Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila City
MAI GANADEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. L-12345

Petition for Reconsideration

RICO CASTILLO,
Respondent-Appellee.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
COME NOW PETITIONER-APPELLANT, through the undersigned counsel, and
unto this Honorable Court of Appeals most respectfully submits and present this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:
THE PARTIES
1. Respondent-Appellee, Rico Castillo is of legal age, single, and residing at Cavite, City,
where he may be served with legal process and notices issued by this Honorable Court;
2. Petitioner-Appellant, Mai Ganaden is of legal age, single, and residing at Cavite, City,
where she may be served with legal process and notices thereto.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On August 28, 2006, herein Respondent-Appellee, filed a Complaint for Unlawful

Detainer and Damages against the Petitioner-Appellant;
2. Answer was filed by the Petitioner-Appellant;
3. On September 3, 2007, a Decision was rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Cavite City in favor of the Respondent-Appellee, ordering the Petitioner-Appellant to
vacate the subject parcel of land and to pay rentals, as well as attorneys fees and
costs.

4. The Petitioner-Appellant through a legal counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration to

the Regional Trial Court but it was denied. Affirmed the decision promulgated by the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Respondent-Appellee seeks that a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 2-C, situated in
Cavite City, containing an area of more or less 280 square meters be returned to his
possession, but due to Petitioner-Appellants occupancy thereat, the former cannot
claim possession. It is noteworthy to stress that Respondent-Appellee is the registered
owner of the land subject under TCT No. 859 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite City.
The property was sold to him by EjSaludo;
6. Petitioner-Appellant on the other hand, is an alleged owner of the land since 1960,
religiously paying rentals to BlesildaTingson, the daughter of the late Sonny Agustin, the
rightful owner of the subject parcel of land. Alleging that EjSaludo, from whom the
Respondent-Appellee allegedly purchased the said parcel of land, has no right over the
subject parcel of land;
7. Respondent-Appellee, out of humanitarian consideration and compassion, allowed the
Petitioner-Appellant to occupy the said parcel of land by tolerance. Sometime in
January 2006, the Respondent-Appellee notified Petitioner-Appellant of his intention to
terminate her possession and gave her reasonable time to vacate the parcel of land.
Petitioner-Appellant, despite the several and successive demands of the RespondentAppellee still refused to vacate the land. This led him to send through his counsel a
formal demand. However, the Petitioner-Appellant still persistently occupied the land
without heed to the serious and constant demand of the Respondent-Appellee which
rendered it unattainable to reach an agreement;
8. Due to the foregoing to failure to claim the parcel of land attributed to the obstinate
refusal of the Petitioner-Appellant, Respondent-Appellee was compelled to hire the
services of a legal counsel to commence the enforcement of unlawful detainer action
under the wings of the courts of law.
III.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

A)WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ACTED CORRECTLY IN

DECIDING THIS UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION AND IMPOSING EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER-APPELLANT DESPITE OF THE ALLEGED
OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID PARCEL OF LAND SINCE 1960
IV.

ARGUMENT

A) The lower court erred in ruling that an unlawful detainer action be enforced
upon against Petitioner-Appellant despite of the alleged actual and
continual possession of the said parcel of land since 1960;

V.

DISCUSSION

A)Respondent-Appellee had preponderantly and convincingly proved ownership over the

subject parcel of land as against Petitioner-Appellant bare claims;
B)The Trial Court observed that the Petitioner-Appellant failed to offer any evidence to
support her claim that the subject parcel of land is owned by BlesildaTingson the heir of
Sonny Agustin, whom she claimed the rightful owner of the subject parcel of land;
neither she offered proof to substantiate her claim that she is a lessee of the Agustin
heirs;
C)The MTCC thus concluded that the Petitioner-Appellants occupation over the subject
parcel of land was by mere tolerance.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Court that this Petition for Reconsideration BE GRANTED; and that
Petitioner-Appellant Mai Ganaden, BE DECLARED the owner of the subject parcel of
land.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise
being prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Cavite City for Manila City, Philippines. December 6, 2013.
LONTOK AND RUGAY LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioner-Appellant
Baliuag, Bulacan
By:
ATTY. EDWARD P. LONTOK
IBP Lifetime No. 53421; 5/20/1998
PTR No. 98765; 8/3/2006
Roll of Attorney No. 1998-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000766
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. JON CARL GONZALES
Counsel for Respondent-Appellee
Unit 988, Tall Building Condominium,
Sampaloc, Manila