Decision Writing Sample

FINAL EXAM: WRITING A
DECISION
Submitted by:
Marva, Johans Bill D.
CLASSROOM PRAYER
Dios aming Ama, kami ay nagpupuri’t

nagpapasalamat sa iyo,
Sa patnubay ng mahal na Espiritu Santo
Kami ay tulungan sa aming pag-aaral
Dito sa Arellano Law Foundation.
At sa aming pakikisama sa aming
Mga guro at kamag-aral
Tulungan Mo po rin ang mga namamahala
ng Arellano Law Foundation.
At bigyan Mo po kami ng pagkakataon
na makapaglingkod sa aming mga kapwa,
Sa aming mga magulang at sa Bayang Pilipinas
Hinihingi po namin ito sa ngalan ng
Iyong Anak na si Hesus. Amen.
Republic of the Philippines

FINAL EXAM: WRITING A DECISION
SUPREME COURT
Manila
Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc, Plaintiff,
vs.
Nicomedes Pelayo and all persons claiming rights under him, Defendants.
Jose Teodorico V. Molina for Plaintiff. Singson & Montealto (SM) Law Office for
Defendants.
DECISION
Marva, J.:
Before the Court is complaint under Article 428 of the Philippine Civil Code for
recovery of property filed by Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc (plaintiff)
against Nicomedes Pelayo (defendant).
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
I. Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc
a. Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc is a domestic corporation at Lot 6

Block 17, Phase Homes Bldg., Sacred Heart Village, Quiriono Highway, Caloocan
City. Princes Homes, in a board resolution dated April 9, 2019, authorized its
officers to file against the defendants for recovery and possession of property with
Quezon City Trial Court.
b. Princes Homes, sometime in December 2013, purchased by way of Absolute

Sale two parces of land located in Quezon city from Star-Two inc covered by TCT
No. N-169502 and TCT No. N-169503. As consequence of the Deed of Absolute
Sale, two new titles were issued to Princes Homes: TCT No. 004-2014009001 and
TCT No. 004-2014009002.
II. Unlawful occupation

a. Defendendant Nicomedes Pelayo with residence at Lots 4 and 5, Block 6,
Goldkey Classicville, Brgy. Bagbag, Quezon City, had been unlawfully occupying
plaintiff's properties for which reason the latter’s counsel sent the former a NOTICE
OF EVICTION dated February 2018 directing Pelayo to leave the said properties.
b. Despite the notice and repeated demands, Pelayo refused to vacate the place.
c. Pelayo denies the allegation by saying he was not privy to the DOAS between
Princess Homes Inc and Start Two, Inc.
d. Further, Pelayo denies unlawful occupation. Pelayo claims to have bought the
property located in Lots 4 and 5, Block 6, Goldkey Classicville, Brgy. Bagbag,
Quezon City from one Manuel Chua, the seller-developer of the said property in
1997, where the latter subjected the said property to a mortgage with Banco de
Oro. Pelayo claims that he has been lawfully possessing, occupying, residing
therein since 1997. Pelayo claims he had made a down payment to Manuel Chua
of Php500,000 pesos sometime in 1997. Further, Pelayo claims to have made

necessary and useful expenses for the finishing of the said townhouse transaction
thereto to have amounted to Php1,200,000.
THE PLAINTIFF
Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc asserts that by ABSOLUTE TITLE such
has ownership of the said property.
THE DEFENDANT
Nicomedes Pelayo counters that it may have been in bad faith but the said property
is presently possessed by him and made valid improvements to the said property
thereof.
THE PETITION REPLY
Princes Homes Realty and Developers counters by saying the issue in dispute is
ownership not possession. Further questions the defendants lack of valid title to
show proof of such ownership. Since 1997 to 2019, defendant PELAYO had not
taken any action nor inscribed his adverse claim. In the claim of the defendant to
be a buyer in bad faith, again, the plaintiff questions the lack of evidence to show
such thereof.
THE ISSUE
The issues in the present case boil down to (1) whether the present dispute of the
subject property is possession or ownership ; and, (2) whether the defendant
claims of downpayment and improvements against the property can stand against
the absolute deed of sale and title of the plaintiff.
OUR RULING
We grant the petition in accordance with Art. 428 on grounds that the plaintiff has
indubitable proof by Deed of Absolute Sale of the ownership of the property.
Art. 428 –– New Civil Code

The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other
limitations than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor
of the thing in order to recover it.1
I. Claim of Possession is untenable
1
An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Act No. 386, art. 428 (1950).
Defendant’s claims are baseless. No evidence has been submitted to support the
defendant’s claim of possession or ownership to stand against the proof of deed
of absolute sale by the plaintiff.
II. Deed of Absolute Sale and Title

The petition likewise fails even on the merits. Even if there was an adverse claim,
the defendant failed to make any action to protect his rights. The applicable is
Article 1141 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:
...real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years ... without
prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and
other real rights by prescription.2
Even if there was action taken, this is without prejudice to the presented
evidence of DOAS and title for ownership. Further, the rights of holders of
lawful registered title must be protected. Under Baltazar v. Court of
Appeals:
..as between two persons both of whom are in good faith and both
innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the lawful
holder of registered title (emphasis ours) over the transferee of a
vendor bereft of any transmissible rights. Under the foregoing principle
derived from the above case law, Baltazar's vendees have no rights as
against Good Earth.3
CONCLUSION
It is indubitable that there is no evidence presented by the defendant to claim

ownership of the property thereof and oppose the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants
have no rights over the questioned property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The Court hereby compel

Nicomedes Pelayo vacate the said property. Further, for damages, order the same
to pay Php300,000.00 for reasonable use of the plaintiff’s property and applicable
attorney’s fees. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
JOHANS BILL D. MARVA
Associate Justice
GUIDELINES IN WRITING A DECISION
2
An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Act No. 386, art. 1141 (1950).
3
Baltazar v. CA, G.R. No. L-78728, (December 8, 1988).
- Article VIII: Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
- A decision need not be a complete recital of the evidence presented so long as
the factual and legal basis are clearly and distinctly set forth supporting the
conclusions drawn therefrom.
- Should not be simply limited to the dispositive portion but must state the:
1. Nature of the case

2. Summarize the facts with reference to the record
3. Contain a statement of the applicable laws and jurisprudence
4. Tribunal’s assessments
5. Conclusions on the case
Francisco v. Permskul
“MEASURES OF VALIDITY”
MEMORANDUM DECISION (i.e. copy pasting)

1. Cannot incorporate the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower
court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decision is
not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum
decision. [me: citation is key]
- EXCEPTION: For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must

provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which
must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision. In other
words, the memorandum decision authorized under Section 40 of B.P. Blg.
129 should actually embody the findings of fact and conclusions of law of
the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part
of the decision.
- It is expected that this requirement will allay the suspicion that no study
was made of the decision of the lower court and that its decision was
merely affirmed without a proper examination of the facts and the law on
which it was based.
- The proximity at least of the annexed statement should suggest that such
an examination has been undertaken. It is, of course, also understood that
the decision being adopted should, to begin with, comply with Article VIII,
Section 14 as no amount of incorporation or adoption will rectify its
violation.
2. The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that the memorandum decision

should be "sparingly used" (restricted/infrequent) lest it become an addictive
excuse for judicial sloth. It is an additional condition for its validity that this kind
of decision may be resorted to only in cases where the facts are in the main
accepted by both parties or easily determinable by the judge and there are no
doctrinal complications involved that will require an extended discussion of the
laws involved. The memorandum decision may be employed in simple litigations
only, such as ordinary collection cases, where the appeal is obviously groundless
and deserves no more than the time needed to dismiss it.
- Despite the convenience afforded by the memorandum decision, it is still
desirable that the appellate judge exert some effort in restating in his own words
the findings of fact of the lower court and presenting his own interpretation of the
law instead of merely parroting the language of the court a quo as if he cannot
do any better.
3. As much as possible write one one's own. There must be less intellectual
indolence and more pride of authorship in the writing of a decision, especially if
it comes from an appellate court.
4. The appellate judge should prune the cluttered record to make the issues
clearer. He cannot usually do this by simply mimicking the lower court. He must
use his own perceptiveness in unraveling the rollo and his own discernment in
discovering the law.
5. No less importantly, he must use his own language in laying down his
judgment. And in doing so, he should also guard against torpidity lest his
pronouncements excite no more fascination than a technical tract on the values
of horse manure as a fertilizer. A little style will help liven the opinion trapped in
the tortuous lexicon of the law with all its whereases and wherefores. A judicial
decision does not have to be a bore.
The interpretation we make today will not apply retroactively to the

memorandum decision rendered by the regional trial court in the case at bar, or
to the decision of the respondent court such decision on the strength of
Romero v. Court of Appeals. As earlier observed, there was substancial
compliance with Section 40 because of the direct availability and actual review
of the decision of Judge Balita incorporated by reference in the memorandum
decision of Judge de la Rama. The memorandum decision as then understood
under the Romero decision was a valid act at the time it was rendered by
Judge de la Rama and produced binding legal effect. We also affirm the finding
of the respondent court that the summary judgment without a formal trial was in
accord with the Rule on Summary Procedure and that the award of attorney's
fees is not improper.
Henceforth, all memorandum decisions shall comply with the requirements

herein set forth both as to the form prescribed and the occasions when they
may be rendered. Any deviation will summon the strict enforcement of Article
VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution and strike down the flawed judgment as a
lawless disobedience.

Decision Writing Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Writing Sample

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Writing Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL EXAM: WRITING A

Dios aming Ama, kami ay nagpupuri’t

Republic of the Philippines

I. Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc

a. Princes Homes Realty and Developers Inc is a domestic corporation at Lot 6

b. Princes Homes, sometime in December 2013, purchased by way of Absolute

II. Unlawful occupation

of Php500,000 pesos sometime in 1997. Further, Pelayo claims to have made

Art. 428 –– New Civil Code

I. Claim of Possession is untenable

II. Deed of Absolute Sale and Title

It is indubitable that there is no evidence presented by the defendant to claim

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The Court hereby compel

JOHANS BILL D. MARVA

GUIDELINES IN WRITING A DECISION

1. Nature of the case

MEMORANDUM DECISION (i.e. copy pasting)

- EXCEPTION: For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must

2. The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that the memorandum decision

The interpretation we make today will not apply retroactively to the

Henceforth, all memorandum decisions shall comply with the requirements

You might also like