Home›Bar Review›2015›Remedial Law›Question VII
Question VII
VII. Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P 1 million based on the latter's promissory note. The complaint alleges, among others: 1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed promissory note; 2) The promissory note reads: "Makati, Philippines Dec. 30, 2014 For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises to pay plaintiff Pl million, twelve (12) months from the above indicated date without necessity of demand. Signed Defendant" A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex "A." Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others: 1) Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant did not execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff, or 2) Defendant has paid the Ill million claimed in the promissory note (Annex "A" of the Complaint) as evidenced by an "Acknowledgment Receipt" duly executed by plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his spouse signing as witness. A copy of the "Acknowledgment Receipt" is attached as Annex "1" hereof. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that defendant's answer failed to tender an issue as the allegations therein on his defenses are sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer tendered an issue.
(a)a.) Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (3%) Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there are no longer any triable genuine issues of facts.
(b)b.) Should the court grant defendant's motion for summary judgment? (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.