Republic of the Philippines

3rd Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 2, Tarlac City

Ms. Juana Valdez,

Plaintiff Civil Case No. 000000
FOR: COLLECTION FOR SUM OF
MONEY
-versus-

Mr. Miguel Lazaro,

Defendant

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

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 4, 2016, plaintiff filed a Complaint for collection for sum of money against
herein defendant.

On September 25, 2017, defendant received summons issued by the Honorable Court to
file an answer.

On September 30, 2017, defendant filed his answer against the plaintiff.

On December 1, 2017, preliminary conference was held in the presence of the plaintiff,
defendant, and their respective counsels.

Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honorable Court ordered the parties to
submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15) days from notice, otherwise, the case is
deemed submitted for decision.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Plaintiff owned a lot located at Sto. Cristo, Tarlac City covered by TCT No. 122191.
On March 24, 20015, plaintiff leased aforesaid lot to defendant for five (5) years with a monthly
rental of P 2,500.00 payable within the first seven (7) days of each month as shown in the lease
contract (Annex A).

Allegedly, the lending contract had expired on March 25, 2010. Defendant, after
repeated demands, refused to vacate the premises and continued to occupy the same. Hence,
plaintiff resulted to seek judicial relief.
 On the other hand, defendant denies the allegations of the contents of the contract
presented by plaintiff. Defendant argues that plaintiff has no cause of action against him. The
contract was fictitious and simulated for it was not properly subscribed.

Moreover, defendant raised the issue on prescription of action wherein plaintiff

instituted the complaint after the prescriptive period for a collection of sum of money. Also, the
complaint was fictitious on the ground that it was unverified.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendant
2. Whether or not the lending contract presented by plaintiff is fictitious and simulated
3. Whether or not plaintiffs action is barred by prescription
ARGUMENTS

1. The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing action against the defendant.
2. The lease contract provided by plaintiff is fictitious as provided by Article 1409 of the
New Civil Code.
3. Plaintiffs action is barred by prescription since it was filed after one year from the
last demand.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff presented a contract not signed by the parties and the witnesses as well. It is
fictitious because the true intent of the parties is not made known. In the complaint, it is stated
that it is commenced on September 25, 2017 while in the contract on December 01, 2017. The
complaint and the contract are inconsistent. It is indubitable that the contract presented by
defendant, signed by the parties and the witnesses, shows the true agreement and intent of the
parties. Relating to the first argument, the plaintiff has no cause of action due to a fictitious
contrac, hence, void from the beginning.

The last demand of plaintiff was on September 25, 2017 as shown in Annex B-3. Granting that
the contract was for five years, an action had already prescribed. The complaint was filed on December
01, 2017 and summon was received on December 5, 2017 which shows that it was done after the
prescribed period to bring an action. Hence, plaintiff is barred from instituting such action.

CONCLUSION
 With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the defendant, through his counsel believes
that the plaintiff has no cause of action in filing the suit based on fictitious contract; that
assuming arguendo the contract is for five years, the plaintiffs action is barred by prescription.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays to the honorable court that judgment be

rendered in his favor as follows:

1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court dismissing the Complaint for lack
of cause of action;

2. Judgment be rendered upholding the validity of defendants copy of the

Contract;

3. Judgment be rendered ordering the Contract presented by plaintiff as void and

existent;

4. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the amount of P30,000.00 as

Attorneys Fees and to pay cost suit.

Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

Tarlac City, 1st day of October, 2012.

________________
Counsel for the Defendant
PTR No. 18909123:1-05-50, Tarlac City
IBP No. 693095:2-05-50, Tarlac City
Roll No. 42472:5-10-40: Manila
Rm. 23, 2/F KXBG Building,
130 San Roque, Tarlac City

EXPLANATION

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, personal service of
copy of Trial Memorandum could not be effective except by service through registered mail due
to distance and personnel constraints.
Copy Furnished:(By Registered Mail)

_____________
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-40, Tarlac City
IBP No. 693095:1-04-40, Tarlac City
Roll No. 42481:5-10-40: Manila
Victoria, Tarlac