REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
CEBU STATION
BANAWA, CEBU CITY

MIDAS YAKULT MEOW, Civil Case No. 123456

Defendant- Appellant, For: Collection of sum of money

- versus -

HERA DONITA ARFARF,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW APPELLANT-DEFENDANT, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present
this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Respondent Hera Donita Arfarf is of legal age, single, and residing

on 1000 Doglovers Street, Iloilo City where she may be served with legal
processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;

2. Defendant-Petitioner Midas Yakult Meow is of legal age and residing on

1234 Tarantula Street, Iloilo City, and may be served with legal processes and
other judicial notices thereto.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff-Appellee filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum

of Money dated October 11, 2014 against herein Defendant-Appellant;

2. On October 22, 2014, an Answer dated October 15, 2014 was filed by the
Defendant-Appellant;

3. On December 3, 2014, a Decision was rendered by Branch 2 of Municipal trial

Court in Cities of Iloilo City ordering the Defendant-Appellant herein to pay the
said amount claimed by the Plaintiff;

4. On May 6, 2015, a Motion for Reconsideration filed April 5, 2015 by

Defendant- through the undersigned legal counsel was denied by Judge Lupita
Doraemon of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court Iloilo City;

5. On June 14, 2015, a Petition for Review dated June 9, 2015 was filed to the
Court of Appeals by herein Defendant;

6. Plaintiff through legal counsel filed a Comment dated June 19, 2015;

7. On June 29, 2015, as per Verification and Report from the Judicial Records
Division (JRD) no Reply was filed by the Defendant;

8. Accordingly, the Honorable Court of Appeals ordered the parties to submit their
respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise regardless whether
or not Memoranda were filed, the petition shall be submitted for decision;

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. That Defendant admits that he loaned money in the amount of ONE

HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150, 000.00) on August 1, 2014
through a written agreement.
2. The said agreement was written in a cigarette foil.
3. Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to pay the amount loaned of ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P150,000.00) on August 1, 2014.
4. Defendant raise as a defense that payment was already made to Mimi Arfarf, of
legal age, daughter of herein plaintiff, on October 1, 2014 in the residence of
the plaintiff because plaintiff was not present in her house.
5. That Mimi Arfarf gave a receipt to the defendant as proof of receipt of payment.
6. That Mimi Arfarf and herein defendant signed the said receipt in the presence
of Fifi Arfarf, son of plaintiff, and John Lloyd Cruz and Robert Downey Jr.,
friend of the defendant.
7. That Defendant did not receive any demand letter from the Plaintiff on the dates
that plaintiff stated.
8. That Defendant-Appellant herein sought the services of Atty. Doni June Almio
to give an answer to the complaint filed by the Plaintiff-appellee.
III. ISSUE OF THE CASE

A.) WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT

ACTED CORRECTLY IN DECIDING THIS CASE AFTER
DEFENDANT HEREIN RAISED THE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE
 1231 AND 1241 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES AS TO
THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS;

IV. ARGUMENT

A.) The court committed an error in deciding that the defendant must
pay plaintiff of the amount loaned, along with its interest, after showing
of evidence that defendant paid such amount to the daughter of plaintiff
in the plaintiff’s residence.

V. DISCUSSION

A.) It is necessary to emphasize that the Article 1231 of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines states that one of the modes of extinguishing an obligation
is by payment or performance. Although the Civil Code, in Article 1240, also
provides that “ payment shall only be made to persons whose favor the obligation
has been constituted, his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive
it”, the same code also provides:

“Payment made to a third person shall also be valid insofar as it has

redounded to the benefit of the creditor. Such benefit to the creditor need not be
proved in the following cases:

(1) If after the payment, the third person acquires the creditor's rights;

(2) If the creditor ratifies the payment to the third person;

(3) If by the creditor's conduct, the debtor has been led to believe that the
third person had authority to receive the payment.”

As stated in the facts, Defendant-Appellant herein paid the daughter of the

Plaintiff the amount of P150, 000 with its legal interest. The daughter even gave a
receipt for the said loaned amount as provided in the annexes.
By giving the said receipt, the daughter of the Plaintiff led the debtor to
believe that she has authority to receive the payment even though she is a third
person as to the contract of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Moreover, the fact that
Plaintiff and her daughter lives in the same residence is also circumstantial in
making the Defendant believe that Mimi Arfarf will be able to give the money to
her mother, the Plaintiff, once she arrives in their house without any hindrance.
It must be also known to this Honorable Court that the Defendant-Apellant
herein paid the obligation in good faith as shown by the on-time payment made by
Defendant and his effort to go to the residence of the Plaintiff.
With the foregoing recognized provisions of law said, the decision of the
Regional Trial Court must be reversed and due course be given to the Defendant-
Apellant for complying with his obligation.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this

Honorable Court of Appeals that Defendant-Appellant’s appeal be AFFIRMED
for compliance with the obligation claimed by the Plaintiff-Appellee as unpaid.
Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed
for.
Respectfully submitted.

Wenceslao de la Paz B Iloilo City, July 5, 2015 .

THE FIRM LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Wenceslao de LaPaz B, University of San Agustin
Iloilo City

By:

DONI JUNE V. ALMIO

IBP # 605482 1/8/14 Iloilo City
PTR # 0417576 1/8/14 City
ROA 30724
MCLE Compliance No. II 01-23455

Copy Furnished:

By Personal Service

Atty. Vanity Gail Trivelegio

Wenceslao de LaPaz A, University of San Agustin

Iloilo City