Surtida v Rural Bank of Malinao ).docx

03 Spou Spous ses Pedr Pedro o and and Paz Surt Surtid ida a v A.*/+R: A.*/+R: Rural Bank of Malinao (Albay), In! NOTES: "!R! #o! $%0&'3 e! 0, 00' *+PI: *+PI: Presumptions P+#-#*-: P+#-#*-: Callejo Sr. AS- A12 +*RI#-: +*RI#-: Under Section 3, Rule 131 of te Rules of Court, te follo!in" are disputa#le presumptions: $1% pri&ate transactions a&e #een fair and re"ular' $(% te ordinar) cour course se of #usin #usines ess s as as #een #een foll follo! o!ed' ed' and and $3% $3% ter tere e !a !as s su*ci su*cien entt consi conside dera rati tion on for for a contract. + presumption ma) operate a"ainst an ad&ersar) !o as not introduced proof to re#ut it. Te eect of a le"al presumption upon a #urden of proof is to create te necessit) of  presentin" e&idence to meet te le"al presumption or te  prima facie case created created tere#), tere#), and !ic if no proof to te contrar) is presented and oered, !ill pre&ail. Te #urden of proof  remains !ere it is, #ut #) te presumption, te one !o as tat #urden is relie&ed for te time #ein" from introducin" e&idence in support of te a&erment, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted . -er4eny Reitation5 Spouses Surtida o#tained a loan from te Rural -an secured #) a Real Estate /ort"a"e o&er teir land. Te Spouses recei&ed te net proeeds of t6eir loan on t6e sae day via as6ier7s 6ek as s6o8n by t6eir si4natures at t6e dorsal portions t6ereof! t6ereof! -ventually, -ventually, t6e Spouses failed to pay t6e loan! *6us, t6ey e0ecuted a ation in Pa)ment and  and   eded t6eir lot to t6e Rural Bank! 16en t6e Rural Bank  deanded t6e to vaate, t6e Spouses refused and said t6at t6ey never reeived any loan proeeds! *6e R* ruled in favor of t6e Spouses! It 4ave no probative 8ei46t to t6e douentary and testionial evidene of t6e Rural Bank t6at t6e spouses 6ad reeived t6e proeeds of t6e t8o loans via si4ned as6ier7s 6eks! *6e A reversed t6e R* and said t6at t6e spouses Surtida reeived reeived t6e net proeeds of  t6e loans as s6o8n by t6eir si4natures at t6e dorsal portion of t6e as6ier7s 6eks . 2ence, tis petition to te SC. n rulin" in fa&or of te -an, te SC said tat $SEE OCTRNE%.  Te presumption tat a contract as su*cient su *cient consideration cannot #e o&ertro!n #) te #are uncorro#orated and self4ser&in" assertion of te Spouses Surtida tat it as no consideration.  To  To o&ercome te presumption of consideration, te alle"ed lac of consideration must #e so!n #) preponderance of e&idence. Te Spouses Surtida failed to discar"e tis #urden. 9A*S5  Te spouses Pedro and Pa5 Surtida e0ecuted a real estate mort"a"e o&er teir residential land, located in Sto. omin"o, +l#a), in fa&or of te Rural -an of /alinao, +l#a), nc. $Rural -an%. Te deed !as e0ecuted as securit) for te pa)ment of te P166,666.66 P 166,666.66 loan te spouses Surtida ad applied for.  Te spouses Surtida secured a loan of P178,966.66 P 178,966.66 from te Rural -an e&idenced #) a Promissor) Note. On te same da), te spouses recei&ed T!o T!o Casiers Cec. +"ain, te spouses Surtida secured anoter loan in te amount of P16;,<66.66 P 16;,<66.66 from te Rural -an. *6e spouses Surtida also reeived t6e net proeeds of t6eir loan on t6e sae day via as6ier7s 6ek as s6o8n by t6eir si4natures at t6e dorsal portions t6ereof!  Te spouses Surtida failed to pa) teir loans. Tus, te) e0ecuted a ation in Pa)ment o&er a 366 s= m undi&ided portion of teir propert) co&ered #) T.. No. 918, in pa)ment of  teir P19>,8;<.(6 P19>,8;<.(6 loan. +"ain, te spouses Surtida e0ecuted anoter ation in Pa)ment in fa&or of te Rural -an o&er a portion of teir propert), located in Sto. Ni?o, Sto. omin"o, +l#a). n a letter, te Rural -an informed te spouses Surtida tat te) !ere #ein" "i&en a preferential ri"t to repurcase te propert). 2o!e&er, te spouses Surtida rejected te oer.  Te Rural -an demanded tat te spouses Surtida &acate tat portion of @ot 1;39 !ic te spouses spouses Surtida Surtida ad ceded ceded to it. 2o!e&e 2o!e&err. te spouses spouses Surtid Surtida a rejec rejected ted te Rural ural -ans demand, and e&en sent a letter den)in" a&in" recei&ed an) loan and furter •

•

•

•

•

•

stated tat te note in te real estate mort"a"e and te dation in pa)ment !ere simulated contracts. Te) also demanded for a detailed statement of teir loans.  Tis prompted te Rural -an to Ale a complaint a"ainst te spouses Surtida for unla!ful detainer in te /TC. Bor teir part, te spouses Surtida Aled a complaint a"ainst te Rural -an in te RTC of  @e"a5pi Cit) for te annulment of te promissor) notes, real estate mort"a"e, and dation in pa)ment. Te) alle"ed tat: o tat te) ad ne&er secured an) loan from te #an' te said deeds !ere Actitious' and o o te) !ere made to si"n te documents to ena#le it to a&ail of rediscountin" facilities from te Central -an of te Pilippines. tat te) ne&er appeared #efore te notar) pu#lic, !o appeared to a&e notari5ed o te said documents. n its +ns!er, te Rural -an alle"ed: tat te loans of te spouses Surtida !ere ne&er presented to te Central -an for o rediscountin", since rediscountin" of loans from rural #ans !ere stopped in 18<7, and !as rene!ed onl) in /arc 1881' and tat te complaint !as Aled in retaliation to te complaint for unla!ful detainer it o ad Aled a"ainst tem. RTC ruled in fa&or of spouse Surtida. *6e R* 4ave no probative 8ei46t to t6e douentary and testionial evidene of t6e Rural Bank t6at t6e spouses 6ad reeived t6e proeeds of t6e t8o loans via si4ned as6ier7s 6eks!  t a&erred tat te Rural -an failed to furnis te spouses Surtida !it a #reado!n of teir loan account. Rural -an appealed to te C+ !ic REERSE te RTC. C+ stated: o tat te spouses Surtidas claim tat te assailed documents !ere e0ecuted merel) to accommodate te Rural -an is #elied #) te testimonial and documentar) e&idence on record. o t6at t6e spouses Surtida reeived t6e net proeeds of t6e loans as s6o8n by t6eir si4natures at t6e dorsal portion of t6e as6ier7s 6eks. /R #) te Spouses !as denied. 2ence, tis petition to te SC. ISS.-2/-: Deter te ecision and Resolution of te C+ are in accord !it te e&idence and te la! FES. PETTON ENE. •

•

•

•

•

•

RA*I+:  GUST N C+SE: Den te Spouses Aled teir petition in tis Court, te ecision of te C+ !as alread) Anal and e0ecutor). Te correspondin" entr) of jud"ment !as alread) made of record. Clearl) ten, te decision of te appellate court is immuta#le and unaltera#le.  GUST N C+SE U@T: Te "eneral rule is tat Andin"s of facts of te trial court !ill not ordinaril) #e distur#ed #) an appellate court a#sent an) clear so!in" tat te trial court as misapplied some facts or circumstances of !ei"t or su#stance !ic could &er) !ell aect te outcome of te case. t is te trial court tat ad te opportunit) to o#ser&e te !itnesses manner of  testif)in". Ne&erteless, te i"er court is not entirel) precluded from re&ie!in" and re&ersin" tese Andin"s if it is not con&inced tat te) conform to te e&idence of record and to its o!n impressions of te credi#ilit) of te !itnesses.  TOPC RE@+TE: @ie!ise, !e cannot "i&e !ei"t to te Spouses Surtidas claim tat te) did not recei&e consideration for te loans te) applied for. Teir si"natures at te #ac of te casiers cecs are te clear proof tat te) recei&ed te amount indicated terein, as testiAed #) Gocel)n a, te Rural -anHs casier.  Te Spouses Surtidas #are denial tat te) ad secured se&eral loans from respondent on Gune 1;, 18<; and No&em#er 7, 18<> cannot pre&ail o&er te testimonial and documentar) e&idence presented in te RTC. Under Section 3, Rule 131 of te Rules of Court, te follo!in" are disputa#le presumptions: $1%

pri&ate transactions a&e #een fair and re"ular' $(% te ordinar) course of #usiness as #een follo!ed' and $3% tere !as su*cient consideration for a contract. + presumption ma) operate a"ainst an ad&ersar) !o as not introduced proof to re#ut it. Te eect of a le"al presumption upon a #urden of proof is to create te necessit) of presentin" e&idence to meet te le"al presumption or te  prima facie case created tere#), and !ic if no proof to te contrar) is presented and oered, !ill pre&ail. Te #urden of proof remains !ere it is, #ut #) te presumption, te one !o as tat #urden is relie&ed for te time #ein" from introducin" e&idence in support of te a&erment, because the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted .  Te presumption tat a contract as su*cient consideration cannot #e o&ertro!n #) te #are uncorro#orated and self4ser&in" assertion of te Spouses Surtida tat it as no consideration.  To o&ercome te presumption of consideration, te alle"ed lac of consideration must #e so!n #) preponderance of e&idence. Te Spouses Surtida failed to discar"e tis #urden.  Te contracts of ation in Pa)ment dated +u"ust 31, 18<8 and Ganuar) 9, 1886 !ere dul) notari5ed. t !as onl) after respondent Aled its complaint for unla!ful detainer a"ainst petitioners tat te latter Aled teir complaint in te RTC. O#&iousl), te complaint of  petitioners in te RTC !as intended to derail te complaint for unla!ful detainer. ISS-#*I#"2+#.RRI#" +PI#I+#(S):