You are on page 1of 5

Motion for Leave of Court To Serve Summons by Publication Sample

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch 1
JOHN DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
-versusVAN SHELDON,

CIVIL CASE No. 23456


FOR: Recovery of Possession
with Damages

Defendant.

x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT
TO SERVE SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully avers:
1.
That on August 25, 2012, copy of the summons was served by the process server of this
Honorable Court to the defendant on his given address, but defendant is no longer residing on his
given address;
2.
That considering that the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown and this case affects the
property of the defendant, plaintiff most respectfully move with leave of court to serve summons by
publication.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by publication based on the above
reasons.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
City of Manila, August 29, 2012.
ARUM AND SYQUIA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 314 The Tower
Taft Avenue, Manila
By:
Page 1 of 5

CHARLES ARUM
Roll No. 45678
IBP No. 23456/1-3-12/Manila
PTR No. 87654/1-3-12/Manila
NOTICE OF HEARING
VAN SHELDON
Defendant
GREETINGS:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
on September 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM.
CHARLES ARUM
Copy furnished:
VAN SHELDON
345 Nakpil Street
Manila
EXPLANATION
Copy of the Motion to Serve Summons by Publication was served to defendant by registered
mail due to time and distance constraints, and for lack of the undersigneds staff who can serve the
same in person.
CHARLES ARUM
Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch LXII (62)
Makati City

MARIO BROTHER,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Civil CaseNo. 111222

Page 2 of 5

HELLO KITTY,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS
COME NOW, the parties, through their counsels, respectfully moves this Honorable
Court to dismiss the above-caption case with prejudice, on the ground of prescription.
Further, prior to the filing of the aforementioned case, parties have already settled amicable
all claims in dispute and have agreed to forever mutually waive, all claims and
counterclaims raised, or which could have been raised, by them against each other in the
instant action.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed before his Honorable
Court, that the instant action, including all claims the parties have against each other, be
DISMISSED, with prejudice.
Makati City, Philippines. August 5, 2013.
ATTY. ANGHEL LOCSIN

ATTY. JOHN CRUZ

Counsel for Plaintiff

Counsel for Defendant

NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
MeTC - Branch 62
Makati City
Greetings!
Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing Motion to
the Honorable Court

on

August

27,

2013

at

8:30

in

the

morning

for

its favorableconsideration and approval.

ATTY. ANGHEL LOCSIN

ATTY. JOHN CRUZ

Page 3 of 5

Dear PAO,
My brother-in-law borrowed P80,000.00 from me in January 2006.
We agreed that he will return the money without interest after two months or on March 30, 2006.
Unfortunately, he has not paid his indebtedness to me up to now. Can I still file a case against my brother-inlaw for the recovery of my money?
Flordeliza
Dear Flordeliza,
According to Article 1953 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (CCP), a person who receives a loan of money
or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount
of the same kind and quality. Hence, your brother-in-law has the obligation to return to you the amount that he
borrowed on the date and time that you have agreed upon. If he fails to comply with his obligation, you shall
have the right to institute an action against him for the collection of his indebtedness to you.
But even if you were given the right to institute an action against your brother-in-law, the law also gives you a
period of time within which you may assert your right. Your failure to file a case during such period shall result
in the prescription of your right of action against him for the collection of his indebtedness (Article 1139,
CCP). The period of prescription for the collection of sum of money varies depending on the existence of a
written agreement between you and your brother-in-law.
If you and your brother-in-law executed a written contract of loan, you may institute an action for collection of
sum of money within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues (Article 1144, CCP). If, however,
you only orally agreed upon the loan, the action shall be considered to have prescribed after the lapse of six (6)
years (Article 1145, CCP).
Hence, since eight (8) years had already lapsed since the obligation of your brother-in-law to pay his loan fell
due, you may institute an action only if you have a written contract of loan. But since the money which you are
claiming is less than one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), your action shall be governed by the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases. You may file your petition for collection of sum of money before the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts designated as small claims court of the place where you or your debtor lives (En Banc Resolution No.
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC dated October 27, 2009).
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the
facts that you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are
changed or elaborated.
Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5

You might also like