Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

King S. David,
Complainant-Appellant

-versus-

Honorable Norman Guerrero, as the

presiding judge of RTC Manila and
Marita F. Nuestra
Respondent-Appellees
x---------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
(For the Complainant-Appellant)

The COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT King S. David

(“David”), pro se, by way of appeal, respectfully states that:

1. The subject matter of this Memorandum of Appeal is the DECISION,

dated April 1, 2021, of RTC Judge Norman Guerrero, DISMISSING
the Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 41554, of the herein
Complainant-Appellant David for alleged lack of merit, the duplicate
original copy of which is attached as Annex “A” hereof, for the
record.
2. The herein appellant David received on April 5, 2021, a copy via
registered mail of the questioned Decision, dated April 1, 2021.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
 3. On August 21, 2020, herein Respondent-Appellees Marita and Pacita
Nuestra, who are siblings, went to the house of herein Complainant-
Appellant David to borrow P500,000.00 and undertook to be
individually liable for such amount which shall be payable after three
months. This is evidenced by a promissory note executed by Marita
and Pacita.

4. After the lapse of three months, on November 30, 2020, David

demanded the payment of the whole amount from Pacita because
Marita has already moved to another place and could not anymore be
located.

5. Pacita refused to pay the whole obligation but instead offered to pay
only half of the loan because she insists that the other half should be
paid by her sister as her share.

6. Due to such refusal, David filed a case for collection of said sum with
the Regional Trial Court Manila claiming that the obligation of Marita
and Pacita are solidary which allows him to demand payment of the
whole obligation from either of the two.

7. RTC Manila dismissed the claim of David ratiocinating that the

obligation was joint considering that there was no indication in the
promissory note that there was stipulation to the contrary.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING

THAT THE OBLIGATION WAS A JOINT OBLIGATION.

DISCUSSION

The obligation is solidary

2
 8. It was found by the court a quo that there was no stipulation in the
promissory note that the obligation was solidary, as such, the
obligation is joint by default;

9. However, contrary to such findings, the promissory note clearly stated

that the Respondent-Appellees are solidarily liable. The promissory
note is reproduced as follows:

August 21, 2020

We, Pacita F. Nuestra and Marita F. Nuestra, hereby promise to pay

King S. David, individually, the amount of P500,000.00 for value
received, payable after three months from the date of this note.

Signed.

10. As shown above, the promissory note clearly stated that they bound
themselves to pay “individually” the amount of P500,000.00 after
three months from August 21, 2020.

11. In the case of Ronquillo v CA1, the Court has had the opportunity to
state some phrases which means solidarity, to wit:

The term "individually" has the same meaning as "collectively",

"separately", "distinctively", respectively or "severally". An
agreement to be "individually liable" undoubtedly creates a
several obligation, and a "several obligation is one by which
one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation.

12. The second paragraph of Article 1207 of the Civil Code states that
there is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so

1
G.R. No. L-55138 September 28, 1984

3
 states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires
solidarity.

13. Due to the foregoing, when the Respondent-Appellees expressly

bound themselves to pay individually in the promissory note, there is
a solidary obligation, making them solidary debtors.

14. As solidary debtors, according to Article 1216 of the Civil Code, the

creditor may proceed against any one, or some or all of them
simultaneously.

15. Being solidary debtors, David may validly and legally demand
payment of the whole obligation from either Pacita or Marita. Since
Marita is nowhere to be found, David opted to go against Pacita for
the whole obligation, which he has every right to do so.

PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that:

1. This appeal be granted and the decision of the lower court reversed;
2. The Appellate Court demand the Respondent Appellee to pay the
whole amount of the obligation plus interest;

Other reliefs deemed just, proper and equitable in the premises are
likewise most respectfully prayed for.

City of Manila, 7 April 2021

Atty. Cleo P. Atra

Counsel for the Complainant
Cleopatra Law Office
12 Bldg. 2 Makati
Republic of the Philippines]
4
City of Manila] S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, King S. David, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and resident of 425A

Aguinaldo Street, Old Sta. Mesa, Manila, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, depose:
1. That I am the defendant in the above-titled case; that I have caused the
preparation and filing of the foregoing Answer; that I have read and
do understand the contents thereof; and that to the best of my
knowledge, the allegations therein are true and correct.
2. That I hereby certify that, I have not commenced any similar action or
claim before any court, body, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
involving the herein case against the herein adverse party, and to the
best of my knowledge, no such similar action or claim is pending
therein, and that if I learn that there is such similar action or claim
pending, I shall promptly notify this Honorable Court and such court,
body, tribunal or agency.
3. That I further certify that (a) the allegations in the pleading are true
and correct based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents; (b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (c)
The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after
a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 7th day of April

2021 in the City of Manila.

KING S. DAVID
Affiant
5
 Voter’s ID 558954
Issued by COMELEC

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of April in the City
of Manila, affiant having exhibited to me his identification document above
stated.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 7, 2021, I served copy of the foregoing

Memorandum upon plaintiffs through their counsel, Atty. Napo G. Leon at
his given address at 221B Baker Street, Makati City by personal service.

City of Manila, 7 April 2021.