JurisAtlas

HomeBar Review2016Remedial LawQuestion XX

Question XX

2016 Bar · Remedial Law · 2 sub-questions

XX. Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila. The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, 2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount of Pl Million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final demand on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal prayed that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount of P1 Million plus interests. In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted that she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out that the PN did not provide the due date for payment, and that the loan has not yet matured as the maturity date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that there is no genuine issue presented by the parties' submissions. Royal opposed the motion on the ground that the PN' s maturity is an issue that must be threshed out during trial.
(a)[a] Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)
(b)[b] Distinguish "Summary Judgment" and "Judgment on the Pleadings." (2.5%) -END The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

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.

Sign in free to read Question I of every Remedial Law year — subscribe to unlock all model answers & authorities.

Sign in or register — it's freeHave an access code? Redeem it →