant-appellee is lawfully
possessing the area subject matter of the case and didn’t enter the same
by Force, Intimidation, Stealth, Threat or Strategy. That is, defendant-
appellee entered and occupied the area lawfully, through two (2) Lease
Contracts in an arms-length transaction. Most importantly, the Honorable
Judge pronounced that there was no provision in the two (2) Lease
Contracts saying that defendant-appellee had to leave the premises once
partition was made. And citing Article 499 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, the Honorable Judge said that a partition cannot affect the
effectiveness of the two (2) existing lease contracts.
For further enlightenment and record purposes, defendant-appellee
hereby reprints the following facts he alleged in his Answer, to wit:
“IV
COMMON PROVISIONS
2. Partition, imagined.
What needs pointing out now is the fact that if one just really
examines and assesses the situation, he or she will immediately notice that
the alleged “Deed of Partition” is only imagined or fabricated. Why?
Furthermore, the fact that up till now the Title collectively and
commonly remains in the name of Benigna Calderon, Lolita de MesaL and
Voltaire Calderon only reveals that the alleged partition has never actually
happened; otherwise, individual titles corresponding to the Deed of
Partition would have already been issued.
If this Deed of Partition was actually executed, the title (TCT No.
2015000049) should have been now named for each of the assigned heir.
No new title had been issued as a consequence of said Extrajudicial
Partition.
What needs stating is the fact that Aries Calderon, the other lessor
of the leased premises, subject matter of the instant case, never joined
plaintiffs-appellants in filing the complaint.
The court a quo likewise found that the contracts, subject matter of
the Unlawful Detainer case were only between Aries and Rebelion on the
one hand and defendant appellee on the other. There was/is no existing
Lease Contract with the other plaintiffs-appellants, especially with
plaintiff-appellant Marinette Abarico. Therefore, they (particularly
Marinette Abarico) are not the real parties in interest.
Granting, arguendo, that the partition really happened, still the same
never affected the two (2) existing Lease Contracts, subject matter in the
case at bench. This is the backbone of the court a quo’s Order of Dismissal.
The Honorable Judge Enriquez III applied Article 499 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, which we hereby reprint for ready reference.
7. Defendant-appellee, divested
of portion of leased premises.
This is how she, through skilful strategy and sinister machination, did
it. At first, she told defendant-appellee to surrender a part of the leased
premises where he put up a “Car Wash Area” in exchange for a space in
the rear portion of the lot; with an express commitment that she will build
the structure and strong building materials as the one defendant-appellee
erected for his “Car Wash Area”.
Unsuspecting of any sinister machination and for the sake of “buying
peace”, defendant-appellee at first agreed to plaintiff-appellant Abarico’s
suggestion. So, he surrendered possession of the Car Wash Area in favour
of Marinette Abarico; and the latter took possession and immediately
fenced the area and put up a gate with lock.
PRAYER
Copy furnished:
EXPLANATION
(Under Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure)
VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines)
Quezon City ) s.s.
2. I have read and understood the contents hereof and the facts
herein alleged are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and on
the basis of available authentic records.
EMMANUEL AGUILAR
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of March 2019
in _________________, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No.
______________ issued on ______________ at ________________.
Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 115, Taguig City
ANSWER
(With Special and/or Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim)
59. The two (2) written Lease Contracts, subject matter of the
complaint, are between: (a) plaintiff Rebelion Calderon and defendant
Aguilar (area: 280 sq. m.); and (b) the second, between Aries Calderon and
defendant Aguilar (area: 120 sq.m.); the two represented themselves as
the exclusively assigned owners of the areas they respectively leased to
defendant for a period of ten (10) years in 2015;
62. As clearly stated in Annex “C” (and series) of the Complaint and
as acknowledged by the plaintiffs in paragraph 6 thereof, there are no
other parties in the said Lease Contract;
63. Rebelion Calderon and Aries Calderon may be the real party in
interest in the case at bench, but they have omitted a and failed to comply
with a basic requirement before cases of this kind may be filed in court---
there was no conciliation proceedings conducted at the Barangay level in
accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1508 (Establishing a System of
Amicably Settling Disputes at the Barangay Level);
64. If, under the terms of their contract, Rebelion Calderon has a
cause of action against defendant Aguilar, the former file an action in court
against the latter;
67. It is now axiomatic to say that, since both Lease Contracts have
been voluntarily entered into and without force or intimidation on either
of the parties, the same must be respected as it is the “law” between each
of them;
71. For these reasons, defendant, who is doing business in the areas
covered by the two lease agreements, was able to secure a
Mayor’s/Building Permit, Business License, Meralco Electric Connection,
Water Connection and Barangay Clearance on his own;
77. Defendant just put off this rumor at first; but when Marinette
Abarico and counsel went to see him, about two weeks before May 24,
2017, defendant somehow believed in the rumor;
79. So, the lawyer told him to just accept the amount and no
questions will be asked; simultaneously telling defendant that he should
just leave the premises as court action against him will certainly result in
defendant’s loss; since, according to the lawyer, he has ‘not lost a case’
yet;
80. Since he did not heed Marinette Abarico and her lawyer’s offer,
the May 24 2017 incident happened;
“IV
COMMON PROVISIONS
PRAYER
3. Other relief and remedies just and equitable in the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Copy furnished:
2. I have read and understood the contents hereof and the facts
herein alleged are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and on
the basis of available authentic records.
EMMANUEL AGUILAR
Affiant