Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Antipolo City, Branch 5



SPOUSES ALEJANDRO V. TAROMA
And ANASTACIA C. TAROMA
Plaintiffs,

Civil Case No. 14-10292
For: ANNULMENT OF DEED
- v e r s u s OF ABSOLUTE SALE, SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY,
CANCELLATION OF TCT
No. N-23-464532, RECOVERY
OF POSSESSION AND
ROY DELA CRUZ, DAMAGES
CARLO AGUSTIN and
ATTY. GILBYRNE ALIP
(IMPLEADED BOTH IN THEIR PERSONAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES), AND THE OFFICE
OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ANTIPOLO CITY
AND ALL THOSE PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHT UNDER AND/
OR FOR ROY DELA CURZ
Defendants.

*-----------------------------------------------------------*






MEMORANDUM



COME 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. That plaintiff, PEDRO BUHAY, is legal age, single, and with postal
and residence address at No. 12 Primera St., Anonas, Quezon City.

2. That defendant JUANCHO MAHUSAY, is of legal age, married,
and with postal and address at No. 1 Yellow Bird Street, Kamuning,
Quezon City.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On July 10, 2014, herein Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Annulment of
deed of absolute sale dated July 13, 2014 against Defendant;

2. On July 23, 2014, an Answer dated July 25, 2014, was filed by the
Defendant;

3. On July 24, 2014 , herein

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.


II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

That as registered owners, plaintiffs have mortgaged the subject
property as a security for a loan in the amount of P200,000.00 that the
plaintiffs obtained from Moon Finance & Leasing Corporation which
transaction has been registered and recorded with the Register of Deeds of
Antipolo City and annotated at the dorsal portion of the TCT under Entry
No. 2336 on December 15, 2005 which is marked as Annex A-1;

That subsequently when the loan obligation was paid, the aforesaid
mortgage contract was cancelled and the cancellation of the mortgage was
duly registered with the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City and duly
annotated at the dorsal portion of the TCT under Entry No. 23456 on June
3, 2011 marked as Annex A-2;

That when plaintiffs went to the Register of Deeds to check the
Original TCT, defendant Atty. Alip gave them the said Original TCT.
However, when they were about to leave the office, defendant Carlo Agustin
asked them to go back to Atty. Alips office which they adhered to. There,
Atty. Alip asked them to return the Original TCT as he still need to validate
some information on the TCT. Relying on Atty. Alips words, the plaintiffs
gave back the Original TCT No. N-234645;

That when plaintiff Anastacia Taroma returned to the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Antipolo City to get the Original TCT No. N-234645,
she was handed by defendants Carlo Agustin and Atty. Alip what appears to
be an Original TCT No. N-234645 with the cancellation of mortgage
annotated therein;

That when she received the document which appears to be the
original title, plaintiffs were of the belief and impression that what was
handed to them by the defendants Carlo Agustin and Atty. Alip was the
same original and genuine copy of the Original TCT No. N-234645;

That on July 25, 2011, plaintiff Anastacia Taroma went to the office
of the Homeowners Association of the subdivision where the subject
property is located to inform them that they are intending to sell their
property and left a machine copy of the TCT No. N-234645 with the office
of the Homeowners Association;

That when plaintiff Anastacia Taroma returned to the office of the
Homeowners Association, she was told that the property is now owned by
defendant Roy dela Cruz and that plaintiffs copy of TCT is fake and
falsified;

That it turned out that what was returned to them was no longer the
original copy of the TCT No. N-234645 but a fake and falsified copy of such
which was marked herein as Annex B;

That plaintiff Anastacia Taroma was tremendously devastated when
she heard about it and was advised to proceed and confirm the matter with
the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City;

That plaintiffs went to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Antipolo
City and discovered that indeed, TCT No. 234645 has been cancelled and
that a new title in the name of defendant Roy dela Cruz has been issued
which copy of the new title herein referred to as TCT No. N-23-464532 is
marked as Annex C;

That plaintiffs also discovered that the illegal transfer of the property
was by virtue of an absolute sale between plaintiff Anastacia Taroma and
Roy dela Cruz wherein a Special Power of Attorney was allegedly signed by
plaintiff Alejandro Taroma authorizing his wife to sell the property when in
fact the said SPA is also a falsified document because the signature of the
plaintiff Alejandro Taroma was forged by the defendants; copy of the forged
SPA is marked herein as Annex D;

That the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale was also a fake and falsified
document because plaintiffs never sold their property to defendant Roy
dela Cruz for they do not even know nor met him for any transactions with
respect to the property;

That plaintiffs never appeared personally before a notary public in
the person of Eduardo Puno on May 16, 2011 to acknowledge the assailed
Deed of Absolute Sale herein marked as Annex E;

That as proof of plaintiffs ownership, the subject property was
declared for taxation purposes in their name where such tax declaration is
herein marked as Annex F;


III. ISSUES OF THE CASE


A. WHETHER OT NOT DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE FOR THE
DAMAGES PRAYED BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

B. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS FALSIFIED TCT NO. N-
234546.



C. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT ARE LIABLE FOR THE
TCT NO. N-23-464531.



IV. ARGUMENTS


A. The defendant is liable for damages against the plaintiff

B. The defendant did failsified the TCT No. 234546.

C. The defendant is liable for falsification of the TCT No. N-23-464531.



V. DISCUSSION


A.) It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff is the bona fide
owner of the parcel of land located at Antipolo City under TCT No. N-
234645 of the Register of Deeds of Antipolo City. In the Philippines, the
presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real property is a
conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name the
certificate of title is entitled to.

Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or Act No. 496, it
provides that the original certificates in the registration book, any copy
thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk, or of the register
of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of
the court, and also the owners duplicate certificate, shall be received as
evidence in all the courts of the Philippine Islands and shall be
conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far as otherwise
provided in this Act.

B.) The said defendant is liable for Falsification of document.
As provided is Art. 172 of Revised Penal Code. Falsification by private
individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more
than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications
enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official
document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial
document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to
cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.chanrobles
virtual law library
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial
proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause
such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next
preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article,
shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, the Defendant-
Petitioners action would necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.




PRAYER


WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that
this Honorable Supreme Court that Defendant-Petitioners prayer for writ
of injunction be DENIED for having no cause of action and the petition
DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being
prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City, this 16
th
of August 2014.



BELEN DUMLAO MACATUNO
PERNITEZ VALMORIA
LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
362 FPJ Building Cor. Bagong Silang,
Maligaya, Brgy. Pasong Putik, Quezon City
346-5462


By:


JACKELYN JOY PERNITEZ
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Roll No. 88888, 05/10/06; Manila City IBP
No. 12345, 02/08/10; Quezon City
PTR No. 9876543; 02/08/10; Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-623581



Copy furnished:
GROUP 3 LAW OFFICE