REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch ______
City of Tacloban

KHLOE MARIELLE DE LA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. _______

FOR: Quieting of Title with
Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction

ASHTON PAMINTUAN,
Defendant.

x-----------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

The Parties

1. Plaintiff CHLOE MARIELLE DE LA CRUZ is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single,

with residence at Brgy. 62 A Sagkahan Tacloban City and can be reached and
served court orders, notices and other processes at the office address of the
undersigned counsels;
 2. Defendant ASHTON PAMINTUAN is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married,
with residence and postal address at Brgy. 25 Tacloban City where he may
be served with summons and other court processes;

The Case

Plaintiff filed a case for Quieting of Title with TRO and Preliminary
Injunction against defendant to vindicate her rights to the subject parcel of land
which was allegedly a subject of sale.

The Facts
Plaintiff is the sole heir and successor-in-interest of the late Julia de la Cruz,
who died intestate on 6 March 2012 of a parcel of land with an assessed value of
P1.5 million, and with Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10070 located in Brgy.
62 A Sagkahan Tacloban City.

Sometime in year 2008, Defendant, who is a long-time friend of Julia de la

Cruz, came to the latters residence and requested to borrow the TCT of the subject
parcel of land owned by the De la Cruzs to secure various personal loan obligations
from a certain Edelyn Cadiz in the aggregate amount of P700,000.00.

Upon assurance from the Defendant that the mortgage would be for a brief
period only and that he would forthwith pay and settle in full all his personal loan
obligations with Edelyn Cadiz to ensure that said mortgage is cancelled in the
soonest time possible, and being such very good friends, Julia de la Cruz lent the
TCT of the subject land.

During the effectivity of the Real Estate Mortgage, Plaintiff and Julia de la
Cruz migrated in the United States of America to treat the worsening health
condition of the latter.

Sometime in 2010, Julia de la Cruz received a letter from the Defendant

informing the former that he had finally settled in full all his personal loan
obligations with Edelyn Cadiz and the mortgage is already cancelled however,
Defendant failed to send the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10070 together
with the said letter.

Since then, nothing was heard of the Defendant and the whereabouts of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10070 up until the demise of Julia de la Cruz
where Plaintiff returned to the Philippines in 2014 where she inquired with the Civil
Registry of Deeds of Tacloban City as to the status of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 10070.

Plaintiff was surprised to know that Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
10070 had become the subject of a Deed of Conditional Sale with the Defendant in
2011, of which she had no knowledge thereof nor her mother informing her.

Plaintiff immediately scheduled a meeting with Defendant wherein the latter

gave her a copy of the Deed of Conditional Sale and other pertinent documents to
which Plaintiff noticed that the aforesaid documents suffer with lots of
irregularities especially with the signature of Julia de la Cruz, and such time when
plaintiff checked the property, she found out that a construction is on-going to
fence the property;

The Issues
1. Whether or not the signature of Julia de la Cruz appearing on the
contract of Deed of Sale was genuine.

2. Whether or not the contract of Deed of Sale was valid to transfer

ownership of subject land to defendant.

The Arguments

1. The signature of Julia de la Cruz which appears in the Deed of Sale is

not genuine and authentic.

2. Granting that it is indeed Mrs. Julia de la Cruz who willingly sold the
property in question, still the disposition is invalid for failure to obtain the consent
of the husband, Anton de la Cruz who was still alive during the disposition.
 The Discussion

The Supreme Court held in its decision in Sps. Bernales vs. Heirs of Sambaan,
GR No. 163271, 15 January 2010, that a forged deed of absolute sale is null and
conveys no title. Neither does prescription bar the action to recover ownership of
the subject property.
It further held in Sps. Solivel v. Judge Francisco:
x x x in order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the
registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good
faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. When the
instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owners duplicate
certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and
neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the
property.

The facts of the case establishes the migration of the de la Cruz family to the
USA because of the worsening health of Julia. Taking into consideration the latters
health and current place of residence, she could not have signed the original Deed
of Sale without the knowledge of her husband or her daughter who was living on
one and same house. Though there is possibility of her signing the deed, the
improbability of hiding said circumstance to her family is highly low, them being
closely-tied and open with each other. Hence, the presentation of the forged deed,
even if accompanied by the owners duplicate certificate of title, the registered
owner did not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged
deed acquire any right or title to the said property.
The supposed vendor's signature, not being genuine, thereby a forgery, the
instrument is totally void or inexistent as absolutely simulated or fictitious under
Article 1409 of the Civil Code. Further, in pursuance to Article 1410, the action or
defence for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. The
inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable which cannot be cured either
by ratification or by prescription.
 With regards the want of consent, when Julia de la Cruz allegedly sold the
parcel of land which is a conjugal property, the provisions of the Family Code should
be taken into consideration and upheld. Article 124 of said code provides:
Art. 124. x x x In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the
other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do
not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the
authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the
absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall
be void. x x x

There is no showing that Julias husband is incapacitated or is unable to

participate in the administration of the conjugal properties. Thus, to validate the
deed of sale, a written consent of Julias spouse is required. Without it being
attached or presented as evidence, it is clear that the Deed of Sale allegedly
contracted by plaintiffs mother and the defendant is void and did not convey
transfer of title and ownership of the subject land.

The Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered declaring the Deed of
Sale as void and directing the defendant to return the subject property and restrain
from fencing the property.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also hereby prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Tacloban City, Philippines, 30 January 2016.

Molvizar, Pacala, and Petilla Law Office

2nd Flr BPI Bldg
cor. J. Romualdez del Pilar Sts.,
Tacloban City
By:

ATTY. JENNIFER A. MOLVIZAR

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 1326618 01/02/2013
IBP No. 884305 12/20/2012
Roll No. 57384
MCLE No. III-0019301
Date Issued: 10/10/2012

ATTY. MARY IVY M. PACALA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 1326619 01/02/2013
IBP No. 884306 12/20/2012
Roll No. 57385
MCLE No. III-0019302
Date Issued: 10/1/2014

ATTY. IMEE A. PETILLA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 1326620 01/02/2013
IBP No. 884307 12/20/2012
Roll No. 57386
MCLE No. III-0019303
Date Issued: 09/1/2013
Copy Furnished by personal service:

Leonida, Marques, and Montallana Law Office

2nd Flr. Leonida Bldg.
Cor. Real and Imelda Avenida Sts.
Tacloban City

Received by: Date:

____________________ _____________