Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reply To Sps. Solo
Reply To Sps. Solo
REPLY
2 Delfin, et al. vs. Billones, et al., G.R. No. 146550, March 17, 2006
3 Morla v. Belmonte, GR No. 171146, December 7, 2011
3
18.
The civil code provides that in contractual obligations, the
nomenclature of an agreement does not prevail over the intention of
the parties. Circumstances, as set forth in the complaint and in this
Reply, warrant that the intention of the parties was indeed a contract
of loan and never an investment agreement.
19. Defendant Solos averment in paragraph 4 (h) of the Answer is
contradictory to the actual facts, as well as to the Answer itself.
20. The averments in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the complaint are all
reflected in the contract of loan and the promissory note. To even
corroborate these evidence, there is a chattel mortgage executed, and
checks issued.
21.Spouses Solo admit in paragraph 3 of their Answer that they have
received the demand letters attached in the Complaint. In the demand
letters, the loan was well described. Thus, it cannot be said that Solo
has no knowledge of the existence of the loan.
22. Plaintiff denies paragraph 4, subparagraphs (b), (i), and (k) in the
defendants Answer. The Supreme Court held in Ros and Aguete v.
PNB, to wit:
Every instrument duly acknowledged and certified
as provided by law may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment
being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved. The execution of a
document that has been ratified before a notary public
cannot be disproved by the mere denial of the alleged
signer. PNB was correct when it stated that
petitioners(sic) omission to present other positive
evidence to substantiate their claim of forgery was fatal
to petitioners cause.4
23.
In the case at bar, the defendants simply denied the documents
by setting up forgery as a defense. The denial of the defendants was
not even substantiated by another positive evidence.
24. Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraphs 4 (j) and 5 (g). The postdated checks were given by defendant Solo as a security to the Contract
of Loan. The allegation that defendant Leia Solo gave the checks to
defendant Han Solo for the latter to pay their house is not a matter that
was disclosed to the plaintiff. All the more, it is not material to support
the claim that the check cannot be given as a security. Even if
defendant Han Solo spent the checks in a different manner than that
agreed between him and his spouse, Spouses Solo are still liable for the
power to administer conjugal properties lie upon the husband.5
4 Ros and Aguette v. Philippine National Bank, Laoag Branch, G.R. No. 170166, 6 April 2011
5 Family Code, Article 112
4
33.
When the defendants alleged that they have ordered the Stop
Payment of the checks, they have in effect evaded their contractual
obligations. Thus, paragraph 5 (k) and (l) of the Answer cannot be
made to support the defendants claim.
34. The alleged loss of defendant Han Solos Drivers License does not
necessarily lead to any irregularity. What were only stated in paragraph
5 (m) and (n) of the Answer are:
m. That, the Drivers License of defendant Han Solo
used by the plaintiff as an identification card in the
Contract of Loan and in the Chattel Mortgage was in
an envelope together with the lost checks mentioned
above;
n. That, the above-mentioned identification card was
lost and an Affidavit of Loss was made therefor;
35.
There is not even a single averment that the allegedly lost
License was used to fabricate the Contract of Loan and the Chattel
Mortgage. Thus, the allegations in paragraph 5 (m) and (n) of the
Answer are irrelevant to the case at bar.
36.
37.
In the present case, the defendants failed to state with
particularity the connection of fraud in the form of forgery with the
lost drivers license.
38.
The rationale of filing of this suit is no more or less than what is
indicated in the title: For Collection of Sum of Money, coupled with
a prayer for preliminary attachment.
39.
At this point, it should be pointed out that the Subscription
Agreement is suspicious, and should not be given probative value. In
the Acknowledgment of the Subscription Agreement presented, what
was allegedly presented by plaintiff as identification is a Community
Tax Certificate (CTC).
a. Firstly, in notarial practice, presentation of CTC as proof of
identity is no longer allowed. What is allowed is the presentation of
government issued IDs bearing the photograph and signature of
the person to be identified.8
8 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)
6
9 Sps Pasco v. Heirs of Filomena De Guzman, G.R. No. 165554, July 26, 2010
7
Kevin Harris Co
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32173
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1239-RSM
PTR NO. 2184563-06 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009928-04/10/15
Genie C. Morales
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37125
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1248-RSM
PTR NO. 2184543-05 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0007929-04/10/15
Copy Furnished:
HON. CLERK OF COURT
Branch 96, Regional Trial Court
Quezon City
EXPLANATION
Pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
foregoing Reply was filed and served through registered mail due to the
distances involved and the lack of personnel to effect personal service.