memoradum of decision sample

8/10/2019 Memoradum of Decision Sample

1/3

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

CARARA Region

Branch I, Butuan City

ANNA GERONIMO Civil Case No. 123456

Plaintiff For Annulment of Contract with Damages

-versus-

PETER PASCUAL

Defendant

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

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum to wit:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The disposition of a conjugal property by the husband in appropriate cases requires the written

consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void; and for the contract to sell be effective, theconsent of both the husband and wife must concur (Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action for the Annulment of Contract with Damages filed by Anna Geronimo against Peter

Pascual in relation to a one-bedroom condominium unit sold by the plaintiffs husband without the

latters consent plus Php 5,000.00 as damages against the defendant for the opportunity loss to a

more profitable investment of the subject property that this case has caused the defendant to the

loss and prejudice of the plaintiff.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Anna Geronimo, 35 years old, married, and an accountant, together with her husband planned to

sell a one- bedroom condominium unit to a certain Peter Pascual, which is a formers friend since

their college days. Sometime in January 2009, a usual weekend dinner took place in her

condominium in which the defendant was invited. And thereon, she (plaintiff) and her husband

mentioned their plan to sell the subject condominium to the defendant after reaching a decision to

buy a house to make room for a nanny and their baby after learning that they were going to have

one sometime in 2008. The defendant expressed his interest to buy the subject condominium and

told the spouses to would just simply inform him if they finally decide so.

Sometime in April 2009, the plaintiff called the defendant that she and her husband finally found a

house and told him that they were selling the condominium unit and offered P2 million as price. She

likewise told him to call back once the deed of sale and the managers check were ready.

The defendant failed to call back the spouses while they were still together in the Philippines. In time

for the delivery of their baby, the plaintiff went to the US sometime in May 2009 to give birth whileher husband was left in the Philippines. While she was in the US, she decided not to anymore sell

the subject condominium and would better keep it in the meantime as an investment.

But without her knowledge and consent, the spouse of the plaintiff transacted with the defendant as

regards the sale of the subject condominium by signing a deed of sale and receipt of the managers

check in the amount of P2 million and she only knew of the said transaction after her husband called

her sometime in June 2009. When she came back from the US sometime in September 2009, she

called the defendant and expressed her disinterest to sell the property, to cancel the contract solely


2/3

signed by her husband without her consent and offered to return the full amount of managers check

in cash but the defendant refused to accept.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not contract of sale was valid

2. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the damages that he is claiming

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS:

I. The Contract of sale was invalid

In the instant case, the contract of sale was invalid for the reason that it lacked the essential

requirement of consent that was needed to validate a contract. Article 1475 of the New Civil Code

provides that:

The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing

which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may

reciprocally demand performance.

Particular to this case is that the subject property is one of absolute community in nature, because,

although it was bought by the spouse of the plaintiff while he was still single, when they entered into

a contract of marriage and without a marriage settlement prior to their marriage, the propertiesowned by them after the solemnization already as a result, form part of their regime of absolute

community of properties. The effect of which is that a sale of a property belonging to the absolute

community is not valid without the consent of the husband and wife. Clear as in this case that the

sale was effected only with the consent of the plaintiffs spouse as evidenced by the absence of her

signature in the deed of sale and the express disinterest of the plaintiff of the sale of the said

property upon her verbal refusal to the offer of the defendant and the return of the full amount of

managers check in cash. In the case of Jader-Manalo vs. Manaisa(G.R. No. 1479978), the court

ruled that:

The disposition of a conjugal (absolute community) property by thehusband in appropriate cases

requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void; and for the contract to sell

be effective, the consent of both the husband and wife must concur.

One of the essential characteristics of a contract of sale is that it must be consensual, so that it is

perfected only by mere consent. Since the sale of this kind needs the consent of both the husband

and wife, the obtainment of consent to only one of the spouses is of no value since the consent of

the one is as important and valuated the same as the other. The contract of should be regarded as

void because the transaction has been done contrary to law. It is not likewise proper to refer to the

contract as unenforceable (or unauthorized) because here, there is no pretense that the wife was

selling the property with her husbands authorization and thus, it cannot be presumed (Felipe v.

Aldon. G.R. No. 60174, Feb. 16, 1983). Therefore, the sale contracted with only with the consent

with one of the spouses with respect to property belonging to absolute community was invalid.

II. The Plaintiff is Entitled to the Damages that He is ClaimingGleaning from the case at bar, the owner-plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to make a

profitable investment out from the subject property because of the transfer of the certificate of title

was done in favor of the defendant without her consent. With this in present, the prospectivity of

making the subject property productive and beneficial to the owner is gone which ultimately resulted

to the prejudice and damage incurred by the owner-plaintiff. Contemplated from Article 1170 of the

New Civil Code, it provides that:

Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay are liable


3/3

for damages

The defendant has the obligation to return to the owner-plaintiff the subject property because no sale

has been perfected and the fraudulent transfer of the certificate of title in favor of the defendant

clearly expressed his intentional evasion of such fulfilment. The plaintiff therefore is entitled to

NOMINAL damages for her right as party to the sale, which must be respected, has been violated.

Nominal damages is a remedy intended for the vindication of a right violated and when no other kindof damages may be recovered (Ventanilla v. Centeno, L-4333, Jan. 28, 1961) as in this case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, upon the premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment be

rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant by:

1. The annulment of the deed of the contract of sale of the one- bedroom condominium unit;

2. Returning to the defendant the full amount of the mangers check issued by him;

3. Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of Php 5,000.00 as nominal damages for the rights

violated and the opportunity loss to a more profitable investment of the subject property that this

case has caused him to the loss and prejudice of the plaintiff.

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Butuan City, September 24, 2014.

(Sgd.) ATTY. JUDERICK C. RAMOS

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Adrress: Baan, Butuan City

PTR No.: 987654321

Roll No.:123456789

MCLE No.:987654321

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JAN ENRIQUEZ

Counsel for Defendant

memoradum of decision sample

Documents