The Petition is bereft of merit.
The party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court defines "burden of proof" as "the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law." In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.55 Once the plaintiff has established his case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in turn, has the burden to establish his defense.56
In this case, respondent BPI, as plaintiff, had to prove that petitioner-spouses failed to pay their obligations under the Promissory Note. Petitioner-spouses, on the other hand, had to prove their defense that the obligation was extinguished by the loss of the mortgaged vehicle, which was insured.
However, as aptly pointed out by the MeTC, the mere loss of the mortgaged vehicle does not automatically relieve petitioner-spouses of their obligation57 as paragraph 7 of the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage provides that:
7. The said MORTGAGOR covenants and agrees to procure and maintain through the MORTGAGEE, a comprehensive insurance from a duly accredited and responsible insurance company approved by the MORTGAGEE, over the personalty hereinabove mortgaged to be insured against loss or damage by accident, theft, and fire for a period of one (1) year from date hereof and every year thereafter until the mortgage DEBTS are fully paid with an insurance company or companies acceptable to the MORTGAGEE in an amount not less than the outstanding balance of the mortgage DEBTS; that he/it will make all loss, if any, under such policy or policies payable to the MORTGAGEE forthwith. x x x
x x x x
MORTGAGOR shall immediately notify MORTGAGEE in case of loss, damage or accident suffered by herein personalty mortgaged and submit proof of such loss, damages or accident. Said loss damage or accident for any reason including fortuitous event shall not suspend, abate, or extinguish [petitioner spouses’] obligation under the promissory note or sums due under this contract x x x
In case of loss or damage, the MORTGAGOR hereby irrevocably appoints the MORTGAGEE as his/its attorney-in-fact with full power and authority to file, follow-up, prosecute, compromise or settle insurance claims; to sign, execute and deliver the corresponding papers, receipts and documents to the insurance company as may be necessary to prove the claim and to collect from the latter the insurance proceeds to the extent of its interest. Said proceeds shall be applied by the MORTGAGEE as payment of MORTGAGOR’s outstanding obligation under the Promissory Note and such other sums and charges as may be due hereunder or in other instruments of indebtedness due and owing by the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE and the excess, if any, shall thereafter be remitted to the MORTGAGOR. MORTGAGEE however shall be liable in the event there is a deficiency.
x x x x58
Based on the foregoing, the mortgagor must notify and submit proof of loss to the mortgagee.1âwphi1 Otherwise, the mortgagee would not be able to claim the proceeds of the insurance and apply the same to the remaining obligation.
This brings us to the question of whether petitioner-spouses sent notice and proof of loss to Citytrust or respondent BPI.
Testimonial evidence must also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience.
Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must come not only from the mouth of a credible witness, but must also "be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience."59 A credible witness must, therefore, be able to narrate a convincing and logical story.
In this case, petitioner Manolito's testimony that he sent notice and proof of loss of the mortgaged vehicle to Citytrust through fax lacks credibility especially since he failed to present the facsimile report evidencing the transmittal.60 His failure to keep the facsimile report or to ask for a written acknowledgement from Citytrust of its receipt of the transmittal gives us reason to doubt the truthfulness of his testimony. His testimony on the alleged theft is likewise suspect. To begin with, no police report was presented.61 Also, the insurance policy was renewed even after the mortgaged vehicle was allegedly stolen.62 And despite repeated demands from respondent BPI, petitioner-spouses made no effort to communicate with the bank in order to clarify the matter. The absence of any overt act on the part of petitioner-spouses to protect their interest from the time the mortgaged vehicle was stolen up to the time they received the summons defies reason and logic. Their inaction is obviously contrary to human experience. In addition, we cannot help but notice that although the mortgaged vehicle was stolen in November 1997, petitioner-spouses defaulted on their monthly amortizations as early as August 10, 1997. All these taken together cast doubt on the truth and credibility of his testimony.
Thus, we are in full accord with the findings of the MeTC and the CA that petitioner Manolito's testimony lacks credence as it is dubious and self-serving.63 Failing to prove their defense, petitioner-spouses are liable to pay their remaining obligation.
WHEREFORE the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed November 16, 2007 Decision and the September 19, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91217 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
G.R. No. 184565 November 20, 2013
MANOLITO DE LEON and LOURDES E. DE LEON, Petitioners,
vs.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_184565_2013.html
