Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS Manila JUANA DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versusJANE DOE, Respondent.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM Petitioner thru counsel in compliance with the Resolution of 21 May 2010 to the Honorable Court most respectfully submits the following: THE FACTUAL AND JURIDICAL ANTECEDENT 1. That on 28 February 2010, by a sale between the respondent and spouses Marcelo and Marcela Del Pilar, now deceased, claims to be the registered owner of the property consists of 102.75 square meters at 123 Mabini Street, Pasay City as covered by TCT No. 12345 is attached heretofore as Annex A. Civil Case No. _______ For:

2. That sometime in 1950, the petitioner and the spouses Marcelo and Marcela Del Pilar entered into a valid verbal lease of agreement that made the formers stayed and living last for more than fifty (50) years which manifest the parties harmonious relations. Moreover, the petitioner has continued to be diligent in their obligations even after the death of the spouses.

3. That due to respondents assertion of his right over the disputed property took steps for the ejectment of the petitioner.

4. That petitioner did not heed with the respondents demand believing that such an action was contrary to his pre-emptive right under the Presidential Decree 1917 (PD) (Urban Land Reform Law) in relation to Proclamation No. 1967 which earmarked twenty-eight

(28) areas in Pasay City for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform, which areas were termed APD (Area for Priority Development)

5. That petitioners adverse act caused the respondent to seek the help of local barangay intervention but the same was proved futile.

6. That on 7 February 2008, respondent filed a formal complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) asking that the subject property should be vacated and the collection of the unpaid rental payment to the petitioner and rendered a decision in favor of the former.

7. That on____ upon appeal by the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the same was affirmed in toto the decision rendered by the MTC. Thus, petitioner filed a Petition for Review to the same court but the same was denied by the latter.

8. That on ___ the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals (Ca) regarding the decision rendered by the RTC on _____. Thereafter, the court issued a Resolution directing respondent to file a Comment (not a Motion to Dismiss) ten (10) days from the receipt of notice. The same with petitioner five (5) days from respondents filing of Comment.

9. That on 21 May 2010, CAs First Division promulgated upon careful reading of the case and the petitioners Motion for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction dated 4 February 2010, however, the prayer for TRO is denied. Instead, both parties were directed to file their respective Memoranda and after which with or without Memoranda, the petition shall be deemed submitted for decision. Hence, petitioners memorandum_______

GROUNDS RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

PRAYER

EVERDEEN MELLARK & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium, Espaa, Manila

By:

Atty. Katniss Everdeen-Mellark IBP (Lifetime) No. 12345; 5/10/2005 PTR No. 777654; 1/10/2011 Roll of Attorney No: 2011-035639 MCLE Compliance No. III-000897

Copy furnished: STARK & LANNISTER LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Respondent #10th Floor, New Building, Makati Ave., Makati City

Оценить