FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212941. October 12, 2015.]
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. OSCAR Q. HURTADO [D.B.A. CARSWOOD ENTERPRISES] AND RESURECCION B. HURTADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 12, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212941 (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Oscar Q. Hurtado [d.b.a. Carswood Enterprises] and Resureccion * B. Hurtado). — The letter dated September 9, 2015 of the Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, transmitting the Court of Appeals rollo in CA-G.R. CV No. 95294 with 145 pages, original records consisting of one (1) folder, and transcript of stenographic notes consisting of one (1) folder with duplicate copies is NOTED.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the November 5, 2013 Decision 1 and June 4, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95294 for failure of petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in nullifying the foreclosure proceedings, and consequently, dismissing its complaint for sum of money against respondents Oscar Q. Hurtado and Resureccion B. Hurtado (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the failure of Metrobank to formally offer the alleged demand letter as evidence, despite attaching the same to one of its pleadings, negated its allegation that a prior demand was made on respondents before commencing its foreclosure proceedings. Section 34, 3 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, as well as prevailing jurisprudence, 4 provide that, "for evidence to be considered, the same must be formally offered, and that while a document has been identified and marked as an exhibit, it does not automatically mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence of a party." 5 Consequently, evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and rejected. 6 While this rule admits of an exception, 7 none exists in this case.
In this relation, the CA was also correct in ruling that since Metrobank failed to prove that it made a prior demand on respondents before foreclosing the mortgage, it violated paragraph 14 8 of the Real Estate Mortgage Contract, thus rendering the foreclosure proceedings null and void. It is settled that contractual stipulations of this nature operate to apprise the mortgagor of any action which the mortgagee might take on the mortgaged property, thereby according the mortgagor the opportunity to safeguard his rights; and that non-compliance therewith is sufficient to nullify a foreclosure sale, 9 as in this case. In sum, the CA correctly held that in view of the nullity of the foreclosure, there is no more basis to support Metrobank's claim for deficiency against respondents.
SO ORDERED." aICcHA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as "Resurreccion" in some parts of the rollo.
1. Rollo, pp. 32-42. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
2. Id. at 43-46.
3. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 34. Offer of Evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
4. The Government of the Philippines v. Aballe, 520 Phil. 181 (2006).
5. Id. at 191; citations omitted.
6. People v. Villanueva, 644 Phil. 175, 188 (2010), citing Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha, 550 Phil. 571, 575 (2007).
7. ". . . evidence, although not formally offered [as such], may be 'admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are present, viz.: first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.'" (Id. at 191-192, citing Mato v. CA, 320 Phil. 344, 350 [1995]).
8. Pertinent parts of paragraph 14 of the Real Estate Mortgage states:
All correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters . . . shall be sent to the Mortgagor at the address herein above given . . ., and the mere act of sending any correspondences by mail or by personal delivery to the said address shall be valid and effective notice to the Mortgagor for all legal purposes, and the fact that any communication is not actually received by the Mortgagor or that it has been returned unclaimed to the Mortgagee . . . shall not relieve the Mortgagor from the effect of such notice. (rollo, p. 37)
9. See Global Holiday Ownership Corporation v. Metrobank, 607 Phil. 850, 861 (2009).