G.R. No. 184565. November 20, 2013
Manolito De Leon and Lourdes E. De Leon Vs. Bank of the Philippines Islands
"In this case, petitioner Manolito's testimony that he sent notice and proof of loss of the mortgaged vehicle to Citytmst through fax lacks credibility especially since he failed to present the facsimile report evidencing the transmittal. 60 His failure to keep the facsimile report or to ask for a written acknowledgement from Citytrust of its receipt of the transmittal gives us reason to doubt the truthfulness of his testimony. His testimony on the alleged theft is likewise suspect. To begin with, no police report was presented.61 Also, the insurance policy was renewed
even after the mortgaged vehicle was allegedly stolen. 62 And despite repeated demands from respondent BPI, petitioner-spouses made no effort to communicate with the bank in order to clarifY the matter. The absence of any overt act on the part of petitioner-spouses to protect their interest from the time the mortgaged vehicle was stolen up to the time they received the summons defies reason and logic. Their inaction is obviously contrary to human experience. In addition, we cannot help but notice that although the mortgaged vehicle was stolen in November 1997, petitioner-spouses defaulted on their monthly amortizations as
early as August 10, 1997. All these taken together cast doubt on the truth and credibility of his testimony.
Thus, we are in full accord with the findings of the MeTC and theCA that
petitioner Manolito's testimony lacks credence as it is dubious and self-serving.63 Failing to prove their defense, petitioner-spouses are liable to pay their remaining obligation."
