The facts of the case are as follows:

Jose may aver the following, that on January 1, 2017, Pedro borrowed money in the amount of Php 150,000; that
said loan was subject to 5% interest payable within 6 months; that said loan was covered by a mortgaged over the
property Lot A of Pedro located in Batangas City; that said loan became due and demandable and thus Pedro failed
to pay.

The plaintiff’s remedies.

Jose has three remedies. First, he may file a collection suit against the debtor, Pedro. This will open up all the
properties of debtor to attachment and execution, even the mortgaged property itself. The creditor may opt to
foreclose on a mortgaged property. In case the debt is not fully satisfied, he may sue the debtor for deficiency
judgment (not a collection case for the whole indebtedness), in which case, all the properties of the debtor, other
than the mortgaged property, are again opened up for the satisfaction of the deficiency. Third, the creditor may
commence a small claim case against the debtor since the claim or demand is one of a contract of loan and that the
value of claim does not exceed two hundred thousand pesos (P200, 000) exclusive of interest and costs.

In case Jose will file an action to collect a sum of money, it must be filed with the MTC located in either the
residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant, at the election of the plaintiff. The MTC has exclusive
original jurisdiction since the value of the demand was only Php 150,000 which does not exceed Php 300,000
outside Metro Manila.
Facts. Iceland’s (D) claim to a 12-mile fisheries limit was recognized by the United Kingdom (P) in
1961 in return for Iceland’s (D) agreement that any dispute concerning Icelandic fisheries jurisdiction
beyond the 12-mile limit be referred to the International Court of Justice. An application was filed
before the I.C.J. when Iceland (D) proposed to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from 12 to 50
miles around its shores in 1972. By postulating that changes in circumstances since the 12-mile limit
was now generally recognized was the ground upon which Iceland (D) stood to argue that the
agreement was no longer valid. Iceland (D) also asserted that there would be a failure of
consideration for the 1961 agreement.

Issue. In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to a ground for invoking the termination
of a treaty, is it necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the obligation
still to be performed?

Held. Yes. In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to the premise calling for the
termination of a treaty, it is necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of
the obligations still to be performed.
The change of circumstances alleged by Iceland (D) cannot be said to have transformed radically the
extent of the jurisdictional obligation that was imposed in the 1961 Exchange of Notes.

Discussion. Recourse to the I.C.J. in the event of a dispute was the original agreement between the
parties. The economy of Iceland (D) is dependent on fishing. The merit of Iceland (D) argument was
not reached by the Court in this case, however, but rather dealt with the jurisdictional issues.