GR 149926; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149926 ; February 23, 2005
Union Bank of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Edmund Santibañez and Florence Santibañez Ariola, respondents.
FACTS
Efraim Santibañez obtained two loans from First Countryside Credit Corporation (FCCC), secured by promissory notes he executed with his son Edmund. Upon Efraim’s death, testate proceedings commenced. During pendency, the heirs, Edmund and respondent Florence Ariola, executed a Joint Agreement to divide three tractors (the loan collaterals) and individually assume the corresponding loan obligations. FCCC later assigned its assets and liabilities, including the loans, to Union Savings and Mortgage Bank. Petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) subsequently demanded payment and filed a collection suit against the heirs.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. It found the claim should have been filed in the probate court as a money claim against the estate. It also ruled the Joint Agreement was void for lack of probate court approval and constituted an invalid extrajudicial partition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of UBP’s collection suit against the heirs.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, but on a more fundamental ground: UBP’s lack of legal personality to sue. The petition was premised on UBP being the successor-in-interest to FCCC via an assignment to Union Savings and Mortgage Bank. However, the evidence only showed a Deed of Assignment between FCCC and Union Savings and Mortgage Bank. UBP presented no documentary or testimonial evidence to prove that Union Savings and Mortgage Bank had been subsumed by or was the same entity as UBP. Judicial notice of such corporate identity could not be taken, as it lacked the requisite notoriety and every reasonable doubt must be resolved in the negative.
Consequently, UBP failed to establish its standing as the real party-in-interest. Having no personality to institute the action, it necessarily failed to prove its cause of action. The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court committed no error in affirming the dismissal. The Court found it unnecessary to delve extensively into the issues regarding the propriety of the filing venue or the validity of the Joint Agreement, as the fatal defect in UBP’s legal personality was dispositive of the case.