castillo v dela cruz

8/3/2019 Castillo v Dela Cruz

1/4

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF NORZARAGAY

Province of Bulacan

SPS. ALBERTO DELA CRUZ

& FELOMINA DELA CRUZ,

Defendant-Petitioners,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 996For: Unlawful Detainer

HEIRS OF INOCENCIO CASTILLO

Represented by Alicia Castillo

& Rogelio Castillo,

Plaintiff-Respondents.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS, through the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titledcase and aver that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Respondents Heirs of Inocencio Castillo are of legal ages, single/married, and

residing at Sandico St., Poblacion, Norzagaray, Bulacan, where they may be served with legalprocesses and notices issued by this Honorable Court;

2. Defendant-Petitioners Sps. Alberto dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz are of legal agesand residing at Sto. Cristo, Angat, Bulacan and may be served with legal processes and other

judicial notices thereto.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On March 20, 2003, herein Plaintiff-Respondent filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainerdated March 11, 2003 against Defendant-Petitioners;

2. On May 6, 2003 Plaintiff-Respondents filed a Motion to Render Judgment


2/4

3. On May 16, 2003, an Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion to Render Judgment, with Motion

to Dismiss was filed by the Defendant-Petitioners;

4. On August 15, 2003, a Decision was rendered by the Municipal Trial Court of

Norzaragay, Bulacan in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent;

5. On July 1, 2009, a Motion for Reconsideration filed August 16, 2003 by Defendant-

Petitioners through legal counsel was denied by Judge Romulo O. Basa of Municipal Trial Courtof Norzaragy,Bulacan;

6. On July 3, 2009, a Notice of Appeal was filed to the Municipal Trial Court, Norzaragay,

Bulacan by Defendant-Petitioners;

7. Accordingly, the Honorable Regional Trial Court 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

8. Plaintiff-Respondents seeks that a parcel of land located at Sapang A, Pertida,

Norzaragay, Bulacan be returned to their possession, but due to Defendant-Petitionersoccupancy thereat, the former cannot claim possession. It is noteworthy to stress that the

property was inherited by Plaintiff-Respondents as compulsory heirs of Inocencio Castillo.

9. Defendant-Petitioners, on the other hand, were alleged to have occupied the land without

consent, express authority, and by mere tolerance since May 1992. They had not been paying the

reasonable rentals, thereby depriving the said plaintiffs of its use and enjoyment;

10.Inspite of repeated demands, both oral and formal demand, and the last which was

received by the Defendant-Petitioners on June 28, 2002, but they failed and still refused to vacate

and surrender the premises to the Plaintiff-Respondents neither defendants pay the accruedreasonable rentals of P1,500.00 per month from May 1992.

11.Due to the foregoing failure to claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate refusalof the Defendant-Petitioners, Plaintiff-Respondents were compelled to hire the services of a legal

counsel to commence the enforcement of ejection under the wings of the courts of law.

III.ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) WHETHER OR NOT UNLAWFUL DETAINER IS THE PROPER ACTION

FILED INSTEAD OF ACCION PUBLICIANA;

B.) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED

CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION ON THE

BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP;

C.)WHETHER OR NOT THE IMPLEADED DEFENDANT-PETITIONERS ARE

THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.


3/4

IV.ARGUMENTS

A.) The court committed no error in deciding that an unlawful detainer action beenforced upon herein Defendant-Petitioners despite the assailed contention that

what should have been filed was accion publiciana.

B.) The Plaintiff-Respondents has by preponderance of evidence proved their

ownership of the subject parcel of land.

C.) The action of unlawful detainer may be maintained only against one in possession at

the commencement of the action

V. DISCUSSION

A.) An unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of physical possession where

the dispossession has not lasted more than one year while an accion publiciana is a plenary action

for the recovery of the real right of possession has lasted for more than one year. Defendant-Petitioners erroneously allege that it has been over a year since a demand letter to vacate was

received by them and therefore unlawful detainer action is improper. Facts tell otherwise. The

demand letter was dated June 26, 2002 while the action for unlawful detainer was filed on March

20, 2003. Reckoned from the date of the demand letter, it has only been approximately nine (9)months of dispossession, way within the timeframe for unlawful detainer action.

B.)It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondents are the bona fide owner of theparcel of land located at Sapang A, Pertida, Norzaragay, Bulacan as compulsory heirs of the late

Inocencio Castillo who owed and managed the subject parcel of land. Paper trail submitted by

Defendant-Petitioners suffers a dead end as they cannot explain how the original owner,Inocencio Castillo could have transferred to successive individuals the subject parcel of land.

C.)The Plaintiff-Respondents argument in this issue is intimately connected with the

preceding argument. Defendant-Petitioners vigorously assails that they are not the real parties ininterest but that of the real owner, Constancia Flaviano. The latters proof of ownership however

is defective as they cannot provide a decent document to buttress their claims. Under the law, theaction of unlawful detainer may be maintained only against one in possession at the

commencement of the action and Defendant-Petitioners were the ones in possession of the

subject property at the commencement of this action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE,premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable Court

order that the Defendants and all persons claiming rights under them:

1. to vacate and surrender the premises to the plaintiff;

2. to pay the annual reasonable rentals on the premises at the rate of ONE THOUAND

(P1,500.00) per month from May 1992;3. To pay the sum of P30,000 as attorneys fees plus P2,000.00 as appearance fee.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.


4/4

Respectfully submitted.

Norzaragay, Bulacan,Philippines. October 28, 2011.

ATTY. HERBERT S. ABILLE

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2011

PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011

Roll of Attorney No. 2011-001023MCLE Compliance No. III 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. FLORANTE CRUZ

Counsel for Petitioners

Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,Espana, Manila

castillo v dela cruz

Documents