Decena et.al v. Asset Pool A (SVP-AMC), Inc. G.R. No. 239418 12 October 2020 Delos Santos, J.

Decena et.al v. Asset Pool A (SVP-AMC), Inc.

G.R. No. 239418

12 October 2020 Delos Santos, J.:

Second Division

 

Nature of the Action: This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which ordered the Petitioners to pay the Respondent.

Facts:

Respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against the petitioners before the Regional

Trial Court (RTC). It argued that the petitioners loaned P20,000,000.00 by Prudential Bank. Then Prudential Bank and BPI merged where in the latter became the surviving corporation. It alleged further that petitioners defaulted in their contractual obligations and left an unpaid obligation of P10,000,000.00.

Subsequently, BPI assigned the said indebtedness to the Respondents through a deed of assignment and BPI's rights and interest over the said receivables were then ceded to respondent. Thus, Respondent demanded petitioners to pay their unpaid obligation. Despite second demand, petitioners failed to heed.

The RTC ruled that petitioners were liable for the loan obligation to the Respondent. Thus, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA partially affirmed RTC's decision. It held that when a creditor is in possession of a document of credit, proof of non-payment is unnecessary for it is already presumed.

Issue:

Whether the petitioners are liable for the amount due.

Ruling:

Yes. Petitioners are liable for the amount due.

The Court agrees with the CA that the existence of the promissory notes, coupled with their own admission, had already established petitioner's indebtedness to respondent. From the foregoing, the Court finds that the petitioners remain liable for the two promissory notes because they had failed to discharge the burden of proving their payment. Indeed, as held by the Court when the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished bt payment devolves upon the debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. The debtor who offers such defense to the claim of the creditor. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. Having failed to discharge such burden, petitioners remain liable for their indebtedness to respondent.