FIRST DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY
(also known as Philtrust Bank), Petitioner, - versus - HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and FORFOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 150318
Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PERALTA,* and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: November
22, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari
assailing the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated June 15, 2001 and the subsequent Resolution[2]
denying reconsideration dated August 21, 2001.
The facts of the case, as determined by the Court of Appeals, are as
follows:
Plaintiff Forfom Development Corporation is engaged
in agricultural business and real estate development and owns several parcels
of land in Pampanga. It is the
registered owner of two (2) parcels of land subject of the present controversy,
situated in Angeles City, Pampanga, under Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
10896 and 64884 consisting of 1,126,530 and 571,014 square meters,
respectively. Sometime in 1989,
plaintiff received a letter from the Department of Agrarian Reform with the
names Ma. Teresa Limcauco and Ellenora Limcauco as addressees. Upon verification with the DAR and the Register
of Deeds made by plaintiff’s Vice-President at that time, Mr. Jose Marie L.
Ramos, plaintiff discovered that the subject properties had already been
transferred in the names of said Ma. Teresa Limcauco and Ellenora Limcauco who
were never known to plaintiff or its employees.
Plaintiff’s Board of Directors decided to seek the assistance of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation on the
matter. On November 23, 1989, plaintiff
caused the annotation of its adverse claim on TCT No. 75533 of the Registry of
Deeds of Angeles City.
The results of the NBI Investigation and plaintiff’s
own inquiry revealed the following acts through which the subject parcels of
land were transferred in the names of Ma. Teresa Limcauco and Ellenora Vda. De
Limcauco, fictitious names which were used by defendant Honorata Dizon in the
questioned transactions:
(1) A “Deed of Absolute Sale” dated March 6, 1987
was executed over the lot covered by TCT No. 64884 in favor of Ellenora Vda. De
Limcauco for the price of P500,000.00.
A separate “Deed of Absolute Sale” dated October 5, 1987 was likewise
executed over the property covered by TCT No. 10896 in favor of Ma. Teresa
Limcauco in consideration of P500,000.00. In both instruments, the signature of the
plaintiff’s President, Felix H. Limcauco was forged. Likewise, a certification to the effect that
plaintiff’s Board of Directors had duly approved the sale contained the forged
signature of plaintff’s President, Felix H. Limcauco.
(2) On July 7, 1987, a petition for issuance of
owner’s duplicate copy was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City,
Branch 57 by Ellenora Limcauco who allegedly lost said owner’s duplicate copy
of TCT No. 64884, which was docketed as Cad. Case No. A-124-160. On January 10, 1989, a separate petition for
the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy was filed with the same court by
counsel for Ma. Teresa Limcauco who allegedly lost the owner’s duplicate copy
of TCT No. 10896, which was docketed as Cad. Case No. A-124-280. After due hearing, the court in Cad. Case No.
A-124-280 granted the petition in an Order dated February 1, 1989 which
directed the Register of Deeds to issue another owner’s duplicate copy of TCT
No. 10896 in place of the lost one.
(3) As a consequence of the court’s order in Cad.
Case No. A-124-280, TCT No. 10896 was cancelled and TCT No. 82760/T-414 was
issued in the name of Ma. Teresa Limcauco who had the property covered thereby
subdivided into different lots for which TCT Nos. 85585, 85587, 85589 and 85591
were issued in the name of said Ma. Teresa Limcauco. As to TCT No. 64884, this was also cancelled
by the Register of Deeds of Angeles City, Honesto G. Guarin, by virtue of a
purported court order issued by Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto of RTC-Branch 57. Also appearing as Entry No. 1127 in TCT No.
64884 is the “Secretary’s Certificate” in favor of Felix H. Limcauco and Entry
No. 1128 which is the sale in favor of Ellenora Limcauco. However, the copy of the court order in Cad.
Case No. A-124-160 presented to said Register of Deeds was not signed by Judge
Guinto who had denied before the NBI authorities having signed such order or
having conducted hearing on said case.
The copy submitted to the Register of Deeds was merely stamped “Original
Signed.” Another document certifying
that the Order granting the petition in Cad. Case No. A-124-160 had become final and executory was
also submitted to the Register of Deeds in connection with the cancellation of
TCT No. 64884. However, then Branch
Clerk of Court Benedicto A. Pineda testified that he did not sign said
certification and neither had he been aware of the proceedings in Cad. Case No.
A-124-160. Atty. Pineda’s signature on
said certification appears to have been falsified by one Lorenzo San Andres.
(4) Although
the property covered by TCT No. 10896 has already been subdivided into
different lots and covered by separate titles in the name of Ma. Teresa
Limcauco, said lots were not yet transferred or conveyed to third parties. But as to the property covered by TCT No.
64884, said certificate of title was cancelled and a new certificate of title,
TCT No. 75436/T-378 was issued in the name of Ellenora Vda. De Limcauco. On September 23, 1987, a Deed of Absolute
Sale was executed by Ellenora Vda. De Limcauco in favor of defendant Raul P.
Claveria whereby the property covered by TCT No. 64884 was supposedly sold to
said defendant for the sum of P5,139,126.00. On September 24, 1987, TCT No. 75436/T-378
was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No. 75533 was issued in the
name of defendant Raul P. Claveria. On
October 21, 1987, defendant spouses Raul and Elea Claveria mortgaged the
property with the defendant Philippine Trust Company to guarantee a loan in the
amount of P8,000,000.00, which mortgage was duly registered and
annotated as Entry No. 2858 in TCT No. 75533.
On December 26, 1989, plaintiff instituted the
present action against the defendants Ma. Teresa Limcauco, Ellenora D.
Limcauco, spouses Raul P. Claveria and Elea R. Claveria, Philippine Trust
Company and the Register of Deeds of Angeles City. The Complaint alleged conspiratorial acts
committed by said defendants who succeeded in causing the fraudulent transfer
of registration of plaintiff’s properties in the names of Ma. Teresa Limcauco
and Ellenora D. Limcauco and the subdivision of the land covered by TCT No.
10896 over which separate titles have been issued. Plaintiff prayed that the trial court render
judgment (a) declaring the deeds of sale of March 9, 1987, October 5, 1987 and
September 23, 1987 as well as TCT Nos. 75436, 75533, 87269, 85585, 85587, 85589
and 85591, all of the Registry of Deeds of Angeles City as void ab initio, (b)
directing the reconveyance of the aforesaid real property in the name of
plaintiff corporation, and (c) sentencing defendants to pay plaintiff sums of P1,000,000.00
as moral damages, P100,000.00 plus daily appearance fee of P1,000.00
as attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
Defendant Philippine Trust Bank filed a motion for bill of particulars
which was granted by the trial court, and accordingly plaintiff amended its
Complaint to specifically allege the fraudulent acts and irregularities in the
transfer of registration of its properties, in addition to those already
specified in the Complaint. Thus plaintiff
alleged in addition that (1) the supposed court Order directing the issuance of
another owner’s duplicate copy actually did not exist, copy of said Order not
bearing either the signature of the judge or his branch clerk of court as well
as the court seal, and yet accepted at face value in conspiracy or at least
negligently, by defendant Register of Deeds of Angeles City, not to mention the
haste, among other signs of conspiracy, with which said new owner’s duplicate
copy of the title was issued; (2) the mortgage executed by defendant-spouses
Claveria in favor of defendant bank was characterized by irregularities, the
bank having extended a loan in the amount of P8 million, far in excess
of the property’s market value of P2,855,070.00, as well as the haste in
which said loan was granted.
In its Answer, defendant Philippine Trust Company
denied the allegations of the Complaint as to the irregularities in the
granting of the P8 million loan to defendant-spouses Raul and Elea
Claveria. According to said defendant,
the Claveria spouses have been their clients since 1986 and on October 2, 1987,
all their outstanding obligations in the amount of P7,300,000.00 were
consolidated into one (1) account on clean basis. Defendant bank had required the Claveria spouses
to secure their clean loan of P7,300,000.00 with a real estate mortgage,
and hence on October 21, 1987, said spouses executed mortgage on real property
covered by TCT No. 75533 for an obligation of P8 million after securing
an advance from the defendant bank in the amount of P700,000.00. It had subjected the land offered as security
to the usual bank appraisals and examined the genuineness and authenticity of
TCT No. 75533 with the Register of Deeds of Angeles City and found the same to be
in existence and in order. Thereupon,
the deed of mortgage executed by the Claveria spouses was registered by the
defendant bank with the Register of Deeds and had it annotated in the original
copy of the title. Defendant bank thus
prayed that after due hearing, the complaint against it be dismissed and a
decision be rendered (a) holding as valid and legal the mortgage on the real
property covered by TCT No. 75533 of the Registry of Deeds of Angeles City, and
(b) on its counterclaim, ordering the plaintiff to pay to defendant bank the
amounts of P50,000.00 as actual damages, P1,000,000.00 as
moral damages, P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.
On motion of plaintiff, the trial court ordered the
service of summons by publication with respect to defendants Ma. Teresa
Limcauco, Ellenora Limcauco, Raul P. Claveria and Elea Claveria, whose
addresses could not be located by the Sheriff and even by the parties.
Defendant Register of Deeds of Angeles City filed
his Answer denying that he conspired with the other defendants in effecting the
transfer of registration of the subject properties and averring that it had
issued the questioned transfer certificates of title to defendants Ma. Teresa
Limcauco, Ellenora Vda. de Limcauco and the spouses Raul and Elea Claveria on
the basis of documents filed with it and existing in the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Angeles City. In his
defense, defendant Register of Deeds maintained that he had no reason or basis
to question the validity and legality of the documents presented before him for
registration nor to question the genuineness of the signatures appearing
therein, as well as the Orders of RTC-Angeles City, Branch 57, which contained
a signature over and above the typewritten name of Judge Eliodoro B. Guinto. He had the right to assume that official
functions were regularly performed.
Plaintiff therefore has no cause of action against the defendant
Register of Deeds as the latter merely performed his duties and functions
embodied under Sec. 10 of P.D. No. 1529.
By way of counterclaim, defendant Register of Deeds alleged bad faith
and malice in plaintiff’s filing of the complaint against him, stating that (1)
despite plaintiff’s knowledge that defendant Register of Deeds has not
committed any act of malfeasance or misfeasance in the registration of the
subject certificates of title, he was subjected to an investigation by NBI
authorities at the instance of plaintiff and was compelled to give a sworn
statement before said government authorities in order to clear his name; and
(2) plaintiff’s former counsel had earlier manifested that the Register of
Deeds was being impleaded merely as a nominal party; however, in a sudden and
unexplained turnabout, plaintiff impleaded defendant Register of Deeds as a
principal party in its Amended Complaint.
Defendant Register of Deeds thus prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint against him for utter lack of merit and on his counterclaim, that a
decision be rendered ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant Register of Deeds
the following sums: P200,000.00 by way of moral damages, P100,000.00
by way of exemplary damages, P20,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees plus P500.00
per appearance, and costs of suit.
In an Order dated October 30, 1991, the trial court
declared the defendants Ma. Teresa Limcauco, Ellenora Limcauco, Raul P.
Claveria and Elea R. Claveria in default for their failure to file the
necessary responsive pleadings despite the lapse of sixty (60) days from the
last day of publication of summons, and accordingly allowed the plaintiff to
present its evidence ex parte against the said defendants. During the pre-trial conference held on
November 25, 1991, plaintiff’s counsel manifested that it was joining the
defendant Register of Deeds only as a nominal party as the latter also waived
his counterclaim against the plaintiff.
On February 4, 1992, the trial court granted
plaintiff’s motion to authenticate the signatures appearing in the Deeds of
Sale of October 5, 1987 and March 6, 1987, and that of Josefina K. Limcauco
appearing in the Secretary’s Certificate containing the supposed Board
resolution of plaintiff approving the sale of the parcels of land covered by
TCT Nos. 10896 and 64884. The said
documents were ordered forwarded to the NBI for authentication. During the pre-trial conference conducted on
August 25, 1992, the parties agreed on two (2) issues for resolution during the
trial: (1) whether or not the Deeds of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by
the plaintiff covering the subject real properties, as well as the titles
issued thereat, TCT Nos. 75436, 75533, 87269, 85585, 85587, 85589 and 85591,
all of the Registry of Deeds of Angeles City are genuine and valid; and (2)
whether or not the mortgage on the real property covered by TCT No. 75533 of
the Registry of Deeds of Angeles City is valid and legal. At the trial proper, plaintiff presented as
its witnesses Jose Marie L. Ramos (Vice-President of plaintiff corporation),
Alberto Ramos (NBI officer), Eliodoro Constantino (NBI handwriting expert),
Felix H. Limcauco, Jr. (former President of plaintiff corporation) and Atty.
Benedicto Pineda (former Branch Clerk of Court of RTC- Angeles City, Branch
57). Defendant Philippine Trust Company,
on the other hand, presented the testimony of defendant Atty. Honesto Guarin
(Register of Deeds of Angeles City).
After the formal offer of the respective documentary evidence of the
parties and submission of their memoranda, the case was submitted for decision.
x x x.[3]
On December 29, 1993, the RTC rendered its Decision in favor of private
respondent Forfom Development Corporation (Forfom):
WHEREFORE, all the [foregoing] considered, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants
Philippine Trust Co., spouses Raul P. Claveria and Elea R. Claveria, Ma. Teresa
Limcauco @ Honorata Dizon and Ellenora Vda. de Limcauco @ Honorata Dizon:
1. Declaring the Deeds of Sale of 9 March 1987, 23
September 1987 and 5 October 1987 as well as Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. 75436, 75533, 82760, 85585, 85587, 85589 and 85591 all of the Register of
Deeds of Angeles City as void ab initio;
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Angeles City to
reinstate Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 10896 and 64884 in the name of
the plaintiff or to issue new transfer certificate of title for the same
parcels of land in the name of the plaintiff-corporation free from liens and
encumbrances made subsequent to the cancellation of the said two (2) titles;
3. Ordering the defendants Philippine Trust Co.,
spouses Raul P. Claveria and Elea R. Claveria, Ma. Teresa Limcauco @ Honorata
Dizon and Ellenora Vda. de Limcauco @ Honorata Dizon to pay jointly and
severally the plaintiff the sum of P50,000.00 as actual damages in the
form of attorney’s fees; and
4. To pay the costs of this suit.[4]
On January 21, 1994, petitioner Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust)
filed a Notice of Appeal, alleging that the lower court erred in declaring
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 75533-Angeles City void and in concluding
that it was a mortgagee in bad faith.
Philtrust further claims that Forfom was negligent with its property.
On June 15, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision
affirming the Decision of the RTC:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal
is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed Decision of the trial court in Civil Case
No. 6087 is hereby AFFIRMED and REITERATED.[5]
According to the Court of Appeals, Philtrust was negligent in its credit
investigation procedures and its standards for granting of loans, as shown by
(a) its previously extending unsecured and uncollateralized loans to the
spouses Raul and Elea Claveria, and (b) its failure to discover the latter’s
statement of a fictitious address in the mortgage contract and being the
subject of estafa cases. The Court of
Appeals agreed with the trial court’s finding that Philtrust acted in haste in
the execution of the mortgage and loan contracts, as the property, assessed
only at more than P2 million and allegedly purchased at more than P5
million, was made to secure the principal loan obligation of P8 million.
The appellate court further took note of Philtrust’s refusal to present
the records and details of its transactions with the spouses Claveria despite
being pressed to do so by Forfom. The
Court of Appeals found this circumstance cast serious doubt on Philtrust’s
allegation that it was a mortgagee in good faith.
On August 21, 2001, the Court of Appeals denied Philtrust’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition
for Certiorari, where Philtrust raises the following arguments:
1. The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding there was lack of evidence that
Philtrust was a mortgagee in good faith; hence, capriciously and wantonly
ascribed bad faith to the latter;[6]
2. The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that Philtrust had actual knowledge
of facts and circumstances pertaining to the fraudulent transfer of the
registration of the subject property from the name of Forfom to the name of
Ellenora Limcauco, when there was no iota of evidence to support such factual
finding; hence, capriciously and wantonly ascribed bad faith to Philtrust as
the mortgagee of the said property;[7]
and
3. The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in completely disregarding the well-settled rule
that a forged deed may be the root of a valid title; hence, capriciously and wantonly
nullified the real estate mortgage executed by the spouses Claveria in favor of
Philtrust.[8]
Contrary to the allegation in the third argument presented by Philtrust,
the Court of Appeals did not seem to have disregarded the rule that a forged
deed may be the root of a valid title.
The appellate court clearly specified the circumstances allowing the
application of such rule:
A forged deed may be the root of a valid title when
an innocent purchaser for value intervenes.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of
another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in
such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such
purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other
person in the property. It has been held
that where a mortgagee bank accepted the mortgage in good faith, the land
involved being registered land, it is not bound to go [beyond] the certificate
of title to look for flaws in the mortgagor’s title, the doctrine of innocent
purchaser for value being applicable to an innocent mortgagee for value. A mortgagee in good faith and for value is
entitled to protection. A bank is not
required, before accepting a mortgage, to make an investigation of the title of
the property being given as security.
This is a consequence of the rule that a person dealing with registered
land has a right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate of title and
to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry.[9]
Indeed, the presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion
should prompt the vendee or mortgagee to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate.[10] If the vendee or mortgagee failed to do so
before the execution of the contract, the vendee or mortgagee is deemed to be
in bad faith and therefore cannot acquire any title under the forged
instrument.
The determination of the case at bar, therefore, hinges on the resolution
of the first two issues, which deal with whether Philtrust is a mortgagee in
good or bad faith. However, since what
Philtrust filed with us is a Petition for Certiorari
rather than a Petition for Review, a finding that Philtrust is in good faith is
not enough for us to grant the Petition.
A mere error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals in affirming the
RTC Decision would not be enough; nothing less than grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Court of Appeals is required for the issuance of the Writ of
Certiorari.
Philtrust claims that the loans secured by the mortgage on the subject
property were granted to the spouses Claveria after Philtrust was satisfied
regarding the spouses’ credit worthiness and capacity to pay.[11] In fact, according to Philtrust, the spouses
Claveria were able to maintain a satisfactory record of payment during the
early period of their transactions with the bank.[12] Philtrust insists that prior to the
constitution of the mortgage, it followed the standard operating procedures in
accepting property as security, including having investigators visit the
subject property and appraise its value.[13]
When the
Court of Appeals ruled that these claims by Philtrust were not supported by
evidence, the latter countered before us that its allegations were supported by
the following documents: (a) the Promissory Note;[14]
(b) the Deed of Mortgage;[15]
and (c) TCT No. 75533.[16] Philtrust adds that it stated in the Answer
to Interrogatories that it followed the standard operating procedures in
accepting the property as security.
Since said Answer to Interrogatories is a notarized document, Philtrust
claims that it is a public document which is conclusive as to the truthfulness
of its contents.[17]
It is settled that banks, their business being impressed with public
interest, are expected to exercise more care and prudence than private
individuals in their dealings, even those involving registered lands.[18] The rule that persons dealing with registered
lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to
banks.[19] Consequently, Philtrust should prove that it
exercised extraordinary diligence required of it in approving the mortgage
contract in favor of the spouses Claveria.
It baffles us how Philtrust can argue that the promissory note and Deed
of Mortgage executed by the spouses Claveria, and the TCT of the subject
property, can prove its allegations that (a) the mortgage was granted after it
was satisfied of the spouses’ credit worthiness; (b) the latter was able to
maintain a satisfactory record of payment early on; or (c) it followed the
standard operating procedures in accepting property as security, including
having investigators visit the subject property and appraise its value. The mere fact that Philtrust accepted the
subject property as security most certainly does not prove that it followed the
standard operating procedure in doing so.
As regards Philtrust’s claim that the Answer to Interrogatories, being a
notarized document, is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents, we
deem it necessary to clarify the doctrines cited by Philtrust on this matter.
Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court enumerates three kinds of
public documents, to wit:
Sec.
19. Classes of Documents. — For
the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private.
Public
documents are:
(a)
The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b)
Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
and
(c)
Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
to be entered therein.
All
other writings are private.
Notarized documents fall under the second classification of public
documents. However, not all types of
public documents are deemed prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated:
Sec.
23. Public documents as evidence.
— Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. All other
public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which
gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.[20]
“Public records made
in the performance of a duty by a public officer” include those specified as public documents under Section 19(a), Rule
132 of the Rules of Court and the acknowledgement,[21]
affirmation or oath,[22]
or jurat[23] portion of public documents under
Section 19(c). Hence, under Section 23,
notarized documents are merely proof of the fact which gave rise to their
execution (e.g., the notarized Answer
to Interrogatories in the case at bar is proof that Philtrust had been served
with Written Interrogatories), and of the date of the latter (e.g., the notarized Answer to
Interrogatories is proof that the same was executed on October 12, 1992, the
date stated thereon),[24]
but is not prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. Additionally,
under Section 30 of the same Rule, the acknowledgement in notarized documents
is prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved (e.g., the notarized Answer to Interrogatories is prima facie proof that petitioner
executed the same).[25]
The reason for the distinction lies with the respective official duties
attending the execution of the different kinds of public instruments. Official duties are disputably presumed to
have been regularly performed.[26] As regards affidavits, including Answers to
Interrogatories which are required to be sworn to by the person making them,[27]
the only portion thereof executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the
jurat. The presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed therefore applies only to the latter portion, wherein the
notary public merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to
before him or her, on the date mentioned thereon. Thus, even though affidavits are notarized
documents, we have ruled that affidavits, being self-serving,
must be received with caution.[28]
Philtrust, therefore, presented no evidence rebutting the following
badges of bad faith shown in the records of the case. Even though circumstantial, the following
adequately prove by preponderance of evidence that Philtrust was aware of the
fraudulent scheme perpetrated upon Forfom:
1. Within a period of less than one year, Philtrust extended unsecured
loans amounting to P7,300,000.00 to the spouses Claveria as shown in its
Answer wherein it declared:
Spouses
Raul and Elea Claveria has been clients of the bank since 1986 and on October
2, 1987, all their outstanding obligations in the amount of P7,300,000.00
were consolidated into one account on a clean basis.[29]
All Philtrust can give is
a very general explanation for these unsecured loans:
5. Why were the Claveria spouses granted loans
without collaterals at the onset?[30]
[ANSWER:]
5.
The Claveria spouses passed the standards set by the
bank.[31]
2. Although
the spouses Claveria had declared their residence to be in the plush
subdivision in Ayala Alabang, Philtrust was content to receive as security a
land outside Metro Manila, which was only recently acquired by the said
spouses. When asked about this in the
Request for Interrogatories, Philtrust merely responded evasively:
7. Did the bank not request from the Claveria
spouses collateral within the Metro Manila area and if so what was the reply of
the Claveria spouses?[32]
[ANSWER:]
7. The bank
requested for collateral on the P8,300,000.00 loan preferably located in
Metro Manila.[33]
3. It is presumed that evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.[34] When pressed in the Request for
Interrogatories for details of the investigation of the bank, and for the names
of the persons who allegedly visited the subject property and the alleged home
of the spouses Claveria, and the names of the bank officers who dealt with said
spouses, Philtrust refused to do so:
10. Prior to the execution of the real estate
mortgage by the Claveria spouses on the Angeles City property subject of the
above-captioned case, what investigation, if any did the bank undertake for the
physical examination of said property, what were the results, if any, of
such physical examination of the property, and the name or names of the
persons who visited the property?[35]
[ANSWER:]
10. The Angeles property was appraised in accordance
with the usual procedure in the appraisal of property offered as
collateral. The property was visited by
the investigators of the Credit Department of the bank.[36]
15. Did an officer or employee of the bank actually
visit the given residences of the Claveria spouses in Angeles City and Bacolod
City, the result of such visit, and the name or names of the persons
representing the bank who visited such places? [37]
[ANSWER:]
15. As stated above, the last known address of
spouses was 406 Caliraya Street, New Alabang, Muntinlupa, M.M.[38]
17. Who was the particular bank officer who dealt
directly with the Claveria spouses and handled their accounts?[39]
[ANSWER:]
17. The Loans and Discounts Department of the bank
handled the accounts of the spouses.[40]
The RTC and the Court of Appeals considered these circumstances as
circumstantial evidence of Philtrust’s awareness of the fraudulent scheme
against Forfom. Nevertheless, Philtrust
up to this date persists with suppressing these details:
Petitioner humbly believes and strongly maintains
its position that the presentation of all documents pertaining to the loan
transactions of Spouses Claveria is unnecessary, irrelevant, and immaterial in
its defense of good faith before the court a
quo. Nevertheless, as discussed
above, Petitioner had sufficiently proved through its Answer to Interrogatories
and loan documents extant in the records of the case that it prudently complied
with the standard practice of banks in accepting mortgage.[41]
4. Philtrust persistently refused
to cooperate with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in its
investigation of the fraudulent scheme perpetrated against Forfom, as testified
by NBI agents Alberto V. Ramos and Pastor T. Pangan,[42]
and as shown in NBI Investigation Report NBI-NCR 10-11-90 90-2-5507.[43]
5. Had Philtrust properly conducted a credit investigation of the spouses
Claveria, it would have easily discovered that they did not reside and never
resided in the address declared by them, as revealed in the investigation by the
NBI[44]
and declared by the association of homeowners in the New Alabang subdivision.[45]
All the foregoing considered, we find that the Court of Appeals did not
even err in finding that Philtrust was in bad faith in the execution of the
mortgage contract with the spouses Claveria.
Consequently, Philtrust miserably failed to prove that the Court of
Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in rendering the assailed Decision and Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 15, 2001 and the
subsequent Resolution denying reconsideration dated August 21, 2001 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner Philippine Trust Company.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
[1] Rollo, pp. 155-163; penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Alicia L. Santos, concurring.
[2] Id. at 165.
[3] Id. at 156-160.
[4] Id. at 177.
[5] Id. at 163.
[6] Id. at 693.
[7] Id. at 704-705.
[8] Id. at 713.
[9] Id. at 161, citing the following cases: Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 358 Phil. 876 (1998); Rural Bank of Compostela v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 521 (1997); Gonzales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 241 Phil. 630 (1988); Mallorca v. De Ocampo, 145 Phil. 17 (1970); Director of Lands v. Abache, 73 Phil. 606 (1942); De la Cruz v. Fabie, 35 Phil. 144 (1916).
[10] Sandoval v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 48, 60 (1996), citing Pino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94114, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 434, 440; Centeno v. Court of Appeals, 224 Phil. 91, 102 (1985).
[11] Rollo, p. 693.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 694.
[14] Exhibit “A”; Rollo, p. 727.
[15] Exhibit “B”; Id. at 728-729.
[16] Exhibit “C”; Id. at 730-732.
[17] Rollo, pp. 694-695.
[18] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 283, 302 (2000); Cavite Development Bank v. Lim, 381 Phil. 355, 368-369 (2000); Tomas v. Philippine National Bank, 187 Phil. 183, 187-188 (1980).
[19] Ursal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142411, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 52, 63-64; Rural Bank of Compostela v. Court of Appeals, supra note 9.
[20] Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 23.
[21] See 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule II, Section 1.
[22] Id. at Section 2.
[23] Id. at Section 6.
[24] Records, p. 638.
[25] Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (Rules of Court, Rule 132.)
[26] Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(m).
[27] Rules of Court, Rule 25, Section 2 provides:
Sec. 2. Answer
to interrogatories. The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing
and shall be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The party upon whom
the interrogatories have been served shall file and serve a copy of the answers
on the party submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after
service thereof, unless the court, on motion and for good cause shown, extends
or shortens the time.
[28] Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Tiamson, G.R. Nos. 164684-85, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 761, 776.
[29] Records, p. 127.
[30] Id. at 633.
[31] Id. at 636.
[32] Id. at 633.
[33] Id. at 636.
[34] Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(e).
[35] Records, pp. 633-634.
[36] Id. at 637.
[37] Id. at 634.
[38] Id. at 637.
[39] Id. at 634.
[40] Id. at 637.
[41] Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 10; rollo, p. 695.
[42] TSN, October 6, 1992, pp. 12, 31 and 41.
[43] Exhibit C, records, p. 728, 741 (No. 42).
[44] TSN, October 6, 1992, p. 11.
[45] TSN, September 16, 1992, pp. 23-24; 28-29.