REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 37
CALAMBA CITY

VINCENT C. ALAMAT,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 3616-04-C

MELISSA MATIBAY, ET. AL.,

Defendants.
X -------------------------------------- x

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, Plaintiff-Appellee by counsel and unto this Honorable Court

most respectfully submits his Memorandum in the above-entitled case, to wit:

PREFATORY STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an appeal of the judicious Decision of the Municipal Trial Court

(MTC) of Los Banos, Laguna by the defendants, Melissa Matibay and Maxima
Piamonte in the Hope against Hope to set aside and/or nullify said Decision of
the lower court thereby rendering nugatory the very intent case and the purpose
of the promulgation of the Rules On Summary Procedure as well as the settled
rules on doctrines thereto of the Honorable Supreme Court on ejectment cases
like the case at bar.
The proper and speedy administration of justice dictates that this
appealed case purposely designed as a dilatory tactic of the defendants-
appellants be denied outright by this Honorable Court and at the same time
affirms in toto the said judicious Decision of the lower court.
Enough is enough for the defendants in their futile attempt to frustrate
the dispensation of justice.
 -2-

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE

The evidence adduced by both parties in the case shows or establish the
following facts, to wit: That plaintiff-appellee is the co-owner of a parcel of land
with Vincentiano Alamat Sapin subject of this case and the defendants are
lessees of portion of the said land located at Barangay Batong Malaki, Los Banos,
Laguna. The lease agreement of the parties is a verbal lease contract and rentals
are paid by the defendants on a monthly basis to the plaintiff-appellee. The
defendants-appellants have been leasing their respective lots or premises for
more than twenty (20) years as they are already the successors-in-interests of
the same from their predecessors in interests who have already passed away.
The defendants-appellants failed and/or refused to pay their respective monthly
rentals for several months as the last payment of Matibay was made on April
1997 while Piamonte on August 1997. Plaintiff-appellee on a letter dated 19
August 1998 informed the defendants-appellants of the termination of the
parties verbal lease agreement and demanded that they vacate the leased
premises within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. As a direct result of the
refusal of the defendants-appellants to vacate the premises the plaintiff-appellee
filed the Ejectment case against them before the MTC of Los Banos with Civil
Case No. 2054 on the ground of Unlawful Detainer. The defendants-appellants in
their Answer in the case does not deny the claim of ownership and title of the
plaintiff-appellee as well as their oral lease agreement over the premise besides,
they NEVER dispute the valid and lawful jurisdiction of the lower court (MTC Los
Banos) over the case being under the Rules On Summary Procedure but instead
just prays that their verbal lease contract between the parties be fixed by the
Court for at least five (5) more years. Due to the retirement of the former
Presiding Judge of the lower court the final resolution of the instant case have
too long been delayed or procrastinated in such a way that the prayer of the
defendants-appellants for an extension of only five (5) years have already
elapsed or terminated since the filing of the case in 1998 up to the present or for
a period of almost six (6) years.
As borne by the records and pleadings of the case at bar the defendants-
appellants NEVER assailed and/or disputed the valid and lawful jurisdiction of the
lower court (MTC Los Banos) which finally adjudicated the controversy on 15
March 2004 in favor of the plaintiff-appellee’s.
 -3-

It is of paramount importance and vital to the proper resolution of the

instant appealed case by the Honorable Court that prior to the rendition of the
Decision in this case by the new Presiding Judge, Katherine A. Go the sole
ownership over the premises in question have been consolidated in favor of the
plaintiff-appellee to the exclusion of his former co-owner Vincentino Alamat Sapin
pursuant to the Deed of Partition executed on February 6, 2003 which eventually
led to the issuance of the title TCT No. T-597048 in the name of the plaintiff.
Attached are the xeroed copies of the Deed of Partition herein marked as Annex
“A” and TCT No. T-597048 of plaintiff as Annex “B” and to form as integral
parts hereof.

THE ISSUE

The sole issue raised in the Appeal Memorandum of the defendants-

appellants in the case at bar, is:

“Whether or not the lower court (MTC Los Banos) has valid
and lawful jurisdiction to render the assailed Decision before this
Honorable Court.”

DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

THE LOWER COURT (MTC LOS BANOS) HAVE

VALID AND LAWFUL JURISDICTION OF THE CASE

It is the serious contention of the plaintiff-appellee that the lower court

have valid and lawful jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case as well as to
render the judicious Decision now assailed on appeal before this Honorable
Court.
Although, it is an admitted fact that the former co-owner Vincentiano
Alamat Sapin was not included as one of the party plaintiffs in the case being an
indispensable party pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 Rule 3 of the New
Rules of Court and following the doctrine of the Honorable Supreme Court in the
case of Arcelona vs. Court of Appeals 280 SCRA 20 the defendants-appellants
 -4–

NEVER invoked or raised such infirmity or defect before the lower court and the
only relief sought by them in their Answers to the complaint thereto was merely
for an extension of another five (5) years from 1998 after the filing of the case
which have already unmistakably lapsed up to the present (2005).
Under the facts and circumstances of the case the defendants-appellants
are now in estoppel by laches to belatedly raised said issue of lack of jurisdiction
for failure to implead as party plaintiff the said former co-owner Vincentiano
Alamat Sapin being an indispensable party to the case. To sustained and
sanctioned said issue of lack of jurisdiction raised for the very first time on
appeal by the defendants-appellants will certainly be highly unjust, unfair
inequitable and much more prejudicial to the rights and interest of the plaintiff’s-
appellee’s under the Rules On Summary Procedure.
If the defendants-appellants have promptly invoked said issue of lack of
jurisdiction prior to the retirement of the former Presiding Judge of the Court a
quo then the latter could not have been oblivious of such Arcelona Doctrine of
the Honorable Supreme Court as well as the afore-said provisions on
indispensable parties (Section 7 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court) but unfortunately
the former slept on their rights to assert said issue of lack of jurisdiction at the
very first opportunity when they filed their Answer and Position Paper in the
case. What the defendants-appellants merely prays in their Answer and Position
Paper which is in effect invoked the lawful jurisdiction of the lower court is only
to extend their possession over the subject leased premises for a period of 5
years as they never dispute the true and lawful ownership of the subject
property by the plaintiff-appelle aside from the fact that they were actually
delinquent or in arrears in the payment of their monthly rentals over the
premises occupied by them.
Certainly at this stage of the case on appeal this Honorable Court can
never allow, tolerate and much more sanctioned said untenable issue invoked by
the defendants-appellants for the very first time simply because they engaged
the services of a new counsel on appeal to this Honorble Court.
Although, the general rule is that lack of jurisdiction may be raise anytime
even on appeal, there exist an exception to the same as promulgated in the case
of Oca vs. Court of Appeals 378 SCRA 642 wherein the principle of “ Estoppel by
Laches” is applicable in the case as held by the Honorable Supreme Court and
quote:
“It is no right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the
jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative
 relief (by advancing a counterclaim) to afterwards deny that same
jurisdiction to escape a penalty.” (Oca vs. Court of Appeals ibid)
-5–

“The rule is that the active participation of the party against

whom the action is brought, coupled with his failure to object to
the jurisdiction of the court of administrative body where the action
is pending is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said
party from later on impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction.”
(Oca vs. Court of Appeals)

No doubt and undeniable that the afore-quoted Exception to the General

Rule on lack of jurisdiction (Estoppel by Laches) is applicable or in all fours
applicable to the defendants-appellants (Piamonte and Matibay) in view of the
fact that after invoking the jurisdiction of the lower court (MTC) of Los Banos in
seeking an extension of five (5) years of possession they now on appeal assail
the lawful jurisdiction of the said lower court after receiving an adverse decision.
Certainly, at this point in time it is grave in justice for the plaintiff if the
defendant will be allowed or permitted to invoke the defense of lack of
jurisdiction since they are now barred by the principle of Estoppel by Laches.
Again the Honorable Supreme Court in justifying the principle of Estoppel by
Laches held and quote:
“It is no right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the
jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative
relief, to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction/” (Durendes vs.
Durendes 415 SCRA 684)

“The doctrine of estoppel states that if one maintains silence

whenin convince he ought to speak, equity will debar him from
speaking when in conscience he ought to remain silent he who
remains silent when he ought to speak cannot be heard to speak
when he should be silent.” (People vs. Escote, Jr. 400 SCRA 603)

“A person who by his deed or conduct has induced another

to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an
inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby
causes loss or injury to another.” (Navarro vs. Second Laguna
Development Bank 398 SCRA 227)
 -6-

II
THE NEW RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE AS WELL
AS THE SETTLED RULES AND DOCTRINES OF THE HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT WILL BE RENDERED NUGATORY AND MEANINGLESS

With due respect and indulgence it is the humble submission of the

plaintiff-appellee that if and when this Honorable Court will sustained the said
issue raised for the very first time on appeal by the new counsel for the
defendants-appellants for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the lower court then the
very purpose of the Rules On Summary Procedure as well as settled rules will be
defeated, rendered nugatory and meaningless in the speedy and proper
resolution of ejectment cases as mandated by the Honorable Supreme Court.
“Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious
means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.” (Go,
Jr. vs. Court of Appeals 362 SCRA 755)
The settled rules or doctrines promulgated by the Honorable Supreme
Court dictates that ejectment suits or actions for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer should and must be resolved promptly or speedily without delay hence,
the hereunder rulings of the Highest Tribunal manifests or shows the summary
nature of the proceedings in ejectment cases, to wit:
“Cases of forcible entry and detainer are summary in nature
for they involve perturbation of social order which may be restored
as promptly as possible and accordingly, technicalities or details of
procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should be carefully
avoided.” (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 373
SCRA 513)

“Ejectment cases are covered by the provisions of the

Revised Rule On Summary Procedure, judgment should be
rendered within thirty (30) days from receipt of last affidavits and
position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.”
(Saceda vs. Gestope,Jr. 372 SCRA 193)
 -7-

III

THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE WILL BE HIGHLY

PREJUDICIAL TO THE RIGHTS AND INTEREST
OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

There can be no argument that this appealed case under the Rules On
Summary Procedure have been finally adjudicated by the lower court (MTC Los
Banos) after almost six (6) years without the fault of the herein plaintiff-appellee
which actually could have been resolved in just a matter of months way back in
1998. Certainly even if the five (5) years extension period of the oral lease
agreement sought by the defendants-appellants was granted by the lower court
the same have already expired and therefore there exist no more valid and
justifiable reason for them at present to further withheld possession of the
subject premises in dispute. Moreover, the defendants-appellants during the
pendency of the case with the lower court for the said period that elapsed never
assailed nor disputed the valid and lawful jurisdiction of the lower court hence,
should now be deemed estopped or barred by Estoppel by Laches from raising
the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the very first time on appeal to this Honorable
Court.
Under the unassailable facts and circumstances of the case as borne by
the records of the same it will be highly prejudicial and damaging to the plaintiff-
appellee if this Honorable Court (on appeal after six (6) long years) will sustain
the said defendants-appellants highly belated issue of lack of jurisdiction.
Certainly such coarse of action of this Honorable Court will inevitably result in
grave injustice to the herein plaintiff-appellee since it will either be forced to
relitigate the case before the lower court (MTC) or appeal the assailed decision
(for dismissal) with the Court of Appeals or even up to the Honorable Supreme
Court which could again take perhaps another six (6) years or more to finish or
terminate the case with finality.
 -8-

IV
ON THE GROUND OF EQUITY THE LOWER
COURT HAVE VALID AND LAWFUL JURISDICTION
WHEN IT ADJUDICATED THE CASE

Even assuming for the sake of argument that at the time of the filing of
the complaint by the plaintiff-appellee as well as during the long pendency of the
case before the lower court there exist legal infirmity as to the lower court’s
jurisdiction over the same such flaw or defect have already been validly and
legally rectified or corrected when the judicious Decision in the case was
rendered by the new Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Los
Banos, Laguna on 15 March 2004 due to the fact that the plaintiff-appellee then
at the time was already the sole and exclusive owner of the subject property in
dispute pursuant to his having fully acquired all the rights and interest of his
former co-owner, Vincentino Alamat Sapin over the premises on February 6,
2003. Plaintiff-appellee’s sole and exclusive ownership over the premises in
question is evidenced by the Deed of Partition (Annex “A” and Annex “B” hereof)
manifest and proves plaintiffs-appellees ownership and title over the property in
dispute and therefore at the time of the adjudication of the case on 15 March
2004 by the lower court the said Arcelona Doctrine and Section 7, Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Court (on Indispensable Party) are no longer applicable nor
legally tenable to assail the lawful jurisdiction of the lower court aside from
Estoppel by Laches as afore-mentioned discussed.
Plaintiff is of the serious contention that the Honorable Supreme Court
NEVER intended that the Arcelona Doctrine in relation to Sec. 7, Rule on
Indispensable Party be used as a tool or instrument to perpetrate grave injustice
like in the instant case. The strong and compelling reason of “Equity” dictates
that said Arcelona Doctrine be relaxed or not applied to the case at bar aside
from the fact that the defect on jurisdiction have been validly and legally rectified
as afore-mentioned at the time of the final resolution of the case on 15 March
2004 by the lower court. What is obvious and patent is the fact that except for
the said sole issue on lack of jurisdiction invoked by the defendants-appellants
they have run out of ANY VALID OR LAWFUL argument and defenses to set
aside or reverse the said judicious Decision of the lower court. As a matter of
fact the defendants-appellants desire and/or promise to vacate the premises in
question should they be granted an extension of five (5) years they have been in
 - 9-

effect allowed or granted to stay in the premises for more than the said period or
for six (6) long years now hence, they have no more reason for illegally detaining
the premises any longer even for a day.
As we have been thought in the law school that our judicial system is
governed not only by the “Rule of Law” but likewise of “Equity” and therefore
the plaintiff-appellee herein invokes the paramount interest of substantial justice
and equity to this Honorable Court for the denial of the untenable issue raised by
the deforciant defendants-appellants on lack of jurisdiction and at the same time
promptly resolved the case on appeal in favor of the plaintiff-appellee by
affirming in to to the Decision of the lower court.
The highly unreasonable and unjust delays in the resolution of the case as
well as the grave injustice to the plaintiff-appellee are strong and compelling
reasons of equity to validly and legally justify the denial of the defendants-
appellants non-existent claim of lack of jurisdiction purposely raised or designed
for the first time on appeal just to frustrate and render nugatory the speedy and
proper administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court for the immediate adjudication of the instant case on appeal in
favor of the plaintiff-appellee by affirming in toto the lower court. (MTC Los
Banos) Decision in Civil Case No. 2054.
Plaintiff-appellee further prays for such other reliefs warranted under the
premises.
Quezon City for Calamba City 21 September 2018

ATTY. JOHNNY BOY MATULIN

Counsel for Plaintiffs
11th Floor, Avengers Building II,
143 Del Pilar St. Quezon City
IBP No. 614589/02-14-2020/Samar
PTR No. 956393/01-05-04/Makati City
Roll No. 34567

Copy furnished :
Atty. Manolo Miranda
Counsel for the Defendant-Appellants
112 Municipal Site, Calamba City

EXPLANATION

Due to distance, a copy of this Memorandum was served and filed with
registered mail with return card.

JOHNNY BOY MATULIN