REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

7TH Judicial Region
Branch IV
Cebu City

JIFEL
Civil Case No. 01233
Defendant-Petitioner For: Collection for Sum of Money
with Damages

- verus -

MILO
Plaintiff-Respondent

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

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

The defendant, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this

Memorandum.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGRAOUND

1. On March 1, 2018, Defendant-Petitioner received summons issued by the

Honorable Court;

2. On March 5, 2018, Defendant-Petitioner filed his answer against the

Plaintiff-Respondent;

3. On March 7, 2018, a decision was rendered by Branch IV of Metropolitan

Trial Court of Cebu City in favor of the Plaintiff-Respondent;

4. On March 9, 2018, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the

Defendant-Petitioner through the legal counsel was denied by Judge Paul
Walker of Branch IV of the Municipal Trial Court of Cebu City;

5. On March 12, 2018, a Petition for Review was filed to the Court of
Appeals by Defendant-Petitioner;

6. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff-Respondent through the legal counsel filed a

Comment;

7. On March 14, 2018, a Resolution was rendered by the Court of Appeals

denying Defendant-Petitioner’s Prayer for dismissal of the case;

8. Accordingly, the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit

their respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise
regardless whether or not Memoranda were filed the petition shall be
submitted for decision.

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. Plaintiff-Respondent alleges that sometime on February 14, 2000

Defendant-Petitioner borrowed money at the amount of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Ph500,000.00) evidenced by a promissory note.

10. Defendant-Petitioner, confirmed that he borrowed the said amount but

denies that he received extrajudicial demand and demand letters from the
Plaintiff-Respondent.

11. Defendant-Plaintiff was not able to pay his debt because of financial
troubles he suffered and he lost his job,

12. Defendant-Petitioner denies he received extrajudicial demand or demand

letter from the Plaintiff-Respondent.

13. Plaintiff-Respondent failed to present the pieces of evidence to support the

claim.

III. ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Whether or not the Honorable Court acted correctly in deciding the case.
2. Whether or not the action has prescribe.

IV. ARGUMENTS

1. The Honorable Court committed an error in deciding the case despite of the pieces
of evidence that the Defendant-Plaintiff presented..

2. The obligation of the Defendant-Respondent to pay his debt was already prescribe,

V. DISCUSSIONS

It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff-Respondent failed to meet

the burden of proof requires to establish its claim by preponderance of evidence.

Defendant-Plaintiff insists that prescription has set in. The filing of the
complaint for the sum of money on February 28, 2018, is way beyond the
prescriptive period of ten years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Citing
Sorianov. Ubat, petitioner maintains the prescription period starts from the time
when the creditor may file an action, not from the time he wishes to do so.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this

Honorable Court that Defendant-Petitioner’s prayer to DISMISS the case for
being clearly unmeritorious.
 Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being
prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Cebu City, Philippines. March 15, 2018

ATTY. ANASTACIA CABILI

Counsel for the Defendant
Cabili Law Office Cebu City
Roll of Attorney No. 00000
PTR NO. 00000, 01/06/14, Cebu City
IBP NO. 00000, 01/04/14, Cebu City
MCLE Comp. No. IV-0000, 01/02/14

Copy Furnish:

ATTY. REYMONJE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mandaue City