Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
x---------------------------------------------------------------------x
ROSALINA I. CHUA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-
Page 1 of 15
INDEX
Pages
COVER PAGE 1
INDEX 2
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE 3
PARTIES 4
ISSUES 7
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS 7-11
RELIEF 11
Cases cited:
Page 2 of 15
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
ROSALINA I. CHUA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
With My Conformity
ROSALINA I. CHUA
Plaintiff-Appellee
Page 3 of 15
BRIEF FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
THE PARTIES
Page 4 of 15
Rosalina I. Chua and surrender the possession thereof
to herein plaintiff and
2. To PAY plaintiff the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND
PESOS as acceptance fee and FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P5,000.00) per court appearance. 1
Page 5 of 15
the property sold is free from all liens and encumbrances of
whatever kind and nature5;
2.4When Plaintiff-Appellee was to take possession of the above-
described property, Defendant-Appellants, Lolita G. Jabao, Elizabeth
Ompoc, Mr. and Mrs. Roberto Garcia, Angelita Dizon, and tenants
refused to surrender possession of the same to the herein Plaintiff-
Appellee, despite repeated demands verbal and written and
because of the said refusal of Defendants-Appellants Lolita G. Jabao,
Elizabeth Ompoc, Mr. and Mrs. Roberto Garcia, to vacate the said
premises, Plaintiff-Appellee could not take possession of the property
that she legally owns;
8 Copy of the said Decision dated July 27, 2011, is herein attached as ANNEX 8.
Page 6 of 15
2.9 The summons for defendant Elizabeth Ompoc was unserved.
The summons and copy of complaint to defendant San Francisco Del
Monte, Inc., were returned unserved because no company is holding
office at the given address.
III. ISSUES
Page 7 of 15
REASONABLE GROUND FOR GRANTING THE SAID
MOTION.
IV. DISCUSSION
Page 8 of 15
SO ORDERED.9
4.3 Further, the Rules states that the period for appeal is within
fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final
order appealed from (Sec. 2, Rule 40; Sec. 3, Rule 41; Sec. 2, Rule 45,
Rules of Court). The filing of a timely motion or new trial interrupts
the period to appeal (Sec. 2, Rule 40; Sec 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court);
4.4 Furthermore, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to
set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or
more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial right
of the said party:
4.5 In this case, the Trial Court correctly observed that Defendant-
Appellant Jabao knew of Atty. Mendez death on November 27, 2015
and yet she waited for the Courts decision dated January 11, 2016
which she claimed to have received on February 3, 2016 before she
went to the Court to inform of her counsels death. This alone would
show non-excusable negligence and lack of ordinary prudence on the
part of the Defendant-Appellant;
9 Copy of the afore-quoted Order dated 02 May 2016 is herein attached as ANNEX 9.
Page 9 of 15
4.7 A thorough review of the records of the case would clearly
reveal that the Trial Court was very lenient to the Defendant-
Appellant. It could be recalled that Defendant-Appellant was already
declared in default, however upon filing of a motion for
reconsideration by the Defendant- Appellant the Trial Court
reconsidered its order. Worthy also of mentioning is the fact that the
Trial Court also granted the several motions for postponement of the
Defendant-Appellants;
4.8 Further, when Atty. Jayson Del Rosario of the Public Attorneys
Office, counsel of the Defendant-Appellants, filed for an Extension
of Time to file Motion for Reconsideration the same was
granted by the Trial Court this alone made the Decision becomes
final and executory since motion for extension of time to file motion
for reconsideration is not allowed by the Rules of Court. Despite the
facts that the Defendant-Appellants was given another fifteen (15)
days or until March 04, 2016 to file her motion for reconsideration,
still Defendant-Appellant fails to file the same and instead she filed a
motion for new trial on March 09, 2016, without any explanation
why the Motion was belatedly filed;
Page 10 of 15
The trial court is correct in
ruling for the Plaintiff-
Appellee
4.12 The claim of the Defendant-Appellant that Plaintiff-Appellee
lacked any cause of action is again not supported by law and
jurisprudence. In a litany of decisions of the Supreme Court it stated
that Whoever owns the property has the right to possess it. (Gaitero
v. Almeria, 651 SCRA 544). Without a doubt, the registered owner
of real property is entitled to its possession. (Carbonilla v. Abiera,
625 SCRA 461);
4.13 In this case as correctly pointed out by the Trial Court that the
evidence presented by Plaintiff-Appellee established with certainty
her ownership over the subject property by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale executed between her and defendant-appellee San
Francisco Del Monte10. An executed contract carries with it the
presumption of validity (Delfin v. Billiones, Gr. No. 146550, March
17, 2016) and in this case, the Deed of Absolute Sale was uncontested.
The identity of the parcel of land subject of the case was likewise
uncontested;
4.15 Hence, being the registered owner of the subject property that is
being unlawfully occupied by herein Defendants-Appellants, the
Plaintiff-Appellee should have possession of her property. The
Supreme Court in one case, had the occasion to rule that Registered
owners are entitled to the possession of the property covered by the
title from the time such title was issued in their favor 11. Settled is the
rule that the right of possession is a necessary incident of
ownership12;
Page 11 of 15
4.16 Again it is undisputed in this case that the Plaintiff-Appellee is
the lawful and registered owner of the subject property that is covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 004-2010009085 of the Registry
of Deeds of Quezon City. Suffice it to state that the Plaintiff-Appellee
is also the one paying the realty taxes of the subject property 13 and it
is well settled in this jurisdiction that although tax declarations or
realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of
ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the
concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes
for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive
possession.14;
RELIEF
13 Copy of the said Tax Official Receipts is herein attached as ANNEX 10.
Page 12 of 15
71901 be UPHELD.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
25 January 2017, Quezon City for Manila.
Copy Furnished:
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Rule 13 Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Page 13 of 15
JOHN THOMAS S. ALFEROS, III
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, IAN C. DUERO, of legal age, Filipino and with postal address at Unit
K, 1143 San Francisco Del Monte Avenue, Barangay Paltok 1105, Quezon City,
after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state
that:
I am the personnel of Alferos Armas and Associate Law Office and I have
today furnished a copy through registered mail with return card of the Appellees
Brief in the case entitled ROSALINA I. CHUA vs. MRS. LOLITA G. JABAO,
et. al., docketed as CA G.R. No. CV- 106967 pending before the Court of
Appeals to:
Ian C. Duero
Affiant
Page 14 of 15
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series 2017.
Page 15 of 15