Delfin Domingo Dadis Vs. Sps. Magtanggol De Guzman and Nora Q. De Guzman, and the Register of Deeds of Talavera, Nueva Ecija
G.R. No. 206008
June 7, 2017
FACTS:
On September 8, 2003, petitioner Delfin Domingo Dadis filed a Complaint against respondents Spouses Magtanggol De Guzman Nora Q. De Guzman reconveyance and damages. Delfin alleged that: he and his deceased wife, Corazon Pajarillaga Dadis, were the registered owners of a 33,494-square meter parcel of land located at Guimba, Nueva Ecija, on December 11, 1996, their daughter, Marissa P. Dadis (Marissa), entered into a contract of real estate mortgage (REM) over the subject property in favor of Magtanggol to secure a loan obligation of 1!210,000.00 that was payable on or before February 1997, the Spouses De Guzman made it appear that Marissa was authorized by the Spouses Dadis by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated December 10, 1996; the SPA was a forged document because it was never issued by him or Corazon as the signatures contained therein are not theirs, especially so since he was in the United States of America (USA) at the time.
On November 1999, Corazon died, Magtanggol informed petitioner of the transaction, but he could not remedy the situation as he had to go back to the USA in December 1999. April 2002, he returned to the Philippines and executed a SPA in favor of a friend, Eduardo Gunsay, to look into the matter and make the necessary actions; in 2003, he was able to procure copies of the documents pertaining to the mortgage, including the cancellation of their title and the issuance of a new one, TCT No. N-26572, in favor of the Spouses De Guzman; after his verification, he immediately caused the filing of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, which was annotated at the back of TCT No. N-26572; neither he nor his family benefited from the loan secured by the mortgage; no demand letter, as well as notices of the foreclosure proceedings and the consolidation of title, were sent to him; and, in view of these, he is entitled to receive from the Spouses De Guzman the amounts of ₱200,000.00 as moral damages, ₱500,000.00 as exemplary damages, ₱20,000.00 plus ₱l,000.00, per hearing as attorney's fees, interests, and other costs of suit.
The Spouses De Guzman countered that Delfin has no cause of action against them, stating that: they have no knowledge as regards the supposed falsity of the SPA presented by Marissa and Corazon at the time the latter pleaded to accommodate them into entering a mortgage contract; they have no knowledge that Delfin was not in the Philippines at the time of the execution of the SPA, which, as a duly-notarized document, was presumed to have been done regularly.
RTC favored to the petitioner and the mortgage is void and ordering the plaintiff to pay to the defendant-spouses Magtanggol de Guzman and Nora Q. de Guzman the sum of ₱210,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.
The CA reversed and set aside the R TC Decision and dismissed Delfin's complaint for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Magtanggol acted in good faith, when he entered into the loan transaction secured by a mortgage.
RULING:
The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith presupposes that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the property in his or her name and that, after obtaining the said title, he or she succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the said title, In this case, Marissa is undoubtedly not the registered owner of the subject lot; and the certificate of title was in the name of her parents at the time of the mortgage transaction. She merely acted as the attorney-in-fact of Corazon and Delfin by virtue of the falsified SPA. The protection accorded by law to mortgagees in good faith cannot be extended to mortgagees of properties that are not yet registered with the RD or registered but not under the mortgagor's name.
When the mortgagee does not directly deal with the registered owner of the real property, like an attorney-in-fact of the owner, it is incumbent upon the mortgagee to exercise greater care and a higher degree of prudence in dealing with such mortgagor.
ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration.
These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
The particular provision in the New Civil Code giving the wife ten (10) years to annul the alienation or encumbrance was not carried over to the Family Code. It is thus clear that alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal partnership property by the husband [or wife] without the consent of the wife [or husband] is null and void.
Hence, just like the rule in absolute community of property, if the husband [or wife], without knowledge and consent of the wife [or husband], sells conjugal property, such sale is void. If the sale was with the knowledge but without the approval of the wife [or husband], thereby resulting in a disagreement, such sale is annullable at the instance of the wife [or husband] who is given five (5) years from the date the contract implementing the decision of the husband [or wife] to institute the case.
As the forged SP A and REM are void ab initio, the foreclosure proceedings conducted on the strength thereof suffer from the same infirmity. Being not a mortgagee in good faith and an innocent purchaser for value at the auction sale, Magtanggol is not entitled to the protection of any right with respect to the subject property. Since it was not shown that the property has been transferred to a third person who is an innocent purchaser for value (because no intervention or third-party claim was interposed during the pendency of this case), it is but proper that the ownership over the contested lot should be retained by Delfin,
WHEREFORE, Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Regional Trial Court are REINSTATED AND UPHELD.
No comments:
Post a Comment