ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 144046. September 25, 2000]
DBP vs. CA, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 25 2000.
G.R. No. 144046 (Development Bank of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.)
Respondents Brigido and Conchita Sedenio obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage from petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Upon their default, the mortgage was foreclosed and the land was acquired by the DBP as the highest bidder. Subsequently, the DBP consolidated its title over the property and was issued TCT No. 9875. The property was later sold by the DBP to Manuel Barrozo.
On July 10, 1991, private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure sale and for damages against Barrozo and the DBP. By way of counterclaim, the DBP prayed that respondents be made to pay P125,751.81 plus interest from July 27, 1986 as deficiency claim. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing both the complaint and the counterclaim for lack of merit.
Petitioner appealed from the dismissal of its counterclaim, but its appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
The only ground for this petition is that the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to the principal evidence of the DBP in establishing the outstanding debt of respondents computed, as follows:
SEDENIO, BRIGIDO/CONCHITA
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCY CLAIM
AS OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
Principal Balance������������������������������������������������������������������ P 83,744.28
Capitalized Advances����������������������������������� 1,295.10
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� P 85,039.38
Add:��� Interest and other charges
����������� Regular Interest������������������� P 73,150.14
����������� Additional interest���������������� 36,949.94
����������� Penalty charge���������������������� 9,261.44 ��������������� 119,361 .52
����������� Litigation Expenses�������������� P 3,548.45
����������� Interest on Expenses������������ 439.53 ��������������� 3,987.98
Total Obligation�������������������������������������������������������������������� P208,388.88
Add: 10% Penal Clause ������������������������������������������ 20,838.89
Total Claim as of Sheriff Sale (6/27/86)������������������������������� P229,227.77
Less:�� Assigned Value Real Estate������������������������ 194,800.00
Deficiency Claim as of Sheriff Sale������������������������������������� P 34,427.77
Add:��� Interest (6/27/86 - 11/19/88)
����������� (876x30%/360)��������������������������������������������������������� 118,068.72
����������� Interest (11/19/88 - 9/20/93)
����������� (1766x18%/360)������������������������������������������������������� 297,111.54
����������� Expenses������������������������������������������������������������������� 21,444.48
����������� Interest (6/27/86 - 11/19/88)������������������������������������� 3,870.36
����������� Interest (11/19/88 - 9/20/93)������������������������������������� 6,700.68
[if gte vml 1]>
����������� Deficiency Claim as of September 20,
1993������������ 481,623.55
The petition has no merit. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the entries are not only questionable but are also self-serving considering that no satisfactory evidence was presented by petitioner to support the various entries in the statement. For instance, the lower court found as a fact that there is nothing in the records to show how the entry described as "Interest" (18% & 30%) was arrived at. This is important since under the Art. 1956 of the Civil Code, no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. Indeed, this finding puts in question not only petitioner's manner of computing respondent's obligation but the veracity of the items listed in said statement of deficiency.
That petitioner's deficiency claim was never contested by respondents is of no moment. Such failure to rebut said evidence does not necessarily mean that petitioner had been able to prove its case by preponderance of evidence. Such evidence must be credible, and the function of evaluating is vested in the trial court. It has not been shown that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not giving weight to petitioner's statement of deficiency in view of the dearth of evidence to support its claim. This Court is not a trier of facts.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
