SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243774. February 18, 2019.]
SPOUSES RODOLFO C. CUSTODIO AND MYRNA P. CUSTODIO, petitioners,vs. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY [NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS] AND RICKY CASTILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated18 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243774 (Spouses Rodolfo C. Custodio and Myrna P. Custodio v. Far East Bank and Trust Company [now Bank of the Philippine Islands] and Ricky Castillo)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 11, 2018 Decision 2 and the December 6, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108291 for failure of petitioners Spouses Rodolfo C. Custodio and Myrna P. Custodio (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 52's (RTC) dismissal 4 of their complaint 5 due to insufficiency of evidence.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners failed to substantiate their claims that: (a) their cash and checks deposits were not debited to their account as the bank statements presented by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), now Bank of the Philippine Islands, appear to be genuine repositories of all transactions made on their account; 6 (b) they have overpaid their loan obligations with FEBTC since not all the debits made from their account were used to pay said loan obligations; 7 (c) respondent Ricky Castillo's handwritten statement, marked as Exhibit "H-7," proved that he received the amount of P350,000.00 from petitioners to be applied to the latter's loan obligations since said statement merely reflected the computation of their outstanding loan obligation; 8 and (d) the foreclosure of their properties were improper, considering that the Real Estate Mortgages 9 executed relative to their commercial loans contained a dragnet clause, 10 which thus included other advances or loans such as the Countryside Loan Fund loans. 11 It is settled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will not be reviewed on appeal, save for certain exceptions, 12 none of which are obtaining in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
2.Id. at 21-31. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4. See RTC Decision dated August 8, 2016, penned by Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas; id. at 44-66.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6. See rollo, p. 28.
7. See id. at 28-29.
8. See rollo, p. 29.
9. Not attached to the rollo.
10. "A dragnet clause is a stipulation in a [Real Estate Mortgage (REM)] contract that extends the coverage of a mortgage to advances or loans other than those already obtained or specified in the contract. Where there are several advances, however, a mortgage containing a dragnet clause will not be extended to cover future advances, unless the document evidencing the subsequent advance refers to the mortgage as providing security therefor or unless there are clear and supportive evidence to the contrary." (Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 191174, June 7, 2017, 826 SCRA 267, 288; citation omitted.)
11. See rollo, pp. 29-30.
12.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citations omitted.