SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 188338. January 15, 2014.]
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. ELISA B. SOLUTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 January 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 188338METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner v. ELISA B. SOLUTA, respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the 9 March 2009 Decision 1 rendered by the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89091, the decretal portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated October 30, 2006 is affirmed insofar as it dismissed the complaint. However, the trial court's Decision is modified as the Court holds that the foreclosure of the mortgage on the subject property is not premature and there is no more deficiency balance in defendant-appellee's loan obligation. 2
The Facts
On 24 March 1997, respondent Elisa Soluta (Soluta) obtained a loan from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) in the amount of P4,000,000.00. 3 To secure the prompt payment of the loan, Soluta executed in favor of Metrobank a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over parcels of land registered in her name and covered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 162557 and 162558 by the Registry of Deeds of Marikina. 4 For failure of Soluta to pay her outstanding obligation which amounted to P4,959,373.33, 5 Metrobank caused the foreclosure of the mortgaged realties by filing a petition for extra-judicial foreclosure on 9 June 1999. 6 After due notice and publication, the mortgaged properties were sold at a public auction where Metrobank was declared as the highest bidder after tendering the bid of P5,338,965.00. 7
After applying the amount of the sale price to the loan obligation's past due interest, penalty charges and to a portion of the principal, Soluta still has deficiency balance in the amount of P1,017,846.86, based on the Statement of Account dated 23 February 2001. 8 In a letter dated 23 March 2001, Metrobank demanded from Soluta the payment of the aforesaid deficiency balance within five (5) days from notice. For failure of Soluta to heed its demand, Metrobank caused the filing of the instant suit for collection of sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 59. 9 Metrobank averred, among others, that the value of the foreclosed properties did not cover the entire loan obligation and thus sought payment of the deficiency balance in the amount P1,017,846.86. 10 Served with summons, Soluta filed an answer specifically denying the material allegations of the complaint. 11 Apart from Soluta's claim that the bank failed to make a prior demand before filing the instant suit, she likewise asserted that the public auction was attended with irregularity and that, "the alleged bid price . . . was so low and inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court." 12 Contending that there was no basis for the claim of Metrobank for the deficiency balance, Soluta prayed that Civil Case No. 01-650 be dismissed and that damages be awarded in her favor by reason of the bank's filing of this malicious and baseless suit. 13aSIDCT
After the pre-trial conference was terminated with the issuance of the 5 March 2002 Pre-Trial Order 14 which summarized the parties' admissions, their respective positions, as well as the issues to be resolved during the trial, the RTC went on to receive testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective causes. Metrobank offered the testimony elicited from Winnie Villanueva, the officer-in-charge of its Loan Department, who attested that Soluta still has deficiency balance after the mortgaged properties were sold at the public auction as evidenced by the statement of account. 15 The statement of account showed that the bid price of P5,338,965.00 was first applied to the full satisfaction of the outstanding obligation's past due interest and penalty charges, leaving a deficiency balance of P1,017,846.86 in principal loan inclusive of interest as of 30 May 1999. 16 In refutation of Metrobank witness' testimony, Soluta herself took the witness stand and lamented that the actual value of the mortgaged properties was around P10,000,000.00 to P12,000,000.00, but were sold only at an unconscionably low bid price of P5,338,965.00. 17
On 30 October 2006, the RTC rendered a decision, nullifying the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent foreclosure sale conducted for lack of factual and legal bases. 18 Citing the stipulation in the promissory note that "the obligation is payable on [24 March 2007] in single payment," the trial court found that Metrobank foreclosed the mortgaged properties even before the maturity of the loan obligation. 19 Brushing aside the claim of Metrobank for deficiency balance, the RTC went on to dismiss Civil Case No. 01-650. 20
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC insofar as it dismissed the complaint in its Decision dated 9 March 2009. While conceding that Metrobank's complaint is dismissible, the Court of Appeals upheld the right of the bank to foreclose the mortgaged realties based on the acceleration clause of the loan agreement. 21 For failure of Metrobank to preponderantly establish its right to the deficiency balance, the Court of Appeals sustained the dismissal of the case and thus disposed: IDAEHT
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated October 30, 2006 is affirmed insofar as it dismissed the complaint. However, the trial court's decision is modified as the Court holds that the foreclosure of the mortgage on the subject property is not premature and there is no more deficiency balance in [Soluta's] loan obligation. 22
Similarly ill-fated was Metrobank's Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals in its 11 June 2009 Resolution. 23
The Issues
Metrobank now urges Us to reverse the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution by arguing that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND FORMALLY OFFERED TO PROVE THE DEFICIENCY CLAIM OF METROBANK. 24
The Court's Ruling
We find the present petition bereft of merit.
We are in complete accord with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the dearth of evidence presented by Metrobank inevitably failed to establish their right to the deficiency balance. As plaintiffs before the RTC, it is incumbent upon Metrobank to prove their cause of action against Soluta.
Section 1 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 1 of Rule 133, unequivocally provides:
SECTION 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. EDCTIa
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of evidence or greater weight of credible evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that means, in the last analysis, probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. 25
Our review of the documents attached to the pleadings shows that, as the party asserting the right to the deficiency mortgage obligation, Metrobank utterly failed to substantiate its claim by preponderance of evidence. Metrobank's lone documentary evidence, consisting of the statement of account, simply showed in general terms the amount of the deficiency balance, without particularly detailing how such figures were derived nor the periods covered by the penalty and the interest being claimed. Other than the said statement of account which provided an unqualified conclusion that there exists a deficiency claim, there is nothing on the records which compel a finding that, indeed, Soluta still has a deficiency in her mortgage obligation with Metrobank. Neither are we enlightened with the testimony elicited from the bank's sole witness, Winnie Villanueva, who merely attested that as the loan officer, she is the one who prepared the aforesaid statement of account, with nothing more by way of explaining how the deficiency amount was arrived at. Ineluctably, Metrobank failed to prove its case before the RTC.
Actori incumbit onus probandi. 26It is elementary that he who alleges the affirmative of an issue has the burden of proof. 27 The plaintiff must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant's. Lamentably, the evidence adduced by Metrobank does not meet the mandated standard. The inadequacy of proof is too evident to escape the attention even of the appellate court which succinctly pointed out in its decision, "In any event, the only evidence presented by [Metrobank] . . . was a Statement of Account . . . [which] . . . were couched in general terms, without specifying the periods covered for the computation of interest and penalty." 28 While the creditor is not precluded from taking action to recover any unpaid balance on the principal obligation simply because he chose to extrajudicially foreclose the real estate mortgage, 29 the recovery of such unpaid balance is, however, not automatic. Like any plaintiff in a civil case, the creditor bears the burden of proof, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove). 30 We have consistently applied the ancient rule that if a plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner facts on which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. 31 On this score, we find no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court. cEaCAH
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals assailed 9 March 2009 Decision and 11 June 2009 Resolution, are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 19-32.
2. Id. at 31.
3. Records, p. 6.
4. Id. at 10-13.
5. As of 30 May 1999. Rollo, p. 5.
6. Records, pp. 79-82.
7. Id. at 16-17.
8. Id. at 89.
9. Id. at 1-5.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 27-33.
12. Id. at 28.
13. Id. at 30.
14. Id. at 64-65.
15. TSN, 2 September 2002, p. 10.
16. Records, p. 89.
17. TSN, 10 August 2004, p. 21.
18. Penned by Judge Winlove M. Dumayas. Records, pp. 226-228.
19. Id. at 228.
20. Id.
21. If default be made in the payment of any of the installment and/or interest and other charges on this note as and when the same become due and payable any obligation which I/we may owe to the Bank or should I/we die, dissolve, fail in business or become insolvent or if a person in bankruptcy or suspension of payment should be filed by or against me/us or any proceedings in bankruptcy or under any laws or acts of the Government relating to the relief of debtors, should be commenced for the relief or readjustment of any of my/our indebtedness either through reorganization, extension or otherwise or if I/we should make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or if a receiver of any of my/our property should be appointed at any time, or if any seizure, vesting or intervention by or under authority of the government takes place by which the Management of my/our business is displaced or its authority in the conduct of its business is curtailed or if any of my/our funds or other property which may be or come into the Bank's possession or control or that of any third party acting in the Bank's behalf as aforesaid should be attached, distrained or levied or should be or become subject to any mandatory order of the court or other legal process, or if I/we fail to pay when due any other obligation to any person or entity incurred prior to or after the date hereof, or fail in the performance or observance of any agreement or condition resulting in the accelerated maturity of the whole obligation thereunder, or if in the opinion of the Bank, the payment of my/our obligation becomes doubtful for whatever reason, then, or at any time after the happening of any such event, the entire principal, interest and other charges due on this note, at the option of the Bank and without notice to me/us shall immediately become due and payable. In case of default, I/we agree that as additional compensation the interest rate shall automatically be raised to the prevailing rate, the increased rate to be applied from the date of default. (Underlining theirs). Id. at 73.
22. Rollo, p. 31.
23. Id. at 33.
24. Id. at 7.
25. Oño v. Lim, G.R. No. 154270, 9 March 2010, 614 SCRA 514, 525.
26. Antonino v. Desierto, G.R. No. 144492, 18 December 2008, 574 SCRA 403, 426.
27. Adriano v. Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 218, 230.
28. Rollo, p. 29.
29. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Avenido, G.R. No. 175816, 7 December 2011, 661 SCRA 758, 769.
30. Resort Hotels Corporation v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180439, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 168, 182.
31. Id.