Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Permanent Savings Vs Velarde

    Uploaded by

    UE Law
    Mariano Velarde obtained a loan of 1,000,000 pesos from Permanent Savings and Loan Bank but failed to repay it. The Bank sued Velarde and presented loan documents as evidence, including a promissory note signed by Velarde. In his answer, Velarde stated the signature on the note seemed to be his but denied receiving the loan proceeds. Velarde then filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court granted, dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Velarde did not specifically deny the authenticity of his signature on the note in his answer, thereby implying its authenticity, so no further evidence from the Bank was needed to prove the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Permanent Savings Vs Velarde

    Uploaded by

    UE Law
    80 views5 pages
    Mariano Velarde obtained a loan of 1,000,000 pesos from Permanent Savings and Loan Bank but failed to repay it. The Bank sued Velarde and presented loan documents as evidence, including a promissory note signed by Velarde. In his answer, Velarde stated the signature on the note seemed to be his but denied receiving the loan proceeds. Velarde then filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court granted, dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Velarde did not specifically deny the authenticity of his signature on the note in his answer, thereby implying its authenticity, so no further evidence from the Bank was needed to prove the

    Original Title

    Permanent Savings vs Velarde

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mariano Velarde obtained a loan of 1,000,000 pesos from Permanent Savings and Loan Bank but failed to repay it. The Bank sued Velarde and presented loan documents as evidence, including a promissory note signed by Velarde. In his answer, Velarde stated the signature on the note seemed to be his but denied receiving the loan proceeds. Velarde then filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court granted, dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Velarde did not specifically deny the authenticity of his signature on the note in his answer, thereby implying its authenticity, so no further evidence from the Bank was needed to prove the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    80 views5 pages

    Permanent Savings Vs Velarde

    Uploaded by

    UE Law
    Mariano Velarde obtained a loan of 1,000,000 pesos from Permanent Savings and Loan Bank but failed to repay it. The Bank sued Velarde and presented loan documents as evidence, including a promissory note signed by Velarde. In his answer, Velarde stated the signature on the note seemed to be his but denied receiving the loan proceeds. Velarde then filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court granted, dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Velarde did not specifically deny the authenticity of his signature on the note in his answer, thereby implying its authenticity, so no further evidence from the Bank was needed to prove the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    Permanent Savings vs Velarde

    Topic: Pleadings
    FACTS: Mariano Velarde obtained a loan
    amounting to P1,000,000.00 from Permanent
    Savings and Loan Bank (The Bank). The Bank
    already sent 2 demand letters to Velarde,
    however, the latter still failed to settle his loan
    obligation. Thus, the Bank filed a complaint for
    sum of money for the recovery of the amount of
    the loan plus interests and penalties before the
    RTC of Manila.
    The loan was evidenced by a promissory note, a
    loan release sheet and a loan disclosure
    statement. In his Answer, Velarde stated that the
    signature appearing at the back of the
    promissory note seems to be his. However, he
    denied having received the proceeds of the loan.
    He likewise claimed that the documents relative
    to the loan do not express the true intention of
    the parties.
    After the Bank rested its case, Velarde, instead of
    presenting evidence, filed a demurrer to evidence
    based on the following grounds:
    1. Plaintiff failed to prove its case by
    preponderance of evidence.
    2. The cause of action is barred by prescription.
    The Trial Court found merit in Velarde’s demurer
    to evidence and dismissed the Bank’s complaint.
    It ruled that mere presentation of the documents
    evidencing the loan without a testimony of a
    competent witness to the transaction and the
    documents, coupled with the denial of liability by
    Velarde does not suffice to meet the requisite
    preponderance of evidence in civil cases. On
    appeal, the CA affirmed the dismissal.
    ISSUE: Whether or not there is a need for the
    Bank to present further evidence as to the due
    execution and authenticity of the loan
    documents.
    RULING:
    No, there is no need for the Bank to present
    further evidence as to the due execution and
    authenticity of the loan documents because
    Velarde, in his Answer, did not specifically deny
    that he signed the promissory note. What he
    merely stated in his Answer was that the
    signature appearing at the back of the
    promissory note seems to be his. Velarde also
    denied any liability on the promissory note as he
    allegedly did not receive the amount stated
    therein, and that the loan documents do not
    express the true intention of the parties. These
    denials, according to the Court, do not
    constitute an effective specific denial as
    contemplated by law. In fact, respondent’s
    allegations amount to an implied admission
    of the due execution and genuineness of the
    promissory note. The admission of the
    genuineness and due execution of a document
    means that the party whose signature it bears
    admits that he voluntarily signed the document or
    it was signed by another for him and with his
    authority; that at the time it was signed it was in
    words and figures exactly as set out in the
    pleading of the party relying upon it; that the
    document was delivered; and that any formalities
    required by law, such as a seal, an
    acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it
    lacks, are waived by him. Also, it effectively
    eliminated any defense relating to the
    authenticity and due execution of the document,
    e.g., that the document was spurious, counterfeit,
    or of different import on its face as the one
    executed by the parties; or that the signatures
    appearing thereon were forgeries; or that the
    signatures were unauthorized.
    Clearly, both the trial court and the Court of
    Appeals erred in concluding that Velarde
    specifically denied the Bank’s allegations
    regarding the loan documents, as Velarde’s
    Answer shows that he failed to specifically deny
    under oath the genuineness and due execution
    of the promissory note and its concomitant
    documents.
    Therefore, he is deemed to have admitted the
    loan documents and acknowledged his
    obligation with the Bank;
    and with his implied admission, it was not
    necessary for the Bank to present further
    evidence to establish the due execution and
    authenticity of the loan documents sued
    upon.
    While Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
    requires that private documents be proved of
    their due execution and authenticity before they
    can be received in evidence, i.e., presentation
    and examination of witnesses to testify on this
    fact; in the present case, there is no need for
    proof of execution and authenticity with respect
    to the loan documents because of Velarde’s
    implied admission thereof.

    You might also like