FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239263. August 13, 2018.]
MALAYAN BANK SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, petitioner, vs.RANIEL1R. RANCE, MA. ROSETTE RANCE-CABALLERO, RENA MARIE RANCE-DE LEON, MA. ROSELYN RANCE-MAYUGA, AND EMILIO RANCE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 13, 2018which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 239263 — Malayan Bank Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Raniel R. Rance, Ma. Rosette Rance-Caballero, Rena Marie Rance-De Leon, Ma. Roselyn Rance-Mayuga, and Emilio Rance
Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the petition is GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for: (1) lack of a verified statement as to the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration from the assailed Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision; (2) failure to attach such material portions of the record (e.g., Complaint, Answer, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated December 15, 2014, Motion for Reconsideration filed with the RTC, RTC Order dated March 25, 2015, pleadings filed with the CA, etc.) that would support the petition as required under Sec. 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and (3) for being factual in nature. In any case, the petition failed to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner's arguments are mainly anchored on its claim that it was a mortgagee in good faith and for value. Suffice it to state, however, that in asking this Court to determine whether it was a mortgagee in good faith and for value, petitioner is essentially inviting it to dwell into factual matters which are not within the ambit of this Petition for Review on Certiorari. In any case, the CA had already passed upon this issue and the Court is not inclined to depart from its apt ratiocination, viz.:
Evidence on record indicated that [petitioner] Bank was not a mortgagee in good faith. Eduardo Lucas, [petitioner's] witness, confirmed that at the time [Jason and MWC] filed and entertained a loan application with [petitioner] Bank, title to the disputed collateral was still in the name of Teresita Del Rosario. Obviously, such demeanor did not jibe with Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr., that when the person applying for the loan is other than the registered owner of the real property being mortgaged, [such fact] should have already raised a red flag x x x which should have induced the Bank x x x to make inquiries into and confirm x x x [the] authority to mortgage x x x. A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an innocent purchaser for value.
Besides, albeit [petitioner's] witness maintained that an ocular inspection was conducted by the credit management team of [petitioner] Bank at the proposed collateral, and a written report was prepared pursuant thereto, the alleged responsible officer who conducted the ocular inspection was not presented in court to confirm the occurrence of the inspection. Neither did appellant bank submit the written inspection report purportedly approved by the credit committee as testified to by Mr. Lucas. ATICcS
Moreover, there seemed to be an unusual haste in approving the loan application of [Jason and MWC], as gleaned from the trial court's perception:
Here, [petitioner] Malayan Bank not only ignored the unusual circumstances by which defendant MWC was applying for loan but also granted the loan with undue haste. Malayan Bank's x x x witness testified that the normal processing of a loan application is 30 days x x x. However, in this case, the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by the late Teresita Del Rosario in favor of x x x MWC x x x was dated July 20, 2001. This Deed of Absolute Sale was annotated on TCT No. 651048 on July 20, 2001 x x x. TCT No. 662961 was issued in the name of defendant MWC on July 20, 2001. The issue date of the Promissory Note is July 23, 2001 x x x. However, the Real Estate Mortgage is dated July 20, 2001 or on the very date TCT No. 662961 was issued in favor of defendant MWC. In other words, the Real Estate Mortgage covering the subject property was executed before the grant of the loan to defendant MWC.
"Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on this Court." 2
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed July 20, 2017 3 Decision and April 24, 2018 4 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104868 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018, Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as Ranel in some parts of the rollo.
2.Republic of the Philippines v. Heirs of Spouses Pedro Bautista and Valentina Malabanan, 702 Phil. 284, 297 (2013).
3.Rollo, pp. 25-34; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Mario V. Lopez.
4.Id. at 36-40.