Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    7 Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte Motors

    Uploaded by

    jenizacalleja
    1) CBTC filed a complaint against the Spouses Morales to recover a 1 million peso loan extended to them that was evidenced by a promissory note. Morales defaulted on payments. 2) During trial, CBTC presented exhibits including a photocopy of the promissory note (Exhibit A) but could not present the original. It instead presented a duplicate original as Exhibit E. 3) The court dismissed the case finding that the best evidence rule required presenting the original promissory note. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Morales failed to specifically deny the execution of the promissory note, thereby judicially admitting to its genuineness and execution. Therefore, C

    Copyright:

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

    7 Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte Motors

    Uploaded by

    jenizacalleja
    107 views2 pages
    1) CBTC filed a complaint against the Spouses Morales to recover a 1 million peso loan extended to them that was evidenced by a promissory note. Morales defaulted on payments. 2) During trial, CBTC presented exhibits including a photocopy of the promissory note (Exhibit A) but could not present the original. It instead presented a duplicate original as Exhibit E. 3) The court dismissed the case finding that the best evidence rule required presenting the original promissory note. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Morales failed to specifically deny the execution of the promissory note, thereby judicially admitting to its genuineness and execution. Therefore, C

    Original Title

    7 Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte Motors.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) CBTC filed a complaint against the Spouses Morales to recover a 1 million peso loan extended to them that was evidenced by a promissory note. Morales defaulted on payments. 2) During trial, CBTC presented exhibits including a photocopy of the promissory note (Exhibit A) but could not present the original. It instead presented a duplicate original as Exhibit E. 3) The court dismissed the case finding that the best evidence rule required presenting the original promissory note. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Morales failed to specifically deny the execution of the promissory note, thereby judicially admitting to its genuineness and execution. Therefore, C

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    107 views2 pages

    7 Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte Motors

    Uploaded by

    jenizacalleja
    1) CBTC filed a complaint against the Spouses Morales to recover a 1 million peso loan extended to them that was evidenced by a promissory note. Morales defaulted on payments. 2) During trial, CBTC presented exhibits including a photocopy of the promissory note (Exhibit A) but could not present the original. It instead presented a duplicate original as Exhibit E. 3) The court dismissed the case finding that the best evidence rule required presenting the original promissory note. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Morales failed to specifically deny the execution of the promissory note, thereby judicially admitting to its genuineness and execution. Therefore, C

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    7 G.R. No.

    143338 July 29, 2005 immaterial, irrelevant, was not properly identified and hearsay
    evidence. Del Monte insists that Exhibit E was not properly identified
    by Lavarino who testified that he had nothing to do in the preparation
    THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK),
    and execution of petitioners exhibits, one of which was Exhibit E.
    petitioner,
    Further, as there were markings in Exhibit A which were not contained
    vs.
    in Exhibit E, the latter could not possibly be considered an original
    DEL MONTE MOTOR WORKS, INC., NARCISO G. MORALES, AND
    copy of Exhibit A.
    SPOUSE, respondents.
    Respondents separately filed their motions to dismiss on the similar
    Facts:
    ground that with the exclusion of Exhibits A and E, petitioner no
    CBTC filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money against Spouses
    longer possessed any proof of respondents alleged indebtedness.
    Morales for a P1Million loan that was extended to the latter, as
    evidenced by a promissory note, where the Morales defaulted in the
    RTC dismissed the case and CA affirmed ruling that the best evidence
    payment thereof.
    rule or primary evidence must be applied as the purpose of the proof
    is to establish the terms of the writing meaning the alleged
    CBTC attached to its complaint a photocopy of the promissory note
    promissory note as it is the basis of the recovery of the money
    supposedly executed by respondents, a copy of the demand letter it
    allegedly loaned to the defendants (respondents herein). Hence, this
    sent respondents dated 20 January 1983, and statement of account.
    petition.
    During the trial, CBTC presented Lavarino, then the manager of its
    Collection Department. Lavarino stated that Morales obtained the Issue:
    loan but failed to pay a single monthly installment on this loan, CBTC a
    Whether or not the promissory note is an actionable document.
    demand letter. Lavarino also identified the following exhibits for CBTC:
    photocopy of the duplicate original of the promissory note attached Ruling:
    to the complaint as Exhibit A; petitioners 20 January 1983 demand
    letter marked as Exhibit B; Tolentinos letter to petitioner dated 10 NO. Respondents failed to deny specifically the execution of the
    February 1983 and marked as Exhibit C; and the 09 March 1984 promissory note. This being the case, there was no need for petitioner
    statement of account sent to respondents marked as Exhibit D. to present the original of the promissory note in question. Their
    judicial admission with respect to the genuineness and execution of
    CBTC made its formal offer of evidence. However, as the original copy the promissory note sufficiently established their liability to petitioner
    of Exhibit A could no longer be found, CBTC instead sought the regardless of the fact that petitioner failed to present the original of
    admission of the duplicate original of the promissory note which was said note. Indeed, when the defendant fails to deny specifically and
    identified and marked as Exhibit E. under oath the due execution and genuineness of a document copied
    in a complaint, the plaintiff need not prove that fact as it is considered
    The trial court initially admitted into evidence Exhibit E. Del Monte
    admitted by the defendant.
    filed a manifestation and motion for reconsideration of the trial courts
    order admitting into evidence Exhibit E, claiming that it was
    The defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the
    document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the
    statement of the answer to the effect that the instrument was
    procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its
    genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an
    admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it
    seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.

    You might also like