De Ramos, Phillip Joseph D.

UBBC COL
Practice Court 2 Exercises

1. WHAT WILL BE YOUR COURSE OF ACTION?

The course of action to be taken is to file an appeal before the RTC by using
rule 40 in relation to rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

2. EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURE WITH THE DETAILS. WHAT RULE/RULES OF

COURT IS/ARE APPLICABLE?

The rules applicable in this case are Rules 40 and 70 and is applied in
this case in this manner:

The appellant must, within 15 days file his or her appeal to the Re-
gional Trial Court who has jurisdiction over the case. The appeal is insti-
tuted by filing a notice of appeal to the court which rendered the judgment
or decision, within the reglementary period of 15 days after receiving the
notice of decision or judgment. The notice of appeal shall indicate the par-
ties to the appeal, the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed
from, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
Copies of the notice of appeal shall be served on the adverse party.

Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk
of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from the
full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of
payment thereof shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with
the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be.

Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerk of
court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact. Within
fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to
submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the
lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party.

3. PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE PLEADINGS TO BE FILED WITH THE PROPER

COURT
 Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Br. 31
Quezon, City

Sps. JULIAN FLORES and

ROSA FLORES,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Case No. 1234
-vs- For: Ejectment

Sps. RODY DE ASA and

ANA DE ASA,
Defendants,

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL

COMES NOW, the defendant by the undersigned counsel, hereby files this Notice of
Appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in the above-entitled case, dated April 5,
2021 a copy of which was received by them on April 15, 2021, and appeals the same to the
Regional Trial Court.

Respectfully submitted
April 20, 2021, Quezon City, Philippines

By:
Atty. Phillip Joseph D. De Ramos
113 Independencia St., Lemery, Batangas
09978010620
PTR No. 12345
IBP Lifetime No. 12345
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance: 12345

Copy Furnished:

Amurao Law Offices

Counsel for Plaintiffs
2F.J Humarang Bldg.
Visayas Ave. Quezon, City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch __, Quezon City

Sps. JULIAN and ROSA FLORES,

Plaintif-Apelee,

-versus- Civil Case No. CV-1327

For: Ejectment

Sps. RODY and ANA DE ASA,

Defendant-Appelant..
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, Defendants-Appelants Sps. RODY AND ANA DE ASA, Through the
undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver that:

I. THE CASE

This case is a civil case for ejectment filed by herein Plaintiffs-Appellees Sps. JULIAN
AND ROSA FLORES on June 4, 2018 against herein Defendant-Appelants Sps. RODY AND ANA
DE ASA.

II. THE FACTS OF THE CASE

On March 22, 2000, Plaintiff-Appellees paid a certain Mr. Revilla one hundred thousand
pesos (Php 100,000.00) for the rights over a 200 sqm lot, a portion of the 1,500,000 sqm lot in
Payatas, Quezon City, covered by Proclamation No. 137, S. 1987 by former President Corazon
C. Aquino. Plaintiff-Appellees constructed a small bungalow where his family lived from 1990
up to 20120.

On December 2, 2010, Plaintiff-appellees’ family moved to Palawan and allowed the

defendant-appellants’ family, their neighbors, to reside in the bungalow for free provided that
they would maintain the orderliness and cleanliness of the house and its surroundings. They
executed a Malayang Kasunduan which reads:

MALAYANG KASUNDUAN

“Kami G. at Gng. Julian Flores, may-ari ng lote at bahay sa Phase C, Block

10, Lot 10, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City ay nagbibigay ng pahintulot sa pamilya
ni G. at Gng. Rody De Asa na maniharan sa lote at bahay na walang bayad.
 Kaugnay dito, kailangan panatilihin nila ang kalinisan at kapayapaan ng lote at
bahay. Sila ay nangangakong kusang aalis nang walang reklamo sa sandal na
kailangan na ng pamilya Flores ang bahay.
Disyembre 1, 2010, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City.

Lagda: G. Julian Flores G. Rody De Asa

Gng. Rosa Flores G. Ana De Asa
Saksi: G. Edwin Sanchez G. Leo Castillo”

On January 15, 2018, Plaintiff-appellees informed Defendant-appellant of their need of

the house and lot. They demanded the defendant-appellant to vacate the premises but the
latter refused to heed the demand. Barangay Conciliation and mediation were conducted for
three (3) dates but the parties failed to arrive at a settlement. Hence, a certificate to file action
was issued by the officer of Barangay Payatas.
Plaintiff-appellees filed an ejectment suit on June 4, 2018 before the MTC, Branch 31 of
Quezon City.

Summons were served to the defendant-appellants on August 10, 2018. The defendant-
appellant filed their answer on August 20, 2018 claiming that the plaintiff-appellees have no
valid title to the lot or right of possession over the said lot where the house was built because
it is within the 15,000 hectares set aside for socialized housing under Proclamation No. 137
dated September 7, 1987. Moreover, the plaintiff-appellees never visited the premises nor
communicated with them.

The MeTC of Quezon City rendered its decision on April 5, 2021. The dispositive portion
reads:
“Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants, ordering the latter:
a. To vacate the house and lot occupied by the defendants and all persons
claiming rights under them;
b. To pay the plaintiffs the sum of THREE HUNDRED PESOS (PhP 300.00)
monthly, a reasonable compensation for the use of the house and lot start-
ing from the date of the last demand;
c. To pay the plaintiffs the sum of P30,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s
fees;
d. To pay the costs of the suit
SO ORDERED. April 5, 2021.”

III. ISSUES

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFFS HAS THE RIGHT TO EJECT THE
DEFENDANTS FROM THE PROPERTY

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFFS IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF RENTS
FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
 IV. ARGUMENTS

ON THE FIRST ISSUE

This case stemmed out from an ejectment suit filed by herein plaintiffs against
defendants asserting their claim as the owners of the property.

Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides for those who can institute the ejectment
proceedings, to wit:

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions

of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person,
may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or
withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court
against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession,
or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs. (1a)

The Property in dispute is within the 15,000 Hectares set aside by the government
for socialized housing under Proclamation 137 dated September 7, 1987of then
President Corazon C. Aquino. Thus, it follows that the disputed property belongs
rightfully to the State and not to the plaintiffs in this case.

Following Rule 70 of the rules of Court, only the owners or their legal
representatives can institute the proceedings of ejectment against any person
withholding the possession of the same as to them unlawfully. Considering that it is the
state which is the Owner of the property and which makes the property part of the
Public Lands, it is only the State who is entitled to initiate the necessary proceedings to
eject or remove said defendants from the property.

Thus, the plaintiffs has no cause of action against the defendants being neither
the owner or legal representative of the said disputed land.

Moreover, the plaintiffs were absent to the said property for several years,
without visiting or checking as to its condition. It is the defendant, who in the years has
took care and took possession of the said land. Thus, it is submitted that it is the
defendants and not the plaintiffs, who are more eligible to the grant of the land under
the Socialized Housing.

ON THE SECOND ISSUE

 Considering that the State owns the land, it follows that the plaintiffs had no right
for the payment of the rents due. Payments of the rents to the plaintiffs of the rents
would result to unjust enrichment which is in violation of our laws.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing judgment be rendered, as follows:

1. To dismiss the case for lack of merit and cause of action against the defendant.

2. To pay the litigation expenses and cost of suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.
April 20, 2021, Quezon City, Philippines.

By:
Atty. Phillip Joseph D. De Ramos
113 Independencia St., Lemery, Batangas
09978010620
PTR No. 12345
IBP Lifetime No. 12345
Roll No. 12345
MCLE Compliance: 12345

Copy furnished:

Amurao Law Offices

Counsel for Plaintiffs
2F.J Humarang Bldg.
Visayas Ave. Quezon, City

EXPLANATION ON THE SERVICE OF PLEADING

Service on the plaintiff’s counsel was effected by registered mail with registry return
card considering the distance and the shortage of available messenger in the undersigned’s
law firm, which make it impractical to effect service by personal delivery.
Atty. Phillip Joseph D. De Ramos