FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241712. September 23, 2019.]
MA. VICTORIA B. WATANABE AND TOSHIMITSU WATANABE, petitioners, vs.REMEDIOS C. BENIZA AND ISAGANI B. BENIZA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 23, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241712 (Ma. Victoria B. Watanabe and Toshimitsu Watanabe v. Remedios C. Beniza and Isagani B. Beniza)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the February 22, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 8, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108557 for failure of petitioners Ma. Victoria B. Watanabe and Toshimitsu Watanabe (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that respondents Remedios C. Beniza and Isagani B. Beniza's (respondents) indebtedness amounted only to P290,000.00, instead of P639,000.00. However, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, 4 the Court deems it proper to modify the CA Decision by imposing legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the amount due from the date of the extrajudicial demand, or on July 14, 2016 until finality of this Resolution. Moreover, the foregoing amount shall further earn an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 5
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners failed to substantiate respondents' indebtedness in the amount of P639,000.00. 6 Records reveal that the uncontested Acknowledgment of Debt 7 signed by respondents indicated only the amount of P290,000.00, and did not contain a computation of the incurred interests and penalties, as well as the date of maturity of the loan sufficient to account for the demanded amount of P639,000.00. 8 Jurisprudence teaches that in civil cases, the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Also, parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. This principle equally holds true, even if the defendant was not given the opportunity to present evidence because of a default order, 9 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, CJ.andGesmundo, J.,both on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-18.
2.Id. at 23-29. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of the Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 21-22.
4.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
5. See Park v. Choi, G.R. No. 220826, March 27, 2019.
6. See rollo, p. 25.
7. See RTC records, pp. 7-8.
8. See id. at 25-26.
9.Evangelista v. Spouses Andolong, 800 Phil. 189, 194 (2016).