Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEDRO SANTOS,
Plaintiff , Civil Case No. 1
-Versus- For: INJUNCTION
BRUNO RAMOS
Respondent.
x----------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Pedro Santos is of legal age, single, and residing on 456 Figueroa
Street, Cebu City, where she may be served with legal processes and
notices issued by this Honorable Court;
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
That on the year 2007, the ABC Enterprises Inc, a domestic corporation, is
to undergo liquidation due to the expiration of the term of its corporate life.
That on August of 2015, the liquidation board of the said company assigned
the rights of a parcel of land owned by the company to the complainant,
Bruno Ramos.
That the same parcel of land was utilized by the plaintiff for his personal use
in which the land is still owned by the company. The company merely
tolerated the utilization of the parcel of land and there was no transfer of
ownership.
That both the complainant and the respondent are stockholders of the ABC
Enterprises Inc.
That upon the knowledge of Bruno Ramos of the existing lease agreement
between the complainant as lessor and a lessee, he notify the lessee of the
assignment and the transfer of ownership of the parcel of land to his name
and not of the complainant.
IV. ARGUMENTS
III. DISCUSSION
Jurisprudence have long settled the rule that possession does not
always equate to ownership. In the decision of the case of Jabon vs
Alo, the ponente states that Ownership is different from
possession. A person may be declared owner, but he may not be
entitled to possession. The possession may be in the hands of
another either as a lessee of which tenant. Morever, the possession
by the petition was only by mere tolerance as one of the
stockholders of the company and no transfer of ownership occurred.
The decision in the case of Heirs of Jose Maligaso Sr. vs Spouses
Encinas, the ponente discussed in relation to possession by mere
tolerance which states that, As registered owners of the lots in
question, the private respondents have a right to eject any person
illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even
if it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioners
occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of
that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand
the return of their property at any time as long as the
possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at
all. This right is never barred by laches. Herein, the registered
owner of the said lot is the ABC company in which they merely
tolerated the occupation of the petitioner. In applying the rule, no
ownership has been transferred, hence the ABC company remains
as the owner of the parcel of land. The land was subsequently
assigned to the respondent during the liquidation proceedings.
As an owner, the New Civil Code particularly Article 429 and 430 of
Title II on Ownership provides that, The owner or lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose,
he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property. and Every owner
may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of
walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means
without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. The act
of the respondent on padlocking the property he legally own due to
the petitioner as a lessee ignoring the notices given by the
respondent.
PRAYER
Other just and equitable reliefs under the foregoing are likewise being
prayed for.
Respectfully submitted
Copy furnished: