TEOFILA ILAGAN-MENDOZA and ROSARIO ILAGAN URCIA, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CALATAGAN RURAL BANK, INC., GEMINIANO T. NOCHE, as President of Calatagan Rural Bank, and REMEDIOS DE CLARO and EDMUNDO RODRIGUEZ, as Sheriffs.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, petitioners instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit. [18] Petitioners filed a joint appeal with the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 56688. On 19 July 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed CA-G.R. CV No. 56688 and affirmed the RTC Decision dated 3 October 1996. The Court of Appeals held: Appellants contend that there was no need for the bank to foreclose the mortgage on the Urcia spouses property since it could run after either Teofila as co-maker or Rosario whose quedan was in the banks possession and is sufficient to pay the loans. The contention is untenable. Art. 1216 of the New Civil Code gives the creditor the right to proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The choice of the solidary debtor or against whom the solidary creditor will enforce collection is left to the latter (PNB vs. Independent Planters Association, Inc., 122 SCRA 113). Similarly, the choice of remedy to effect collection pertains to the creditor. On the other hand, the bank cannot run after Rosarios quedan because she is not indebted to it. The loan was exclusively obtained by Alberto. And Rosario did not assign her quedan to the bank as payment for Albertos obligations. x x x x x x x The death of the debtor does not extinguish his civil liability as his estate will answer for it (Art. 1078, Civil Code). Since the quedans belong to Estanislao, the proceeds thereof should be applied to his own obligation. In this sense, Estanislao can be considered a debtor of the bank, even after his death, concerning his unpaid loans. x x x x Considering the foregoing, appellants computation of Estanislaos loans from the bank is, at best, sketchy and self-serving and renders the purported overpayment implausible. Consequently, We uphold the court a quos finding that Estanislao is indebted to the bank in the amount of P67,000.00. As aptly observed by the trial court: The Central Bank Report speaks for itself. It was adopted by the petitioners as their own evidence and was marked as Exhibits J, RRR-1 to RRR-3. There is presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. And the Court finds the report of the Central Bank employees as regards the computation of the loans of the late Estanislao Ilagan to be correct. In fine, the lower court committed no error in its appealed decision. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas (Balayan, Branch 10) is AFFIRMED in toto . The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration [19] filed by petitioners in a Resolution [20] dated 6 February 2006. Petitioners thus filed on 20 March 2006 this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, raising the following issues: ISSUES FOR SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION NO. 1701 WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON CAN VALIDLY CONTRACTED (sic) A LOAN AFTER HIS DEATH. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOAN OBTAINED AFTER THE DEA