Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
JD4401
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
1
I. SUBJECT INDEX
CONTENTS PAGE
2
1.3. Table of Cases Cited
3
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
a. The trial court erred in ruling that the defendants-appellants are solidarily
liable with Burgos in the amount of ₱9,000,000.00 plus the legal interest from
December 1, 2017;
b. The trial court erred in relying on the Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
without the presentation of any evidence that the notarization is regular.
This is an appeal from the decision of the trial court denying the Motion
for Reconsideration, dated December 5, 2017, filed by the
defendants-appellants on December 2, 2017. It ruled that
defendants-appellants are solidarily liable with Burgos in the amount of
relying on the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) allegedly authorizing
Burgos to mortgage the land.
The case arose when Burgos, one of the partners in Tres Amigos was not
able to settle his obligations to Bataan Rural Bank. Thereafter, Bataan
Rural Bank foreclosed the land mortgaged in its favor as a security
for the loan obtained by Burgos. However, the proceeds of the auction
were not enough to answer for the debt. The bank then filed a collection
case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila against the defendants-
appellants, for the balance of ₱9,000,000.00 plus the legal interest.
5
IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4.1. Arnold, Jake, and Burgos were partners in the restaurant Burger &
Brewskies. The three called their partnership ‘Tres Amigos’;
4.2. The land upon which the restaurant Burger & Brewskies was
located was owned by Tres Amigos;
4.3. Burgos, asked his two other partners if he could borrow money for the
purpose of buying a piece of land which he thinks is a good
investment. Arnold and Jake could not provide cash, so they told
Burgos that he could mortgage the land of Tres Amigos to raise money;
4.5. With the alleged SPA, Burgos went to Bataan Rural Bank with the
principal place of business in Balanga, Bataan, obtained a loan in his
name with the Tres Amigos’ land being mortgaged;
4.6. A year later, Burgos failed to settle his obligation in favor of the bank.
Thereafter, the bank foreclosed the land and sold it to a public
auction;
4.7. The proceeds of the public auction were not enough to answer for the
debt, and it prompted the bank to file a collection case with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila against the plaintiffs-appellants, and
Tres Amigos for the balance of ₱9,000,000.00;
4.8. The Regional Trial Court on December 1, 2017 ruled in favor of the
bank and ordered the plaintiffs-appellants, and Tres Amigos to be
solidarily liable for ₱9,000,000.00 plus the legal interests basing its
decision on the alleged SPA signed by the partners;
4.10. The Regional Trial Court in its December 5, 2017 Resolution denied
the Motion for Reconsideration.
4
V. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
5.1. Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the defendants-
appellants are solidarily liable with Burgos in the amount of
₱9,000,000.00 plus the legal interest from December 1, 2017
5.2. Whether or not the trial court erred in relying on the Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) without the presentation of any evidence that the
notarization is regular.
VI. ARGUMENTS
6.1.2 In the present case, it is undisputed that the Burgos is the sole
signatory as principal obligor under the contract of loan.
7.1.5 In the present case, the plaintiff-appellee failed to show that the
subject SPA which it relied upon as proof of Burgos’ ostensible
authority to mortgage the entirety of the subject properties was
regularly notarized. Likewise, the trial court erred in relying on
the SPA without presentation of any evidence that the
notarization is regular.
2 Rural Bank of Cabadbaran v. Melecio-Yap, G.R. No. 178451, July 30, 2014.
3 Tigno v. Sps. Aquino, 486 Phil. 254, 270 (2004).
4 Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364, April 15, 2010.
5 Meneses v. Venturozo, G.R. No. 172196, October 19, 2011.
6
questioned SPA is to be examined under the parameters of
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides that
"[b]efore any private document offered as authentic is received
in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either (a) [b]y anyone who saw the document executed or
written, or (b) [b]y evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker."6
6
Id.
7
RELIEF
JM Cruz
ATTY. JILLIAN MAE A. CRUZ
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Unit 2428 Amaia Residences, Sta. Mesa, Manila
IBP No. 101694; 01/10/10-Manila PTR No. 092294;
01/10/10-Manila Roll No. 080808; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I-001234; 9/09/18
MCLE No. II-005678; 12/09/18
APPENDIX “A”
(Certified True Copy of Judgment Appealed From)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY
THAT TWO (2) REGLEMENTARY
COPIES HAD BEEN SERVED PERSONALLY ON:
Ed C. Muros II
ATTY. ED C. MUROS II
Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee
Balanga, Bataan.