Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

ISSUE

Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups


ANATOMY OF LEGAL WRITE-UPS

Journal Article Legal Opinion Legal Memorandum

A. Definition A scholarly or A legal opinion is a A Legal


and Nature academic publication written statement Memorandum is a
presenting by a judicial form of pleading
commentary of officer, legal expert submitted by either
emerging or topical or a court as to the party to a case which
developments in the illegibility or has not been decided
law, and often legibility of a or adjudicated by the
specializing in a condition, court. The purpose
particular area of the intendant or action. of said legal
law or legal Opinions are memorandum is to
information specific to usually published aid the parties in
a jurisdiction. at the direction of remembering legal
the court, and to the points and for the
extent, they contain court to look into by
pronouncements way of reference.
about what the law Lawyers usually
is and how it makes its legal
should be memorandum to
interpreted, they explain and
reinforce, change, summarize specific
establish, or points necessary for
overturn the conviction or
legal precedent. acquittal of the
accused.
B. Purpose A Law Journal Its purpose is to The purpose of said
know the legal
(When is it containing both case legal memorandum
effect of a
used) summaries written by transaction or is to aid the parties
matter, identify
student members and in remembering
legal risks that one
Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups
scholarly articles should consider legal points and for
further and
written by law the court to look into
manage, prove to a
professors, judges and regulator that one by way of reference.
have been
attorneys. These Lawyers usually
responsible in how
articles focus on he applied the law, makes its legal
to back-up ones
current developments memorandum to
argument.
in the law, case explain and
decisions and summarize specific
legislation. Law points necessary for
reviews are edited by the conviction or
students and students acquittal of the
contribute to featured accused.
articles.
C. Who is the Written by experts Lawyer Lawyer
writer

D. Who is the Experts Everyone Not always clients


reader but may be also
associate attorneys,
partners, or
colleagues
E. What tone, Tone: formal
Style: Expository
style, voice
Voice: Author’s voice
used in writing

A. SUMMARY OUTLINE (Legal Memorandum)

I .Legal Memorandum

II. Subject: Ejectment

III. Writer/Author: Atty. Paolo Coelho


Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups
IV. Summary: Plaintiff-Respondent seeks that a parcel of land located at 123 Binibini Street,
Pasay be returned to her possession, but due to Defendant-Petitioner’s occupancy thereat, the
former cannot claim possession which left her with the option of residing at 1010 Ginoo
Boulevard, Pasay City. It is noteworthy to stress that Plaintiff-Respondent is the registered owner
of the land subject under TCT No. 12345 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City. The property
was sold to them by the now deceased original owners, Spouses Marcelo and Marcela del Pilar.
Defendant-Petitioner, on the other hand, is an alleged lessee of the original owners of the land
since September 1955. They had repeatedly assailed the verbal contract of lease for more than 50
years. Plaintiff-Respondent was not able to claim immediately the land for it was previously
subject to a pending legal proceeding and that there was still no urgent necessity of using and
occupying it. When the event came that Plaintiff-Respondent was able to enforce her right over
the land, Defendant-Petitioner, despite earnest and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff-Respondent
still refused to vacate the land. This led her to seek help from the Barangay officials for
mediation and/or conciliation in accordance with law. However, the Defendant-Petitioner still
persistently occupied the land without heed to the serious and constant demand of the Plaintiff-
Respondent which rendered it unattainable to reach an agreement. Due to the foregoing failure to
claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusal of the Defendant-Petitioner, Plaintiff-
Respondent was compelled to hire the services of a legal counsel to commence the enforcement
of ejection under the wings of the courts of law.

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.

VI. Important laws, jurisprudence and doctrines:

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.

Citing Solanada Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, it made a profound analysis of Section 6 of


P.D. 1517 (as found in Annex “A” of this Memorandum) based on statutory construction:

“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.:

WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 1893 was issued on 11 September 1979, pursuant


to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1517, declaring the entire Metropolitan Manila area as
Urban Land Reform Zone.

WHEREAS, It is now necessary and appropriate to identify specific sites covered


by urban land reform in Metropolitan Manila for purposes of making specific the
applicability of P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640 and 1642 and of LOI No. 935.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the


Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing
laws, and in relation to Proclamation No. 1893 declaring the entire Metropolitan
Manila area as an Urban Land Reform Zone, and LOI 935, hereby amend
Proclamation No. 1893 by declaring 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as Areas for
Lycel B. Olalo Anatomy of Legal Write-ups
Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones as described in the attached
annex.

“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.

xxx xxx xxx”

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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și