METROBANK V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Petitioner Metrobank is estopped from refusing the discharge of the real estate mortgage on the claim that the subject property still secures other unliquidated past due loans.

Respondent GTP, requested from Metrobank that it be furnished a copy of the full indebtedness secured by the real estate mortgage. In response thereto, Metrobank issued a statement of account which amount was immediately settled and paid the next day.

Metrobank is thus barred from taking a stand inconsistent with its representation upon which respondent GTP, as an innocent third person to the real mortgage agreement, place exclusive reliance.

For an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against a person relying thereon.

It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow the case made against him it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence is produced would operate to his prejudice and support the case of his adversary.

No rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his power to prove a fact, if it exists, which if proved, would benefit him, his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive that the fact does not exist.


Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate inferences going to establish the ultimate fact that the evidence is designed to prove, and the party to be affected by the proof, with an opportunity to do so, fails to deny or explain them, they may well be taken as admitted with all the effect of the inferences afforded.

The ordinary rule is that one who has knowledge peculiarly within his own control, and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if the court puts the most unfavorable construction upon his silence, and infers that a disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by the opposing party.

Verily, Metrobank's omission to present its evidence only created an adverse inference against its cause. Therefore, it cannot now be heard to complain since CA extended a reasonable opportunity to Metrobank that it did not avail.