Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
I .Legal Memorandum
V. Issue: Whether or not the Honorable Trial Court acted correctly in deciding this unlawful
detainer action on the basis of the evidence of ownership after defendant had raised in defense
the lessee’s rights under PD. 1517, PD 2016, APD 1-12 – Pasay City;
Whether or not an unlawful detainer action bars the bona fide lessee’s right to avail the
privileges and benefits provided by section 6 of PD 1517;
Whether or not in determining the coverage of Areas for Priority Development (APD),
reference must be had to the list of the streets subject to the zonal development and not to the
areas included in the delineation by metes and bounds as indicated in the proclamation itself.
A.) It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide owner
of the parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No, 12345 of the
Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups
Register of Deeds of Pasay City. In the Philippines, the presentation of a valid certificate of title
of the real property is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name the
certificate of title is entitled to.
Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or Act No. 496, it provides that “the original
certificates in the registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the
clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of
the court, and also the owner’s duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the courts
of the Philippine Islands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far
as otherwise provided in this Act.”
Recognized jurisprudence also uphold the significance of a certificate of title in proving valid
ownership of a land. In the decision of the case of Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel, the
ponente cited two cases which highlight the significance of a valid certificate of title in claiming
ownership over a land. It was held that “…in the recent case of Umpoc v. Mercado, the Court
declared that the trial court did not err in giving more probative weight to the TCT in the name of
the decedent vis--vis the contested unregistered Deed of Sale. Later in Arambulo v. Gungab, the
Court held that the registered owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful
detainer case. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.”
The ruling of Dizon v. Court of Appeals was also used as basis for this argument. It was
stated that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and the questionability of the
title is immaterial in an ejectment suit. Futhermore, Article 428 of the New Civil Code
enumerates the rights of an owner. “The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,
without other limitations other than those established by law. The owner has right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.”
It is indubitable that the certificate of title of 123 Binibini Street, Pasay City under TCT No.
12345 which is registered in the Register of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent
Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups
the right to exercise the aforementioned rights, specifically, in this instant case, the right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover the land.
The contention of the Defendant-Petitioner that the verbal lease agreement they had made
with the now deceased original owners Marcelo and Marcela Del Pilar for over 50 years shall
entitle them to the privileges under P.D. 1517 and P.D. 2016 (Annex “A” and “B”, respectively)
is untenable. It is expressly stated that Section 6 of P.D. 1517 grants lessees the right of first
refusal before they may be ejected from a land, but this is only feasible under certain conditions.
It is an indispensable qualification that the land is included in the list of Areas for Priority
Development (APD) before an owner can be granted of the right of first refusal. The land subject
of this case is clearly not included in the specific areas enumerated in the list of APD. To reiterate
the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. CV 12345: “Insofar as the property in litigation,
appellant Jane Doe is, consequently, correct in objecting to appellee’s exercise of the right of first
refusal granted under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517. The fact that it is not included
in the areas for priority development specifically identified under Proclamation No. 1967
indicates that appellee have no cause of action for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and
preliminary injunction against appellants.”
B.) The Plaintiff-Respondent’s argument in this issue is intimately connected with the
preceding argument. Defendant-Petitioner vigorously assails that there is no bar to the
availability of the privileges and benefits conferred to bona fide lessee whenever there is an
unlawful detainer action. It is however true. But this is subject to circumstances that may qualify
a lessee to the privileges and benefits under Section 6 of P.D. No. 1516 such as the right of first
refusal. Unfortunately, the land possessed by the Defendant-Petitioner does not fall under the
ambit of Section 6 of P.D. No. 1517. Therefore, the Defendant-Petitioner has no cause of action
in this issue.
C.) The third issue questions the coverage of the APD prescribed by the proclamation,
whether or not it refers to the list of streets subject to the Zonal Development or to the areas
included in the delineation of the metes and bounds indicated.
Reiteration is therefore necessary to lay emphasis on the decision of the Court of Appeals
that in the List of Areas for Priority Development (APD’s), labeled as the South Sector of Pasay
Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups
City, the area for priority development was defined as Tramo Lines along Barangays San Isidro,
San Roque, and Santa Clara. It was thereafter specifically enumerated the list of covered sub-
areas (please refer to Annex “C” for diagram) which are the following: 1) F. Victor, 2) Ventanilla
Street, c) Juan Luna Street, d) D. Jorge Street, e) Viscarra Street, f) Conchita Street, g) Dolores
Street, h) Leonardo Street, i) Alvarez Street, j) Basilio Street, k) Rodriguez Street, and i) Villa
Barbara. “There is consequently no gainsaying the fact that with its Binibini Street location, the
property in litigation is not included among the sites identified as Areas for Priority Development
in Pasay City.”The mere fact that the list does not include Binibini Street necessarily implies that
it is deemed excluded from it.
“We agree. A close reading of Proclamation No. 1967 reveals that, before a preemptive
right can be exercised, the disputed land should be situated in an area declared to be
both an APD and a ULRZ.
An urban tenant's right of first refusal is set forth in Section 6, PD 1517, as follows:
Sec. 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. Within the Urban
Zones[,] legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or
more [,] who have built their homes on the land[,] and residents who have
legally occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years
shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first
refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable
prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone
Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of
this Decree.
Proclamation No. 1967 further delimited the areas or zones wherein this preemptive
right could be availed of viz.:
“The provisions of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 935 shall apply
only to the above[-]mentioned Areas of Priority Development and Urban Land
Reform Zones.
The aforecited whereas clauses express a clear intent to limit the operation of PD
1517 to specific areas declared to be located in both an APD and a ULRZ. The
conjunctive and in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirms this
intention. And in statutory construction implies conjunction, joinder or union. As
understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and, the provisions
of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within both an APD and a
ULRZ.”
With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, the Defendant-Petitioner’s action would
necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.