Home›Bar Review›2015›Remedial Law›Question I
Question I
I. Lender extended to Borrower a Pl00,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another Pl00,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at 11500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the llS00,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00.
(a)a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action? (2%) At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
(b)b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)
Model answer · ALAC
Answer — Legal basis — Application — Conclusion.
AI-drafted in ALAC form and AI-verified against landmark authorities — refined with every round of verification.