G.R. No. L-18177; August 30, 1962
REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISABEL ACUÑA DE NEPOMUCENO, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of LUBIN NEPOMUCENO, ANTONIO NEPOMUCENO and VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The defendants-appellants, the Nepomucenos, obtained a loan of P300,000 from the plaintiff-appellee Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) on September 17, 1952. To secure the loan, they mortgaged a parcel of land in Caloocan, Rizal, and three motor vessels. The loan was payable in quarterly amortizations. Due to the defendants’ failure to pay the installments, RFC extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage under Act No. 3135 . The foreclosure sale of certain mortgaged properties (five diesel engines, one boat, and the land) yielded a total of P39,000. After applying this amount to the outstanding obligation, a substantial deficiency balance remained.
RFC filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover this deficiency judgment, alleging a balance of P270,013.42. The defendants filed motions for a bill of particulars, one of which was granted, and subsequently filed an answer denying material allegations and asserting that the complaint stated no cause of action for a deficiency judgment. During trial, RFC presented its evidence, including an itemized statement of account (Exhibit “F”) showing a balance due of P270,183.82. After RFC rested its case, the defendants sought postponement to present evidence of alleged payments, but when the hearing resumed, they failed to proceed. The trial court, perceiving the maneuver as dilatory, rendered judgment in favor of RFC.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in (1) denying a subsequent motion for a bill of particulars, (2) holding that RFC proved its cause of action, and (3) rendering a decision supported by the evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no merit in the assigned errors. On the procedural issue, the Court found no error in the denial of the defendants’ second motion for a bill of particulars, as an initial motion had already been granted and complied with by RFC, providing sufficient particularity for the defendants to prepare their defense. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court held that RFC successfully proved its cause of action for the recovery of the deficiency. The defendants’ challenge to the competence of RFC’s witnesses and the variance between an earlier statement (Exhibit “1”) and the final statement of account (Exhibit “F”) was unavailing. The Court noted that the first witness was properly withdrawn for lack of personal knowledge, and the subsequent witness—the accountant who actually maintained the accounts—competently explained that the difference in amounts was due to legitimate additional charges such as insurance and incidental expenses. This testimony remained uncontroverted, as the defendants failed to present any contrary evidence despite being given an opportunity. Consequently, the trial court’s factual findings and conclusion that RFC established the existence and amount of the indebtedness were upheld. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.