Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18177 August 30, 1962
REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ISABEL ACUÑA DE NEPOMUCENO, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of LUBIN NEPOMUCENO,
ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO and VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, defendants-appellants.
Jesus Avanceña for plaintiff-appellee.
Syquia, Law Offices for defendants-appellants.
LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Honorable Juan L. Bocar, presiding, sentencing the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of P270,183.82, with interest thereon at 6% per annum from March 20, 1957, until date of final payment.
On September 17, 1952 defendants borrowed the sum of P300,000.00 from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, and to secure the payment thereof they mortgaged a parcel of land situated in Caloocan, Rizal and three motor vessels docked at the Manila Bay. The mortgage was properly registered. The amount of the loan was agreed upon to be payable in quarterly amortizations of P17,473.72. (Annexes "A" and "E" of the complaint.) The mortgage contract authorized the mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage under Act No. 3135. Because of the failure of the mortgagors to pay the agreed installments, an extrajudicial foreclosure was made and five Gray Marine Diesel Engines and one of the boats in the mortgage were sold to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, for a total of P25,000.00. Similarly the land mortgaged was sold for P14,000.00.
On March 20, 1957 the balance of the original indebtedness, after deducting the price of the boat and other properties sold on extrajudicial foreclosure, amounted to P245,488.20. (See Annex "A" to the complaint.) After adding the accrued interest and the penal clause of 10%, the total of the indebtedness reached P309,013. After deducting the price for which the properties were sold on foreclosure there remained a balance of P270,013.42. This was the amount demanded in the complaint.1äwphï1.ñët
When the original complaint was filed the defendants filed a motion for a bill of particulars, and plaintiffs submitted a bill which was introduced as Annex "A", showing a balance, due and unpaid, in the amount of P270,013.42. Another motion for a bill of particulars was presented but this was denied. So the defendants filed an answer denying the material allegations for lack of knowledge and information, and alleging as special defenses that under the facts stated in the complaint there was no cause of action for a deficiency judgment. The case having been called for hearing, the plaintiff submitted an itemized statement of indebtedness of the defendants, Exhibit "F", showing a balance due the plaintiff amounting to P270,183.82. A witness was first introduced to identify the statement of account, but as he did not show sufficient competence, another was presented who was the one in charge of the accounts.
After the presentation of the evidence for the plaintiff the defendants tried to ask for postponement, which request was granted in order to give opportunity to defendants to submit evidence of alleged payments claimed to have been made, but when the case was called again for that purpose the defendants could not proceed, and so the court, believing that the action of the defendants was merely to secure a delay, rendered the judgment above set forth.
In this Court the defendants-appellants assign the following errors:
(1) THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE BILL OF PARTICULARS DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1969.
(2) THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PROVE ITS CAUSE OF ACTION.
(3) THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL, OR THE FACTS ADDUCED IN THE DECISION ITSELF.
None of the above alleged errors has been shown to have been committed. The difference between the total set forth in the statement marked Exhibit "1" and the total of the statement in Exhibit "F" is relied upon to show that the witnesses who testified thereto were incompetent. It is true that the first witness had to be withdrawn because he was not the one keeping the accounts of the defendants. Later on, however, the accountant who actually kept the accounts of the defendants was presented and he explained that the difference between the amounts contained in Exhibit "1" and Exhibit "F" is due to certain expenses, such as for insurance and other incidental expenses.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the judgment appeal from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the defendant defendants-appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
