Mindanao State University College of Law Iligan Extension Class MSU-IIT, Iligan City
Mindanao State University College of Law Iligan Extension Class MSU-IIT, Iligan City
Submitted by:
Submitted to:
Complaint
Answer
Complaint
1. The top margin of the complaint did not follow the requirement
set forth under the Efficient Paper Rule promulgated by the
Supreme Court (instead of 1.2 inch, the margin is only 1 inch).
3. That the plaintiff is the lawful owner of one (1) unit Isuzu
Dump Truck, with motor no. 452232122, serial/chassis no. 6789
and plate no. POP-441 (attached is the Certificate of
Registration of the subject vehicle under the name XANDER Y
ZYRUS, marked as Annex A;
That after the lapse of one (1) month, that is July 20, 2017, and
for months thereafter, the plaintiff demanded from the defendant,
in person and in writing, the return of the aforementioned
personal property, the last of which was on August 22, 2017
(attached is the Final Demand Letter marked as Annex B), but,
despite said repeated demands, the defendant refused and still
refuses to return said property, gratuitously claiming that the
same belongs to him;
The third requirement states that the property has not been
distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law,
or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment,
or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is
exempt from such seizure or custody. This is shown in
paragraph 6 of the complaint which states that:
6. That said property has not been taken from the plaintiff for
a tax assessment or fine pursuant to law, or seized under an
execution, or an attachment against the property of the plaintiff;
The affidavit must also contain the actual market value of the
property. This is shown under paragraph 7 of the complaint
which states that:
The law also requires that an applicant must also give a bond,
executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property
as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the
property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for
the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover
from the applicant in the action. This is also manifested under
paragraph 8 of the complaint which states that:
Affidavit
Description
Plaintiff
Atty. Galinato: Your Honor, the Final Demand Letter dated August
22, 2017 that the witness identified is, with the consent of the
witness, marked as Exhibit B and made part of this Judicial
Affidavit.
5. The group moreover posits that the case could have been
improved had the plaintiff executed a contract of commodatum,
as the case maybe, with the defendant regarding the borrowing
of the dump truck to strengthen the claim of the plaintiff.
Answer
1. The top margin of the complaint did not follow the requirement
set forth under the Efficient Paper Rule promulgated by the
Supreme Court (instead of 1.2 inch, the margin is only 1 inch).