ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 140329.September 10, 2001]

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. vs. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 10 2001

G.R. No. 140329(Tala Realty Services Corp vs. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank.)

Petitioner Tala Realty Services Corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 1999 in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 48192 entitled Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.

In a Resolution dated January 17, 2000, the Court denied the petition:

xxx Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 1999, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise by this court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case. xxx

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the above Resolution. On March 1, 2000, the Court denied the reconsideration with finality:

xxx Acting on the motion of the petitioner for reconsideration of the resolution of January 17, 2000 which denied the petition for review on certiorari and considering that there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of this Court's resolution, the Court Resolves to DENY reconsideration with FINALITY. xxx

Petitioner, thereafter, filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and to admit the second motion for reconsideration; and a supplement to the second motion for reconsideration. Said motion to admit the second motion for reconsideration and the supplement thereto was granted by this Court in its Resolution of August 21, 2000. Respondents were then required to Comment thereon.

It is specifically stated in the New Rules of Civil Procedure (1997) that this Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court may brush aside said technical rules and admit the second motion for reconsideration. In the supplement to the second motion for reconsideration, petitioner points to this Court's Decision in G.R. No. 137980 entitled Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank. The Court likewise takes notice of its decision in G.R. No. 129887, likewise entitled Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank As said cases involved issues identical to the present case, the Court was persuaded to admit the second motion for reconsideration so as to determine whether or not our dismissal of the present petition is in harmony with our decisions in G.R. No. 129887 and G.R. No. 137980.

The present petition arose from an action for ejectment filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Manila by petitioner Tala Realty against respondent Banco Filipino. Petitioner sought to eject the respondent from its Sta. Cruz, Manila branch site. The determination of the issue in said case was dependent on which of the two lease agreements presented by each party governed them. Petitioner relied on an 11-year amended lease contract allegedly executed on August 25, 1981. On the other hand, respondent presented a 20-year lease contract executed on the same date.

The lease arrangement subject in said case also covered other branch sites held by respondent in other locations. G. R. No 129887 involved the lease arrangement for the Urdaneta, Pangasinan branch while G.R. No. 137980 involved the Davao branch. The issue in both cases, as well as the case at bar, all boils down to which among the two lease contracts is valid. In G.R. No. 129887, the Court held that:

xxx Second Petitioner Tala Realty insists that its eleven (11)-year lease contract controls. We agree with the MTC and the RTC, however, that the eleven (11)- year contract is forgery because (1) Teodoro O. Arcenas, then Executive Vice-President of private respondent Banco Filipino, denied having signed the contract; (2) the records of the notary public who notarized the said contract, Atty. Generoso S. Fulgencio, Jr. do not include the said document; and (3) the said contract was never submitted to the Central Bank as required by the latter's rules and regulations.

Clearly, the foregoing circumstances are badges of fraud and simulation that rightly make any court suspicious and wary of imputing any legitimacy and validity to the said lease contract.

Executive Vice-President Arcenas of private respondent Banco Filipino testified that he was responsible for the daily operations of said bank. He denied having signed the eleven (11)-year contract and reasoned that it was not in the interest of Banco Filipino to do so. That fact was corroborated by Josefina C Salvador, typist of Banco Filipino's Legal Department, who allegedly witnessed the said contract and whose initials allegedly appear in all the pages thereof. She disowned the said marginal initials.

The Executive Judge of the RTC supervises a notary public by requiring submission to the Office of the Clerk of Court of his monthly notarial report with copies of acknowledged documents thereto attached. Under this procedure and requirement of the Notarial Law, failure to submit such notarial report and copies of acknowledged documents has dire consequences including the possible revocation of the notary's notarial commission.

The fact that the notary public who notarized petitioner Tala Realty's alleged eleven (11)-year contract did not retain a copy thereof for submission to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the proper RTC militates against the use of said document as a basis to uphold petitioner's claim. The said alleged eleven [11]-year lease contract was not submitted to the Central Bank whose strict documentation rules must be complied with by banks to ensure their continued good standing. On the contrary, what was submitted to the Central Bank was the twenty (20)-year lease contract.

Granting arguendo that private respondent Banco Filipino deliberately omitted to submit the eleven (11)-year contract to the Central Bank, we do not consider that fact as violative of the res inter alios acta non nocet (Section 28, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court provides; viz.: "Sec. 28 Admission by third party - The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act declaration or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided;" Compania General de Tabacos v. Ganzon, 13 Phil. 472, 477 [1909]) rule in evidence. Rather, it is an indication of said contract's inexistence.

It is not the eleven (11)-year lease contract but the twenty (20)-year lease contract which is the real and genuine contract between petitioner Tala Realty and private respondent Banco Filipino. Considering that the twenty [20]-year lease contract is still subsisting and will expire in 2001 yet, Banco Filipino is entitled to the possession of the subject premises for as long as it pays the agreed rental and does not violate the other terms and conditions thereof. [citations omitted]

We, likewise, adopted the above findings in our ruling in G.R. No. 137980.

Our rulings in the above cases are consistent with the dismissal of the petition in the present case, thus upholding the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court which, likewise, ruled that it is the 20-year lease contract which governs the parties. As correctly found by the Regional Trial Court:

Based in the light of the foregoing circumstances, it should be Annex "3" which should govern the reciprocal rights of the parties on the leased premises. Viewed as such, the lifetime of the contract of lease will expire on September 1, 2001 unless sooner revoked by the parties. Such being the case, it goes without saying that since there is no violation of the terms and conditions of Annex "3" by Banco Filipino which still has a lifetime of until 2001, the present complaint for ejectment must necessarily fail. 1 Rollo , p. 165.

Having raised no substantial arguments as to warrant a reversal of the dismissal of the petition, the second motion for reconsideration is DENIED. PUNO, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com