### G.R. No.

201074
## Spouses Sy v. Westmont Bank
######
### Facts:
This case involves a Complaint for Sum of Money filed by Westmont Bank (now United
Overseas Bank Philippines) against the petitioners, Spouses Ramon Sy and Anita Ng,
Richard Sy, Josie Ong, William Sy, and Jackeline de Lucia. Westmont alleged that the
petitioners obtained two loans from the bank, one in the amount of P2,429,500.00 and
another in the amount of P4,000,000.00. The loans were evidenced by promissory notes
and disclosure statements. Westmont claimed that the petitioners defaulted in the
payment of their loan obligations and filed the complaint to collect the outstanding
amounts.
In their Answer, the petitioners countered that their loan applications were denied
by Westmont and that they obtained loans from another person, Amado Chua, instead.
They argued that they paid Chua the total amount of their loans and that Westmont
could not demand payment from them.
During the trial, Westmont presented its employee who testified that the loan
proceeds were credited to the account of Moondrops General Merchandising, the trade
name used by the petitioners. However, Westmont did not offer the loan manifold as
evidence. The petitioners presented a cashier's check to prove that they obtained the
loan from Chua and not from Westmont.
The RTC ruled in favor of Westmont, stating that the petitioners admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes because they failed to
specifically deny them in their answer. The RTC ordered the petitioners to pay the
outstanding amounts, interests, penalty charges, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC.
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, stating that the petitioners failed to
specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes in their
answer. The CA held that the admission of the actionable documents created a prima
facie case in favor of Westmont. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
but it was denied by the CA.
### Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are:
1. Whether the petitioners failed to specifically deny the genuineness and due
execution of the promissory notes in their answer.
2. Whether the pieces of evidence presented by Westmont are admissible.
### Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and reversed the decision of the
CA. The Court held that the petitioners sufficiently complied with the requirement to
specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the promissory notes in their
answer. Although they did not use the exact words contained in the rule, their answer
as a whole indicated a specific denial and set forth the facts they claimed to be
true. The Court also found that Westmont failed to prove that it delivered the loan
proceeds to the petitioners, which is necessary to establish a perfected contract of
loan. As a result, the Court dismissed the complaint filed by Westmont.
### Ratio:
The Court applied Section 8 of Rule 8, which provides the proper method for denying
the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document. The Court held that the
purpose of the rule is to enable the adverse party to know beforehand whether they
will have to meet the issue of genuineness or due execution of the document during
trial. In this case, the petitioners substantially complied with the rule by
specifically denying the promissory notes in their answer and setting forth the facts
they claimed to be true.
The Court also emphasized that the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff in civil
cases. In this case, Westmont failed to prove that it delivered the loan proceeds to
the petitioners, which is necessary to establish a perfected contract of loan. The
Court noted that Westmont could have easily presented evidence such as a receipt,
ledger, or loan release manifold, but it failed to do so. As a result, the Court held
that there was no perfected contract of loan between Westmont and the petitioners.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Downloaded at www.jurisprudence.ph
------------------------------------------------------------------