Memorandum of Law For XXXXXX

(for the Insurance Case)

What needs to be proved/disproved
1. That there was no Estafa.
2. That the claim was filed within the period at a reasonable
time.


1. Fact: According to the Notice of Denial, or letter of denial dated, 11,
June 2014, the incident was caused the loss was estafa.
Law: It is not estafa, because in estafa, it is necessary to have juridical
possession of the property (Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
109595, 27 April 2000) to wit:

Have the foregoing elements been met in the
case at bar? We find the first element absent.
When the money, goods, or any other personal
property is received by the offender from the
offended party (1) in trust or (2) on
commission or (3) for administration, the
offender acquires both material or physical
possession and juridical possession of the
thing received. 24 Juridical possession
means a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which
the transferee may set up even against
the owner. 25 In this case, petitioner
was a cash custodian who was primarily
responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her
possession of the cash belonging to the
bank is akin to that of a bank teller,
both being mere bank employees.

Application: in our case (for purposes of the
case), there is no Juridical possession since
the person was only allowed to hold the
vehicle, similar to the case of the mechanic
shop from which a vehicle was stolen. There is
no juridical possession in this case, since the
transferee DOES NOT have the right over the
thing which he may set up as against the
owner. He was merely allowed to hold the
property but if the owner asks that the
property be given back, the owned may validly
ask that the same be given to him.

2. The provision in the policy states, that in case of theft or other
criminal act, which may give rise to a claim under the this
policy, the Insured shall file immediate notice to the Police
and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction
of the Offender.
There is no period within which to report the claim.
Law: E.M. Bachrach v. British American Assurance Company, G.R.
No. L-5715.
With reference to the sixth assignment of
error above noted, to wit: That the court erred
in holding that the policy of insurance was in
force at the time of said fire and that the acts
or omissions on the part of the insured which
caused or tended to cause a forfeiture of the
policy were waived by the defendant, the
lower court, in discussing this question, said:

Regardless of the question whether the
plaintiff's letter of April 20 (Exhibit B) was a
sufficient compliance with the requirement
that he furnish notice of loss, the fact remains
that on the following day the insurers replied
by a letter (Exhibit C) declaring that the
"policies were null and void," and in effect
denying liability. It is well settled by a
preponderance of authorities that such a
denial is a waiver of notice of loss, because if
the "policies are null and void," the furnishing
of such notice would be vain and useless. (13
Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 347, 348, 349.)
Besides, "immediate notice" is
construed to mean only within a
reasonable time.

Much the same may be said as to the objection
that the insured failed to furnish to the
insurers his books and papers or to present a
detailed statement to the "juez municipal," in
accordance with article 404 of the Code of
Commerce. The last-named provision is
similar to one appearing in many American
policies requiring a certificate from a
magistrate nearest the loss regarding the
circumstance thereof. A denial of liability on
other grounds waives this requirement (O'Niel
vs. Buffalo Fire Insurance Company, 3 N. Y.,
122; Peoria Marine Ins. Co. vs. Whitehill, 25
Ill., 382), as well as that relating to the
production of books and papers (Ga. Home
Ins. Co. vs. Goode & Co., 95 Va., 751; 66 Jur.
Civ., 16). Besides, the insured might have had
difficulty in attempting to comply with this
clause, for there is no longer an official here
with the title of "juez municipal."

Besides the foregoing reasons, it may be
added that there was no requirement in the
policy in question that such notice be given.
Application:
In our case, there was actually no requirement in the insurance policy
that provides within what period the claim should be made.
In fact what is provided in the policy is that Insured shall file
immediate notice to the Police and cooperate with the
Company in securing the conviction of the Offender.
Precisely what XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, he reported the same
to the Police, and immediately notified the insurance company











Memorandum of Law For XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(for the Carnapping Case)

1. Fact: That there is carnapping:
Law: People v. Lagat G.R. No. 187044, 14
September 2011
Lagat and Palalay have been charged and
convicted of the crime of qualified carnapping
under Republic Act. No. 6539 or the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972. Section 2 of the Act
defines carnapping and motor vehicle as
follows:

Carnapping is the taking, with intent
to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to
another without the latters consent, or by
means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things.

Motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled
by any power other than muscular power
using the public highways, but excepting road
rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders,
fork-lifts, amphibian trucks, and cranes if not
used on public highways, vehicles, which run
only on rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers
and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers
having any number of wheels, when propelled
or intended to be propelled by attachment to a
motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate
motor vehicle with no power rating.


The elements of carnapping as defined and
penalized under the Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972 are the following:

1. That there is an actual taking of the
vehicle;
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person
other than the offender himself;
3. That the taking is without the consent of
the owner thereof; or that the taking was
committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things; and
4. That the offender intends to gain from
the taking of the vehicle.

The records of this case show that all the
elements of carnapping are present and were
proven during trial.

All elements are present in this case if we present the facts
accordingly.