Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Plaintiff,
-- versus -- HLURB CASE
NO.98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Board
most respectfully alleges:
1. That herein plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, signle and a resident of 651
National Road Poblacion Muntinlupa City while the respondent is a
Domestic Corporation, with office address Unit 1819 Balatas Royal
Mansion, Balagtas St., Pasay City where said corporation may be served
with summons and other processes of the Honorable Board;
Plaintiff prays for such and other further relief as may be just and equitable under
the premises.
By:
Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION
I, Patrick P. Alvar, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 651 National Road
Poblacion Muntinlupa City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and say:
Patrick P. Alvar
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Patrick P. Alvar, who is personally
known to me to be the same person who presented the foregoing instrument and signed
the instrument in my presence, this 1st day of December 2010 at Muntinlupa City, affiant
exhibiting to me his Passport No.080707 issued on August 7, 2010 by the Department of
Foreign Affairs.
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010
Office of the President
HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
National Capital Region Field Office
Kalayaan Road, Quezon City
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Plaintiff,
-- versus -- HLURB CASE NO.
ULR-
98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
respondent, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Board most
respectfully states:
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
PRAYER
By:
COPY FURNISHED:
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION
Boni Bonifacio
Affiant
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Complainant,
-- versus -- HLURB CASE NO.
ULR-98765
For: Reimbursement
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
REPLY
December 8 2010.
TCT NO. 444444 that indicates one Noynoy Aquino being the owner of
the property. Said Contract of sale is hereto attached as Annex “C” and
Complainant prays for such and other further relief as may be just and equitable
under the premises.
By:
Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
COPY FURNISHED:
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Plaintiff,
-- versus -- HLURB CASE NO.
ULR-98765
For: REIMBURSEMENT
TGFSI INC.
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Complainant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Board
most respectfully alleges:
3. The plaintiff, after contacting the principal owner of the object of sale,
discovered that the owner did not yet authorize the Respondent to sell the
property or which authority is still pending. The principal owner, in his
Sworn-Affidavit hereto attached as Annex “D,” declared that the
Respondent corporation is a developer of condominium units, but was not
authorized by him to sell the subject property;
II. ISSUE
(1) Those entered into the name of another person by one who has
been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted
beyond his powers;
xxxx
PRAYER
By:
Atty. Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
COPY FURNISHED:
VERIFICATION
I, Patrick P. Alvar, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 651 National Road
Poblacion Muntinlupa City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and say:
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Affiant
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011
PATRICK P. ALVAR,
Complainant-Appellee,
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
COUNTER MEMORANDUM
2. Upon the execution of the contract, plaintiff paid the amount of Php
1,000,000.00 to respondents which is stipulated in the Contract of Sale,
said stipulation is marked as Annex “A-1”;
3. The plaintiff, after contacting the principal owner of the object of sale,
discovered that the owner did not yet authorize the Respondent to sell the
property or which authority is still pending. The principal owner, in his
Sworn-Affidavit hereto attached as Annex “D,” declared that the
Respondent corporation is a developer of condominium units, but was not
authorized by him to sell the subject property;
ISSUE
ARGUMENTS
1. As correctly held by the Housing Land Use Arbiter in its Decision, the property
cannot be alienated in favor of the plaintiff, as there was no valid legal authority to sell
as required by the Rules of the HLURB.
3. As to the reimbursement, Article 22 of the Code is clear on the matter that unjust
enrichment is obtaining in the instant case. It provides:
“Every person who through an act of performance by another, or
any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something
at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return
the same to him.”
PRAYER
By:
Robert De Leon
Muntinlupa City
Roll No. 777777
MCLE Compliance No.
10101010
COPY FURNISHED:
BINAY LAW OFFICE
Atty. Jejemon Binay
#8 Balagtas St.
Pasay City
VERIFICATION
I, Patrick P. Alvar, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 651 National Road
Poblacion Muntinlupa City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and say:
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Affiant
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011
NOTICE OF APPEAL
_____________________________________
TGFSI INC.,
represented by Boni Bonifacio, President
PATRICK P. ALVAR
Complainant-Appellee,
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
APPEAL MEMORANDUM
Respondent-Appellant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Board most respectfully states:
This is an Appeal to the Honorable Board from the Decision dated 17 January
2011 rendered by the Honorable Housing and Land Use Arbiter Red Rover (“Questioned
Decision”), pursuant to the Rule XVI, Section 1 of the 2009 Rules of Procedure of the
Board.
Proof of payment of the required fees and proof of service of the Appeal
Memorandum on the other parties are attached hereto.
2. Upon the execution of the contract, plaintiff paid the amount of Php
1,000,000.00 to respondents which is stipulated in the Contract of Sale,
said stipulation is marked as Annex “A-1”;
3. The plaintiff, after contacting the principal owner of the object of sale,
discovered that the owner did not yet authorize the Respondent to sell the
property or which authority is still pending. The principal owner, in his
Sworn-Affidavit hereto attached as Annex “D,” declared that the
Respondent corporation is a developer of condominium units, but was not
authorized by him to sell the subject property;
4. The plaintiff made several demands from respondent corporation to
reimburse the amount paid to plaintiff, but to no avail. Plaintiff sent
respondent a final demand letter, attached hereto as Annex “B”;
6. On January 17, 2011, the Housing Land Use Arbiter issued the Decision;
7. In the Questioned Decision, the Honorable Housing and Land Use Arbiter
ruled in favor of the complainant-appellee.
ISSUE
ARGUMENTS
9. TGFSI, Inc. has an interest as a co-owner of the subject property and may
sell or alienate it to a third party. Article 493 thus provides:
Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment x x x. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Respondent-appellant is a co-owner with the alleged principal owner, as
they both exercise full ownership on the subject property. This cannot be denied
by the complainant, for entering into the contract of sale made him bound to
admit that TGFSI, Inc. is one and true co-owner of Noynoy Aquino.
10. There is no right for the plaintiff to demand reimbursement, since the
Contract of Sale he entered into with TGFSI, Inc. is covered by a valid
contract between both parties. The contract is the law between the parties,
and denial of its validity is tantamount to a breach of the contract, more so
when one party seeks to declare its unenforceability. Article 1308 of the
Civil Code provides:
The contracts must bind both parties; its validity or compliance cannot be
left to the will of one of them.
In sum, what the complainant is advancing is that he may move for the
unenforceability of the contract. This is untenable for he had bound himself to its
terms and conditions of the sale—a valid transaction between complainant and
respondent.
11. Contrary to the findings of the Honorable Housing and Land Use Arbiter,
complainant-appellee cannot demand reimbursement from respondent corporation,
because there is no unenforceable contract to speak of. Also, the Honorable Housing and
Land Use Arbiter erred in ruling that the property cannot be alienated in favor of the
plaintiff, as respondent corporation is a co-owner of the property who may alienate the
property and enter into a contract not contrary to law, public morals and public policy.
PRAYER
By:
COPY FURNISHED: