Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MEMORANDUM
DEFENDANTS-SPOUSES ALDOVER, through counsel, come
and respectfully submits this memorandum stating as follows:
The Pleadings
The controlling initiatory pleading here is the Amended
Complaint dated 11 June 2004 which the Honorable Court admitted in
its 27 August 2004 Order.
The lot subject matter of this suit has an area of around 4, 044
square meters formerly titled under TCT No. 107508 (issued on 26
January 1998) in the names of the three defendants Reyeses
(Alfredo, Sidra and Tomas Reyes; id. at par. 5). Before, this property
(which was a part of a bigger lot) was titled in the name of the
Reyeses predecessor-in-interest (now deceased) Mr. Luis Reyes, on
01 August 1969 (id at pars. 6 & 8).
Plaintiffs presently occupy the subject lot (id. at par. 7). Their
story is that in the years 1960s onwards the defendants Reyeses
and their predecessor-in-interest Luis (who was then still alive) leased
to them the lots they respectively occupy and allowed them to build
their houses there (id. at par. 8). Thereafter, plaintiffs said the
defendants Reyeses offered to sell the subject lot to them, although
plaintiffs did not say when this offer was made (id. at par. 9).
Memorandum - 2
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes, sir.
Memorandum - 3
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes, sir.
xxx
xxx
Memorandum - 4
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
No, sir.
Memorandum - 5
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Has this
already?
Why?
Decision
be
implemented
Memorandum - 6
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
(id. at p. 7).
Defendants Aldover, in their Answer with Counterclaims filed
last 7 September 2006, insisted on the validity of their title (TCT No.
PT-122311), vis--vis the above reasons plaintiffs gave for assailing
its validity, and the mortgage/foreclosure prior to it. They asserted
that plaintiffs are plain squatters (id. at par. 3). They interposed
counterclaims (id. at pars. 16-18).
The other defendants filed no responsive pleading and did not
participate during the pre-trial, trial and other proceedings.
Issues
There were several proposed issues here (Pre-Trial Order
dated 06 June 2007, pp. 3-5) but several were already resolved by
this Honorable Court when it ruled upon defendants Aldovers
motions to dismiss. The undersigned counsel now proposes to
restate the remaining issues as follows:
1. Whether or not the Aldovers title, TCT No. PT-122311,
is valid;
2. Who are now the owners of the subject property, the
plaintiffs or the defendants Aldover?
3. Who between them are entitled to an award of
damages?
DISCUSSION
The first two issues shall be discussed here jointly, being
interrelated.
From plaintiffs own copy of TCT No. PT-107508 (in defendants
Reyeses names) which was attached both to their original Complaint
6
Memorandum - 7
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
(Exh. 1, p. 3).
Memorandum - 8
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes sir.
Yes sir.
Yes, sir.
Yes sir.
Yes, sir.
Memorandum - 9
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes, sir.
So there is none?
Yes sir.
Yes sir.
Yes sir.
9
Memorandum - 10
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes sir.
Yes Sir.
Yes sir,
10
Memorandum - 11
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes sir.
Yes sir.
Yes Sir.
No sir.
Kelan?
11
Memorandum - 12
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Yes sir.
ATTY. AMAZONA:
Which he be allowed to refer to the record,
Your Honor.
ATTY. OLIVEROS:
I will show her Exhibit.
COURT:
Ibig mo daw bang sabihin yang notice to
vacate na dated 2003?
A
Yes Mam.
ATTY. OLIVEROS:
No, its not 2003 I stand corrected, this notice
to vacate Annex to the original complaint and
amended complaint is dated April 1, 2004 and
Im showing to the witness.
COURT:
So you must have come to know of the
Spouses Aldover only sometime after April 1,
2004?
A
Yes Sir.
Yes sir.
Yes sir.
Memorandum - 13
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
A:
Yes.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes Sir.
Q:
A:
Yes sir.
Q:
A:
Yes sir.
Q:
A:
Yes sir.
13
Memorandum - 14
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Q:
A:
Yes sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
14
Memorandum - 15
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
October 1997.
15
Memorandum - 16
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
You are also aware that after TCT No. 39564 one of
the titles issued was TCT No. 107508 and this was
issued by the Register of Deeds on January 26,
1998?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
16
Memorandum - 17
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
17
Memorandum - 18
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
A:
Q:
Why?
A:
(id. at p. 25).
Indeed, who in his/her right mind would accept a property as a
mortgage collateral from a person who had already sold it to another?
This witness, upon the Honorable Courts questioning, also admitted
18
Memorandum - 19
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
that the entire property (and not merely a portion thereof as falsely
claimed by plaintiffs counsel) was mortgaged to the Aldovers
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
ATTY. AMAZONA:
He was referring to the other lots, your Honor.
COURT:
I dont care about the other lots, thats why I am
trying to clarify, what other lots are these? We are
not concerned to these other lots. Are they the
subject of this litigation?
ATTY. OLIVEROS:
No, your Honor.
COURT:
O, bakit lagging iginigiit ya, ginugulo lang natin.
ATTY. AMAZONA:
The 300,000.00, your Honor.
COURT:
Q:
A:
Q:
For 300,000.00?
A:
Q:
Memorandum - 20
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
A:
Q:
A:
A:
(Exh. 1, p. 3).
On cross-examination she reiterated that she accepted the
subject property as collateral for the loan only after seeing that its title
is clean:
Q:
A:
20
Memorandum - 21
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Q:
A:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
Why?
A:
Q:
A:
ATTY. AMAZONA:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
21
Memorandum - 22
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
22
Memorandum - 23
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Memorandum - 24
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
No, sir.
COURT:
If this is not the real estate mortgage, what real
estate mortgage were you referring to in the judicial
affidavit?
ATTY. AMAZONA:
24
Memorandum - 25
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
25
Memorandum - 26
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
COURT:
Q:
A:
COURT:
So if I understood you right, the mortgage say that it
is to secure obligation, the amount of P500,000.00,
but what you actually received is only P200,000.00
Pesos. Is that correct? Is that your testimony?
A:
COURT:
And because of that, you are now saying that the
mortgage is not genuine?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Memorandum - 27
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
27
Memorandum - 28
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Memorandum - 29
Ahorro, et al. v. Aldover, et al.
==========================
Copy furnished:
Atty. _______________
29