Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
7. Ponce de Leon contends that the Promissory Note in favor of RFC was overdue
GR No. L-‐‑24571 | December 18, 1970 when the mortgage was foreclosed. So since the installments in the promissory note
Concepcion, C.J. had "ʺno fixed or determined dates of payment"ʺ, the note was unenforceable. Ponce de
Alex Austria Leon said that RFC should'ʹve first asked the court to determine the terms, conditions,
and period of maturity of the promissory note. Ponce de Leon also claims that this
PLAINTIFF-‐‑APPELLANT: Jose L. Ponce De Leon sum of P495,000 has not been fully released by RFC to him .
DEFENDANT-‐‑APPELLANT: Rehabilitation Finance Corporation ("ʺRFC"ʺ) 7. The ISSUE in this case is WON Ponce de Leon'ʹs promissory note in favor of RFC
THIRD-‐‑PARTY PLAINTIFFS-‐‑APPELLANTS: Rosalina Soriano, Teofila Soriano, and was overdue when the mortgage was foreclosed, because the installments in the said
Rev. Fr. Eugenio R. Soriano note have "ʺno fixed or determined dates of payment"ʺ, thus making the note
unenforceable?
TOPIC: XVIII. Payment in Due Course -‐‑ B. Presentment for Payment -‐‑ 2. When 8. The SC said that NO, the note WAS ENFORCEABLE and that NO, it was NOT
Presentment for Payment should be made -‐‑ a. In General overdue. SC looked at the TERMS of the MORTGAGE DEED. Although the date of
maturity of the first installment was left blank, the promissory note states that the
DIGESTER'ʹS NOTE: This is a long-‐‑winded and complicated case that only tackles Nego a little. (I apologize "ʺdate of maturity (was) to be fixed as of the date of the last release,"ʺ completing the
for the long digest, ang dami talagang facts haha.) The other issues raised here concern banking, mortgage,
delivery to the plaintiff of the sum of P495,000 lent to Ponce de Leon by RFC.
and land titles and deeds, which aren'ʹt that relevant to the Nego concept in our outline and in our class
discussion. Hence, I decided to omit them. 9. The SC said that:
FIRST,
part of the sum of P495,000 had been delivered by RFC to the creditors of
RECIT-‐‑FRIENDLY CASE SUMMARY: (Sorry mahaba talaga siya. Summarized version na 'ʹto Ponce de Leon and Francisco Soriano, as agreed upon by them, in payment of their
haha. Just read the first page, oks ka na for recit.)
outstanding obligations.
1. Plaintiff Ponce de Leon and Third-‐‑Party Plaintiff Francisco Soriano (survived and
SECOND, the balance of said sum of P495,000 was turned over to Ponce de Leon,
represented by his children/heirs in this case) entered into a loan agreement with
with the written authorization and conformity of Francisco Soriano. This is borne out
PNB. (Loan #1) They mortgaged Soriano'ʹs land as security for the loan.
by the fact that, prior to the institution of this case, Ponce de Leon had not
2. Ponce de Leon then entered into another loan with Defendant RFC so he could
complained of failure of the RFC to fully release the aforementioned sum of P495,000.
build a sawmill. (Loan #2) One of the properties he mortgaged was the land of
Indeed, in his own complaint herein, he merely alleged a "ʺdelay in the release."ʺ
Soriano, which was the security for Loan #1.
THIRD, at any rate, the mortgage deed and promissory note, in effect, authorized
3. Ponce de Leon and Soriano executed a mortgage deed and a promissory note for a
RFC to fix the date of maturity of the installments therein stipulated, which is allowed
total of P495k, with interest, to be payed in installments for around P28k a month.
by the Negotiable Instruments Law and when a promissory note expresses "ʺno time
4. The mortgage deed specifically stipulated that the proceeds would be used for the
for payment,"ʺ it is deemed "ʺpayable on demand."ʺ
purchase of machinery, equipment, construction of buildings, and the payment of
obligations in relation to the sawmill that Ponce de Leon wanted to put up. The
DOCTRINE: (The SC cited Sections 7, 13, and 14 of the NIL in this case, and nothing in the provisions of
release of the amoutns loaned will be at RFC'ʹs discretion. the outline. So I just worked with what Sir provided in the outline and connected it to the case.)
5. Ponce de Leon defaulted in his loan to RFC. So RFC extrajudicially foreclosed Under NIL, Sec. 71, if an instrument is payable on demand, presentment must be
mortgaged properties consisting of real estates, the sawmill, and its equipment.. made within a reasonable time after its issue. Since RFC was authorized to fix the
Many items of the mortgaged machineries and equipments of Ponce de Leon could date of maturity of the installments stipulated in the promissory note, and NIL Sec.
not be found. 7(b), said that a promissory note expresses "ʺno time for payment"ʺ it is deemed
6. Ponce de Leon said that the typhoons in October and November of 1952 destroyed "ʺpayable on demand"ʺ, RFC reasonably presented the promissory note on time to
his sawmills and hampered his operations. So in the complaint that he filed with the claim payment from Ponce de Leon'ʹs obligations.
CFI, he asked that the amortizations on his obligations which became due since
October 1952 be declared extinguished.
FACTS: c. The checks covering the releases were issued to Ponce de Leon in view
1. [LOAN #1] August 14, 1945 -‐‑ Plaintiff Jose Ponce de Leon and Francisco Soriano of the authority given to him in writing by Soriano and Carmelina
(the dad of third-‐‑party plaintiff-‐‑appellants in this case, the Sorianos) got a loan Russel, Ponce de Leon'ʹs wife. (See Fact #6)
from the Phil. National Bank (PNB) for P10k. 8. March 12, 1952 -‐‑ Ponce de Leon and his wife Carmelina executed an addendum
2. To get this loan, Ponce De Leon and Soriano mortgaged a parcel of land in Rizal to the chattel mortgage.
as security. The land was under Soriano'ʹs name. 9. CAUSE OF ACTION: Not one of the amortization and interests, which had
3. August 16, 1945 -‐‑ Ponce de Leon gave P2k to Soriano from the proceeds of the become due, was paid by Ponce de Leon. So RFC took steps for the extra-‐‑
P10k loan. judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties consisting of real estates, the
4. The loan was subsequently increased to P17.5k, and the real estate mortgage was sawmill, and its equipment. The RFC was the purchaser of all the mortgaged
amended. (See Fact #2). properties in the ensuing sheriff'ʹs sales, with the exception of two parcels of land
5. [LOAN #2] May 4, 1951 -‐‑ Ponce de Leon filed with Defendant Rehablitation situated in Bacolod City, which were purchased by private individuals. Many
Finance Corp ("ʺRFC"ʺ) a loan application to put up a sawmill. The amount was items of the mortgaged machineries and equipments of Ponce de Leon could
P800k. not be found.
a. For this loan, Ponce de Leon mortgaged certain parcels of land, which 10. Before the redemption period expired, Soriano offered to repurchase the land he
included the parcel of land he mortgaged with Soriano. (See Fact #2) mortgaged for P14k. He went to RFC and offered to redeem it there, but he was
b. The application stated that the properties offered for Loan #2 were rejected. RFC told Soriano to redeem the land in the public auction.
encumbered to the PNB and to the Cu Unjieng Bros. 11. [Ponce De Leon'ʹs side] February 18, 1956 -‐‑ Ponce de Leon filed the present case
c. The application was approved for P495k. alleging that:
6. Ponce de Leon, his wife Carmelina Russel, and Francisco Soriano all signed a a. There was delay in the releases of the amount of the loan;
promissory note for P495k, with interest at 6% per annum payable on b. That the RFC withheld the amount of P19,000.00 from the loan until it
installments every month for P28,831.64 in connection with the mortgage deed had verified whether Ponce de Leon had still an unpaid indebtedness to
for Loan #2 . (So there are 2 documents to take note of: the promissory note and the defunct Agricultural and Industrial Bank, the RFC'ʹs predecessor,
the mortgage deed.) and this was paid only after one year had passed;
a. At the time Francisco Soriano signed the mortgage deed, his spouse c. That the typhoon in October and November, 1952 had caused
Tomasa was already dead. Her heirs are defendant-‐‑appellants, the destructions to his sawmills and hampered his operations for which
Sorianos. None of the heirs signed the mortgage deed or promissory reason, he asks, in his complaint, that the amortizations on his
note. obligations which became due since October, 1952 be declared
7. The mortgage deed specifically stipulated that the proceeds would be used for extinguished; that the sheriff'ʹs sales be declared null and void because
the purchase of machinery, equipment, construction of buildings, and the the properties were sold at grossly inadequate prices and that said sales
payment of obligations in relation to the sawmill that Ponce de Leon wanted to were not conducted in accordance with law;
put up. The release of the amoutns loaned will be at RFC'ʹs discretion. d. That the RFC be compelled to account for his machineries and
a. RFC paid Ponce de Leon'ʹs obligations of: equipments at his lumber mill in Calbayog and to reimburse him for the
-‐‑P100k to PNB; value of the unaccounted machineries and equipments;
-‐‑P30k to Cu Unjieng Bros, and e. That the RFC be ordered to pay him actual and moral damages for
-‐‑P5k to Arturo Colmenares. P105,000.00 and costs.
b. The balance of P352k was released to Ponce de Leon at various f. De Leon also sked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to
amounts. restrain the RFC from carrying out its contemplated public sale.
12. The CFI of Rizal set the petition for injunction for hearing, but no one appeared c. The Sorianos further ask that they be allowed to redeem the remaining
for Defendant RFC at the hearing. So the CFI issued the preliminary injunction one-‐‑half share, that which 296 the amount for which the RFC acquired
prayed for. Ponce De Leon also caused a notice of lis pendens to be recorded in the whole lot in the sheriff'ʹs sale.
relation with this case. d. They also ask that Ponce de Leon be ordered to reimburse them for
13. [RFC'ʹs side] RFC filed its answer saying the mortgage was legal, as well as the whatever amount they may use in redeeming the lot and expenses
Sheriff'ʹs sales. It counter-‐‑claimed that Ponce de Leon should be ordered to pay incident thereto and that Ponce de Leon and the RFC be made to pay
the deficiency claim representing the balance of the latter'ʹs indebtedness, rental them moral damages which their father suffered and attorney'ʹs fees.
of the lot and house at Taft Avenue, Pasay City occupied by Ponce de Leon, and 16. Both RFC and Ponce de Leon affirm the legality of the mortgage deed insofar as
damages. Soriano is concerned. RFC further contends that the mortgage was binding on
14. [The Sorianos'ʹ side] Soriano wrote a letter to the RFC President, asking him to the whole Soriano lot and that there was no valid redemption of this lot.
intervene so he can redeem his land. RFC said that Soriano could redeem his 17. Ponce de Leon interposed a counterclaim for various sums of money allegedly
former property, for not less than its appraised value of P59,647.05, payable 20% received from him by Francisco Soriano and his children. (The third-‐‑party
down and the balance in ten years, with 6% interest. Soriano did not redeem the plaintiffs in this case.)
lot under the conditions of RFC. He then filed a third-‐‑party complaint in this 18. CFI Rizal: Dismissed Plaintiff Ponce de Leon'ʹs complaint, with costs against him
case with the RFC and Jose L. Ponce de Leon as the third-‐‑party defendants. and ordered Ponce de Leon to pay Defendant RFC P529,265.54 with interest. CFI
(Kaya ang daming parties sa case na 'ʹto hehe) declared the mortgage of 1/2 of the lot covered by the Original Transfer Cert. of
a. Due to the death of Francisco Soriano, he was substituted as third-‐‑party Title belonging to the third-‐‑party plaintiffs, the Sorianos, as NULL and VOID, as
plaintiff by his children, namely, Teofila Soriano del Rosario, Rosalina well as the sheriff'ʹs sale in favor of RFC (as to the other 1/2 of the lot) NULL and
Soriano and Rev. Fr. Eugenio Soriano. (Hence the parties in this case) VOID.
15. The Sorianos contend that: As to Ponce de Leon, the CFI ruled that:
a. The mortgage in favor of RFC and promissory note signed by a. The typhoons did not relieve Ponce de Leon from his obligations under
Francisco Soriano lacked the latter'ʹs consent and was without the promissory note and the deed of mortgage in favor of RFC;
consideration insofar as Francisco Soriano is concerned and hence b. The sheriff'ʹs sale of the mortgaged properties is valid;
null and void as to him and his children; c. RFC does not need to account for the machineries and equipment of the
b. That the mortgaged lot for Loan #1, covered by original certificate of sawmill or reimburse their value, since it'ʹs their property already
title in the name of Francisco Soriano belonged to the conjugal because Ponce de Leon failed to exercise his right of redemption;
partnership of the latter and his wife, Tomasa Rodriguez, now d. Ponce de Leon may not recover damages from RFC for the alleged delay
deceased, in the release of the loan amounts since the contract stipulates that the
i. And since the latter was already dead when the mortgage was proceeds of the loan will be released at RFC'ʹs discretion. Since Ponce de
executed, and her children,who have thus inherited her share Leon'ʹs offer of redemption came LONG AFTER the expiration of the
have not signed the mortgage contract and promissory note, period, he has no right to recover any damages.
at least, the one-‐‑half share of the lot belonging now to the e. Ponce de Leon should pay for damages and for the amounts it owes
Soriano sisters and brothers, the thirdparty plaintiffs, it means RFC.
that they (the Soriano children) have not been legally 19. As to the Sorianos, the CFI ruled that:
included in the mortgage to the RFC. So RFC had not a. (1) CFI overruled their claim to the effect that Francisco Soriano had
acquired said one-‐‑half share in the sheriff'ʹs sale. signed the promissory note and the deed of mortgage in favor of the
RFC without knowledge of the contents thereof and without any
consideration therefor; but
(2) Held that, being registered in the name of "ʺFrancisco Soriano, Leon also claims that this sum of P495,000 has not been fully released by
married to Tomasa Rodriguez,"ʺ the property covered by original RFC to him .
certificate of title No. 8094— hereinafter referred to as the Parañaque o SC: What Ponce de Leon is saying is contrary to the facts of record. During
property—is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of said the trial, Ponce de Leon'ʹs counsel, Atty. Jose Orozco, made the following
spouses, and that, the RFC having failed to offset this presumption, the admission: "ʺOut of the loan of P495,000.00, the following were paid to the
mortgage on and the sale of the property by the sheriff are null and void creditors of Jose Ponce de Leon: P100,000.00 to the PNB, P30,000.00 to Cu
as to one-‐‑half (1/2) thereof. Unijeng Bros., P5,000.00 to Arturo Colmenares, P1,000.00 to Lorenzo
(3) RFC was justified in rejecting the offer, made by the Sorianos, to Balagtas. The total amount paid to the creditors is P136,000.00 which were
redeem said property for, pursuant to section 78 of Republic Act No. taken out of the proceeds of P495,000,00. The rest were all paid in the name
337, redemption could be effected "ʺonly by paying the amount fixed in of Jose Ponce de Leon."ʺ
the order of execution"ʺ; o In short, part of the sum of P495,000 had been delivered by RFC to the
(4) Ponce de Leon'ʹs counterclaim against the Sorianos is barred by the creditors of Ponce de Leon and Francisco Soriano, as agreed upon by them,
statute of limitations; in payment of their outstanding obligations, and the balance of said sum of
(5) Neither Ponce de Leon nor RFC may recover damages from the P495,-‐‑000 was turned over to the plaintiff, with the written authorization
Sorianos, their alleged bad faith not bound to pay damages to the RFC, and conformity of Francisco Soriano. This is borne out by the fact that, prior
the action of the former against the latter not being altogether to the institution of this case, Ponce de Leon had not complained of failure
unjustified. of the RFC to fully release the aforementioned sum of P495,000. Indeed, in
20. All the parties appealed from the decision. Hence this case. his own complaint herein, he merely alleged a "ʺdelay in the release."ʺ
o At any rate, the mortgage deed and promissory note, in effect, authorized
ISSUES and RULING: RFC to fix the date of maturity of the installments therein stipulated,
• [NEGO ISSUE] WON Ponce de Leon'ʹs promissory note in favor of RFC was which is allowed by the Negotiable Instruments Law and when a
overdue when the mortgage was foreclosed, because the installments in the promissory note expresses "ʺno time for payment,"ʺ it is deemed "ʺpayable
said note have "ʺno fixed or determined dates of payment"ʺ, thus making the on demand."ʺ (See Sections 13, 14, and 7 of the NIL.)
note unenforceable?
-‐‑-‐‑ NO, the note was ENFORCEABLE. NO, it was NOT overdue. DISPOSITIVE: It is thus clear that the lower court erred in annulling the RFC
o TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE DEED AND PROMISSORY NOTE: mortgage on the Parañaque property and its sale to the RFC as regards one-‐‑half of
(See Fact #6 for context) said property, and that the decision appealed from should, accordingly, be modified,
The total sum of P495,000 involved therein shall be satisfied in quarterly by eliminating therefrom the second paragraph of its dispositive part, quoted earlier
installments of P28,831.64 each— representing interest and amortization— in this decision. With this modification and that of other pertinent parts of the
and that, although the date of maturity of the first installment was left blank, decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the
the promissory note states that the "ʺdate of maturity (was) to be fixed as of costs of this instance against plaintiff, Jose L. Ponce de Leon and third-‐‑party plaintiffs,
the date of the last release,"ʺ completing the delivery to the plaintiff of the Rosalina Soriano, Teofila Soriano del Rosario and Father Eugenio Soriano. It is so
sum of P495,000 lent to him by the RFC. ordered.
o [Ponce de Leon'ʹs side] The Promissory Note in favor of RFC was overdue
when the mortgage was foreclosed. So since the installments in the
PROVISIONS:
promissory note had "ʺno fixed or determined dates of payment"ʺ, the note
was unenforceable. RFC should'ʹve first asked the court to determine the • NIL, Sec. 71. Presentment, where instrument is not payable on demand; and
terms, conditions, and period of maturity of the promissory note. Ponce de where payable on demand. –
Where the instrument is not payable on demand, presentment must be Where an instrument is issued, accepted, or indorsed when overdue, it is, as
made on the day it falls due. regards the person so issuing, accepting, or indorsing it, payable on demand.
Where it is payable on demand, presentment must be made within a ____________________________________________________________________________
reasonable time after its issue, NOTES:
But in the case of a bill of exchange, presentment for payment will be (I added the 2nd issue which is only super slightly related to Nego. This is NOT
sufficient if made within a reasonable time after the last negotiation thereof. RELEVANT to our topic in the case, but just in case Sir asks, I included it na rin hehe.)
• NIL, Section 81. When delay in making presentment is excused. – Delay in
ISSUE #2: WON the CFI erred in ruling that the promissory note and deed of
making presentment for payment is excused when the delay is caused by
mortgage executed by Francisco Soriano in favor of RFC is valid as regards 1/2 of
circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his
the property? -‐‑-‐‑ NO. The promissory note and mortgage deed executed by Soriano
default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to
is VALID.
operate, presentment must be made with reasonable diligence.
o [The Sorianos'ʹ arguments] One of the theories that the Sorianos raised was
• NIL, Section 13. When date may be inserted. – Where an instrument that when the promissory note and mortgage deed (See Fact #6) was that
expressed to be payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or when they were executed by Francisco Soriano, he was:
where the acceptance of an instrument payable at a fixed period after sight is -‐‑Somewhat absent-‐‑minded, owing to senility and being a septuagenarian,
undated, any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, -‐‑Illiterate and could only write his name
and the instrument shall be payable accordingly. The insertion of a wrong -‐‑Persuaded to sign the promissory note and mortgage deed through fraud,
date does not avoid the instrument in the hands of a subsequent holder in deceit, and undue influence
due course; but as to him, the date so inserted is to be regarded as the true -‐‑Did not know the true nature of the instruments when he affixed the
date.
signatures
• NIL, Section 14. Blanks; when may be filled. – Where the instrument is -‐‑-‐‑> Background story: Rosalina Soriano, Francisco'ʹs daughter, said that her
wanting in any material particular, the person in possession thereof has a father was an absent-‐‑minded old man. Ponce de Leon borrowed her father'ʹs
prima facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a certificate of title saying that he wanted to see if it was valid. Rosalina gave
signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making the signature in the certificate to Ponce de Leon, then it was never returned to her. It turns
order that the paper may be converted into a negotiable instrument operates out that Pocne de Leon mortgaged it to PNB, deceiving Francisco int
as a prima facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. In order, osigning the mortgage contract. In 1951, Francisco received a sheriff'ʹs notice
however, that any such instrument when completed may be enforced of foreclosure on his land. Francisco went to Ponce de Leon and got angry at
against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it him. Ponce de Leon assured Francisco that he would redeem the land, but he
must be filled up strictly in accordance with the authority given and within a never did.
reasonable time. But if any such instrument, after completion, is negotiated o Thus, the instruments are null and void because they lack cause and
to a holder in due course, it is valid and effectual for all purposes in his consideration.
hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up strictly in accordance o [CFI'ʹs decision] The fact that Francisco Soriano may have been
with the authority given and within a reasonable time. absentminded could not be said to have the effect of vitiating his consent
• NIL, Section 7. When payable on demand. – An instrument is payable on to the mortgage deed because the execution and signing of a contract is not
demand – a matter that concerns past events in which absent-‐‑ mindedness may be
(a) When it is expressed to be so payable on demand, or at sight, or on taken into account. Besides, the testimony of Rosalina Soriano to the effect
presentation; or that her father told Ponce de Leon that the latter fooled him shows that the
(b) In which no time for payment is expressed. old man Soriano could remember past events, for if truly absentminded,
Francisco would not recollect what he claims to be what really took place at Soriano is not that clear, strong and convincing evidence beyond mere
the RFC office as testified to by Rosalina. preponderance of evidence, required to show the falsity or nullity of a
o Neither could Francisco Soriano be considered feebleminded if we believe notarial document.
the testimony of Rosalina which shows Soriano'ʹs determination to see to it o With reference to the contention that there was no consideration received by
that the wrong done him was righted and that his property may not be taken Francisco Soriano out of the mortgage contract and the promissory note
away from him, for according to Rosalina, he even went to Negros alone to executed in connection therewith, this is a matter which concerned merely
see Ponce de Leon he received the Sheriff'ʹs notice of foreclosure and as Francisco Soriano and Jose L. Ponce de Leon for Francisco Soriano had
shown by his alleged going to see Ponce de Leon a number of times about expressly in writing authorized Jose L. Ponce de Leon to have the check or
his land and of his enlisting the aid of Ramon Lacson checks covering the amount of the mortgage issued in the name of said Jose
o The Sorianos stress that, according to Felipe Cuaderno, Jr., the Notary L. Ponce de Leon.
Public, when the latter asked Francisco Soriano, after he had translated the o Whatever arrangements the latter and Francisco Soriano may have had with
mortgage deed into Tagalog if he (Francisco) understood it, it was Ponce de respect to the amounts thus given by the RFC on account of the mortgage is
Leon who said that the old man already knew it. not the concern of the RFC if Ponce de Leon did not in fact give any portion
o But, granting that this was what happened, yet, Francisco Soriano would of the amount to Francisco Soriano.
certainly have protested against the statement of Ponce de Leon if Francisco o At any rate, there is ample evidence to show that Francisco Soriano received
did not really know what the transaction was about or he would have told part of the consideration of the loan from the RFC. It will be recalled that
Cuaderno that the document was not in accordance with the agreement part of this loan was paid for the obligation of Francisco Soriano and Ponce
between him and Ponce de Leon considering that the document was already de Leon to the Philippine National Bank secured by a mortgage of the lot in
translated to the old man by Cuaderno in the Tagalog language which the name of Francisco Soriano.
Soriano understood. o There is therefore no ground for declaring the mortgage contract and
o Besides, if Ponce de Leon really deceived Francisco Soriano into signing the promissory note invalid for lack of consideration insofar as Francisco
mortgage deed and promissory note so much so that in October, 1951, the Soriano and his children are concerned."ʺ4 The facts thus relied upon by His
old man Soriano was so angry at Ponce de Leon that he told the latter that he Honor, the Trial Judge, are borne out by the record, and We are fully in
fooled him as testified to by Rosalina Soriano, then why was it that Ponce de accord with the conclusions drawn therefrom.
Leon was wade one of the sponsors of the thanksgiving mass of the Neo-‐‑
Prysbeter Rev. Fr. Eugenio Soriano, the old man'ʹs son and one of the present
third-‐‑party plaintiffs?
o The conduct of the Sorianos in making Ponce de Leon one of the sponsors in
the thanksgiving mass of Rev. Fr. Eugenio Soriano in which Ponce de Leon
spent a considerable amount for the big feast that followed the mass is
inconsistent with the Sorianos'ʹ claim that Ponce de Leon had hoodwinked
Francisco Soriano into signing the mortgage instrument and the promissory
note.
o Moreover, the mere oral unsupported testimony of Rosalina Soriano, an
interested party and one of the plaintiffs herein, is not sufficient to overcome
the legal presumption of the regularity of the mortgage deed, a contract
celebrated with all the legal requisites under the safeguard of a notarial
certificate. Such unsupported testimony of the interested party Rosalina