Memoranda Defendant

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6th Judicial Region
Branch 12
Makati City
Monkey D Luffy Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE No. 16-0956-2341
- versus – FOR: COLLECTION OF SUM OF

MONEY.
Trafalgar Law Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - x
MEMORANDA FOR
PLAINTIFF
COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and
presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 2018 plaintiff filed a Complaint Collection of sum of

Money against herein defendant.
On March 29, 2018, defendant received summons issued by the
Honourable Court to file an answer.
On April 10, 2018, defendant filed his answer against the plaintiff.
On May 30, 2018, preliminary conference was held in the presence of

the plaintiff, defendant, and their respective counsels.
Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honourable Court

ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15)
days from notice, otherwise, the case is deemed submitted for decision.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For value received the defendant executed and delivered to RX

Motor’s Phil. INC – Rey Charles (Dealer) a promissory notes (Annex A)
dated on January 10 2016 with the amount of P500, 000.00 payable in 50
months at a monthly installments of P10,000 beginning February 15 2016
and on the 15th day of every month from the due date until the entire
obligation has been paid.
To secure the payment for the promissory note, the defendant also
executed in favor of the dealer a Chattel Mortgage dated January 10 2016
over the motor vehicle.
On June 18, 2016 the dealer assigned to the plaintiff all its rights, title
and interest over the Promissory note with Chattel Mortgage through a
Deed of Assignment (Annex B) dated June 18, 2016 without even
contacting the defendant about the Deed of Assignment.
Defendant then receive a summon from the court about a complaint
for non-payment of an obligation when the said obligations has been paid
already.
Defendant tried to reach the plaintiff about the case but plaintiff
refuse.
ISSUES
Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are
presented for discussion:
1. Whether the contract entered between the parties is just and

equitable and;
2. Whether there was a violation of the contract between the parties.
ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED

TO THE WRIT OF REPLEVIN
--------------------------------------------
CASE WILL NOT PROSPER
AS THE VEHICLE
--------------------------------------------
The plaintiff is not entitled to the writ of replevin because it is neither

the owner of the subject MOTOR VEHICLE nor it is entitled to the
possession thereof; defendants never wrongfully detained the subject
vehicle. Moreover the pro forma promissory note that defendant signed in
order to obtain the loan from the plaintiff didn’t contain any detail regarding
the interest rate and other charges.
Plaintiff clearly violated the defendants right by adding such clause to

the existing contract. It is proven by the defendants when it is revealed that
the there is no such clause when they first signed the Promissory note.
Plaintiff cannot even claim that defendants wrongfully detained the

subject car based merely on its allegation that defendants have unpaid
obligation of P300,000.00. This is not true anymore because defendants
have already settled and paid in full the last May 2017. The evidence of full
payments (Annexes “D” and “D-1” hereof) belies the allegation of plaintiff to
its alleged rightful possession on the subject vehicle and the alleged failure
to pay installment.
Under the Rules of Court a replevin will prosper if the plaintiff has
shown that it is the owner of the car or it is entitled to the possession
thereof, and that defendant wrongfully detained it. Unfortunately, these
basic elements are lacking in this particular case. The pieces of evidence of
defendants destroy any claim of right by the plaintiff over the subject
vehicle, whether by ownership or rightful possession.
As stated earlier, defendants have already paid in full and settled
their loan. By virtue of said full payment, the auto loan of defendants has
been extinguished by payments. Article 1231 of the New Civil Code states
that:
“Article 1231. Obligations are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance;
(2) By the loss of the thing due;
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and

debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as

annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and
prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code.”
Pursuant therefore to the above provision, defendants loan obligation

has been extinguished.
Moreover, plaintiff cannot also claim that defendants have still unpaid
balance or obligation. When defendants made their last payment
installment on May 30, 2017, plaintiff made no objection about receiving it
on alleged previous unpaid installment. Thus, plaintiff is in estoppel. Article
1235 of the New Civil Code states:
"Article 1235. When the obligee accepts the performance,

knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, and without
expressing any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed
fully complied with."
The fact is, defendants’ obligation is not only deemed fully complied
with, instead defendants literally FULLY PAID and SETTLED their loan
obligation; and for such reason it is an injustice to allow plaintiff to take the
subject vehicle, by way of Replevin, from the defendants possession when
they have in fact totally paid for it the total amount of P300, 000.00 (P275,
000.00 plus the down payment of P25,000.00) within the agreed period of
48 months.
PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE TO
DEFENDANTS FOR DAMAGES
This complaint filed by plaintiff is malicious and a pure harassment

intended only to put to shame and embarrassment to defendant Trafalgar
Law. With this unfounded suit by plaintiff, defendant Trafalgar Law suffered
great humiliation within his community because the Plaintiff went to his
house and demanded the vehicle. Because of this incident defendant
Trafalgar Law suffered serious anxieties, humiliation, wounded feelings,
sleepless nights and mental anguish. Plaintiff should therefore be ordered
to pay damages in the amount within the discretion of this Honorable Court.
The defendants were forced to secure the services of a lawyer to

defend their case, and they spent total amount of Php 75,000.oo plus the
payment of Php 2,000.oo as appearance fee. Hence, plaintiff should
likewise be ordered to pay defendants attorney’s fees.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved that this

case be dismissed and to render judgment in favor of the defendants
directing plaintiff to pay defendants for damages as sought for in their
counterclaim.
Makati City, Philippines. June 1 2018.
BARAG LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
7-C Crispa Ave., San Lorenzo Village,
Pamplona III, 1712 Makati City
By
ATTY Marlon SY
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 52354
PTR No. 101229105-J/01-04-2016
IBP No. 1017535/01-04-2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0023447
dated April 11, 2016
COPY FURNISHED:
ATTY. Raposon
Counsel for the Plaintiff
STF Law Firm, Suite 704, Hi-Residences Bldg.,
23th ST. Bonifacio High Taguig City
VERIFICATION
I, Trafalgar Law, of legal age and Filipino, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:
I am the defendants in the above entitled case; I have caused the

preparation of the foregoing document and I have read the same and the
contents of which are true and correct of my own knowledge and/or on the
basis of authentic documents.
AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature this June 1, 2018.
TRAFALGAR LAW
DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

MAKATI).
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this June 1, 2018;

defendant exhibiting to me his TIN I.D. No. 108-555-758-00.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this June 1, 2018.
Doc. No. 0012;

Page No. 003;
Book No. 001;
Series of 2016.

Memoranda Defendant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memoranda Defendant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memoranda Defendant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Monkey D Luffy Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE No. 16-0956-2341

- versus – FOR: COLLECTION OF SUM OF

Trafalgar Law Defendant.

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 2018 plaintiff filed a Complaint Collection of sum of

On May 30, 2018, preliminary conference was held in the presence of

Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honourable Court

For value received the defendant executed and delivered to RX

1. Whether the contract entered between the parties is just and

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED

The plaintiff is not entitled to the writ of replevin because it is neither

Plaintiff clearly violated the defendants right by adding such clause to

Plaintiff cannot even claim that defendants wrongfully detained the

“Article 1231. Obligations are extinguished:

(1) By payment or performance;

(2) By the loss of the thing due;

(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;

(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and

Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as

Pursuant therefore to the above provision, defendants loan obligation

"Article 1235. When the obligee accepts the performance,

This complaint filed by plaintiff is malicious and a pure harassment

The defendants were forced to secure the services of a lawyer to

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved that this

Makati City, Philippines. June 1 2018.

BARAG LAW OFFICE

I am the defendants in the above entitled case; I have caused the

AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature this June 1, 2018.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this June 1, 2018;

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this June 1, 2018.

Doc. No. 0012;

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.