You are on page 1of 2

[G.R. No. 122899. June 8, 2000] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs.


Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (hereafter, METROBANK) was ordered to
release/cancel the real estate mortgage constituted over the subject property originally owned by
Mr. Tomas Chia which was later offered for sale to private respondent GTP Development
Corporation(hereafter, GTP), with assumption of the mortgage indebtedness in favor of petitioner
METROBANK secured by the subject property.
Pending negotiations for the proposed sale, Atty. Bernardo Atienza, acting in behalf of respondent
GTP, went to the METROBANK to inquire on Mr. Chia's remaining balance on the real estate
mortgage. METROBANK obliged with a statement of account of Mr. Chia amounting to about
P115,000.00. Upon the purchase of the land, Atty. Atienza went to METROBANK and paid
P116,416.71 for which METROBANK issued an official receipt acknowledging payment.
This notwithstanding, petitioner METROBANK refused to release the real estate mortgage on the
subject property despite repeated requests from Atty. Atienza, thus prompting respondent GTP to
file an action for specific performance against petitioner METROBANK and Mr. Chia.
Mr. Chia denied having executed any deed of sale in favor of respondent GTP involving the subject
property. Petitioner for its part justified its non-release of the real estate mortgage (1) upon the
advise of Mr. Chia that he never executed any sales agreement with respondent GTP, and (2) by the
fact that there are other loans incurred by Mr. Chia which are also secured by the subject property.
After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of GTP and thus METROBANK was ordered to to
execute the release or cancellation of the real estate mortgages.
On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals rendered REVERSING THE RTC Decision, ruling in the
main that the P116,416.71 paid by respondent GTP to petitioner METROBANK did NOT
extinguish the real estate mortgage inasmuch as there are other unliquidated past due loans secured
by the subject property.
GTP filed before respondent Court of Appeals a "motion for reconsideration with alternative prayer
to require METROBANK to furnish appellee (GTP) of the alleged unpaid balance of Mr. Chia." At
the re-scheduled date of oral arguments on 08 March 1995 where METROBANK
was supposed to bring before the respondent Court the current statement of
the mortgage debt of Mr. Chia secured by the deeds of mortgage sought to be
released, METROBANK's counsel did not appear;Thus, the Court required GTP's counsel
to file a memorandum in lieu of oral arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration.
Respondent Court of Appeals took a second hard look at the evidence on hand and seriously
considered METROBANK's refusal to specify any unpaid debt secured by the subject property.
Petitioner METROBANK is now before us after its motion for reconsideration of the 03 July 1995
amended decision was denied by respondent Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: What is the effect of the said failure to produce the evidence?

Petitioner METROBANK's omission to present its evidence only created an adverse inference
against its cause. Therefore, it cannot now be heard to complain since respondent Court extended a
reasonable opportunity to petitioner METROBANK that it did not avail. Petitioner METROBANK
is estopped from refusing the discharge of the real estate mortgage on the claim that the subject
property still secures "other unliquidated past due loans."
For an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
denied or disproved as against a person relying thereon. A party may not go back on his own acts
and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. In the law of evidence,
whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
Just as decisive is petitioner METROBANK's failure to bring before respondent CA the current
statement evidencing what it claims as "other unliquidated past due loans" at the scheduled hearing.
In Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals et. al:
"It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a
liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which from its very nature must
overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such
evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and
support the case of his adversary. x x x"
"No rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his power to prove a fact, if it exists,
which, if proved, would benefit him, his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive that the fact
does not exist." x x x......................x x x......................x x x
"Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate inferences going to establish the ultimate fact that
the evidence is designed to prove, and the party to be affected by the proof, with an opportunity to
do so, fails to deny or explain them, they may well be taken as admitted with all the effect of the
inferences afforded. x x x"