Professional Documents
Culture Documents
162333
BIENVENIDO C. TEOCO and JUAN C. TEOCO, JR., petitioners, vs. METROPOLITAN BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY, respondent.
FACTS: Lydia T. Co, married to Ramon Co, was the registered owner of two parcels of land.
Ramon Co mortgaged the said parcels of land to Metrobank for a sum of P200,000.00.
The properties were sold to Metrobank in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Act No. 3135.
One year after the registration of the Certificates of Sale, the titles to the properties were
consolidated in the name of Metrobank for failure of Ramon Co to redeem the same within the
one year period provided for by law.
Metrobank filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession against Ramon Co and Lydia
Co (the spouses Co).
The brothers Teoco filed an answer-in-intervention alleging that they are the successors-ininterest of the spouses Co, and that they had duly and validly redeemed the subject properties
within the reglementary period provided by law. Teoco had deposited the amount of
P356,297.57 to the clerk of court of the RTC. Metrobank refused to accept the amount
deposited by the brothers Teoco, alleging that they are obligated to pay the spouses Cos
subsequent obligations to Metrobank as well.
The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the brothers Teoco. According to the RTC, the case
filed by Metrobank should be dismissed since intervenor Juan C. Teoco, Jr., by his tender of
P356,297.57 to Metrobank on February 10, 1992, within the reglementary period of redemption
of the foreclosed property, had legally and effectively redeemed the subject properties from
Metrobank.
The RTC added that there is another reason for dismissing Metrobanks petition: the RTC failed
to acquire jurisdiction over the spouses Co. The RTC noted that Metrobank published its petition
for writ of possession, but did not publish the writ of summons issued by said court on February
16, 1994.
Metrobank appealed to the CA. In its appeal, Metrobank claimed that the RTC erred in finding
that the publication made by it is fatally flawed, and that the brothers Teoco had effectively
redeemed the properties in question.
The CA decided the appeal in favor of Metrobank. As regards the question of jurisdiction, the CA
ruled that since the parcels of land in question were already registered in the name of
Metrobank at the time the petition was filed, and since the certificates of title of the spouses Co
were already cancelled, there is no more need to issue summons to the spouses Co. The CA
noted that the best proof of ownership of the parcel of land is a certificate of title.
The CA also held that the issue of the validity of summons to the spouses Co is unimportant
considering that the properties in question were mortgaged to Metrobank and were
subsequently sold to the same bank after the spouses Co failed to satisfy the principal
obligation.
Further, the CA held that the brothers Teoco were not able to effectively redeem the subject
properties, because the amount tendered was insufficient, and the brothers Teoco have not
sufficiently shown that the spouses Cos right of redemption was properly transferred to them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the petitioners have not sufficiently shown
that the right of redemption was properly transferred to them.
RULING: Verily, the assignment of right of redemption is not admissible in evidence as a public
document in our courts. However, this does not necessarily mean that such document has no
probative value.
There are generally three reasons for the necessity of the presentation of public
documents. First, public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated in them, as
provided for in Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
(Underscoring supplied)
Second, the presentation of a public document dispenses with the need to prove a documents
due execution and authenticity, which is required under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court for the admissibility of private documents offered as authentic:
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. Before any private document offered as authentic
is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
(Underscoring supplied)
In the presentation of public documents as evidence, on the other hand, due execution and
authenticity are already presumed:
SEC. 23. Public documents are evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
(Underscoring supplied)
SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents. Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved
and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the
certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
instrument or document involved. (Underscoring supplied)
Third, the law may require that certain transactions appear in public instruments, such as
Articles 1358 and 1625 of the Civil Code, which respectively provide:
Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification
or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an
interest therein governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the
conjugal partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act
appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third
person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public
document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear
in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are
governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405.
Art. 1625. An assignment of a credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against
third person, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the
Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property. (Underscoring
supplied)
Would the exercise by the brothers Teoco of the right to redeem the properties in question be
precluded by the fact that the assignment of right of redemption was not contained in a public
document? We rule in the negative.
Metrobank never challenged either the content, the due execution, or the genuineness of the
assignment of the right of redemption. Consequently, Metrobank is deemed to have admitted
the same. Having impliedly admitted the content of the assignment of the right of redemption,
there is no necessity for a prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. In the same manner,
since Metrobank has impliedly admitted the due execution and genuineness of the assignment
of the right of redemption, a private document evidencing the same is admissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court in Catbalogan, Samar is REINSTATED.