Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v.

ABUNDIO MADRID,

8. The spouses immediately went to consult with

ET AL.,

a lawyer who accompanied them to the Office

January 30, 1960

of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. They found


out then that the land had been mortgaged to

1. The spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu


are the owners of a residential lot at 148

Constancio Joaquin on January 21, 1954.


9. The appellant admits that Abundio Madrid and
Rosalinda Yu, the registered owners of the

Provincial corner Sto. Sacramento, Makati,


Rizal, covered by TCT No. 31379 .
2. Planning to build a house thereon, the said
spouses sought a loan, in November, 1953.
3. One Carmencita de Jesus, godmother of

mortgaged property, were not those persons


who had signed the deed of mortgage.
His version of the case is as follows:
In the month of January, 1954 Carmencita de

Rosalinda, offered to work for the shortening

Jesus saw Florentino Calayag and asked the

of the usually long process before a loan could

latter to find a money-lender who could

be granted and the spouses, accepting the


proferred assistance, delivered to her the
Transfer Certificate of Title covering the lot in

grant a loan on a security of real property


She showed the TCT in the name of the

spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu.


Calayag approached Constancio Joaquin who

January, 1954, to be surrendered to ]the RFC.


4. Later the spouses were able to secure a loan

having funds to spare for the purpose,


visited the land and finding it well situated,

of P4,000.00 from their parents for the

told Calayag to show him the prospective

construction of their house and they decided


to withdraw the application for a loan they

had filed with the RFC.


5. They so informed Carmencita de Jesus and

women to the law office of Atty. M.S. Calayag


and presente them to Constancio Joaquin as

asked her to retrieve the Transfer Certificate


of Title and return it to them. Shortly
thereafter, Carmencita told them, however,

Madrid who authorized her to secure a loan

the Transfer Certificate of Title was out on

on their property, she assured him, and that

leave.
6. In August, 1954, one Florentino Calayag
asked for Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu.

Abundio would come where the contract

therefor was ready to sign it with her.


Thus, the deed of mortgage Exhibit I was
signed by the persons who posed

Rosalinda answered that she was Rosalinda Yu

themselves as Abundio Madrid and

and Abundio, that he was Abundio Madrid.


Calayag would not believe them. He said that

Rosalinda Yu and Carmencita de Jesus.


The alleged Rosalinda Yu claimed to be the
owner of the lot with her husband Abundio

that the RFC employee in charge of keeping

showed up in the house of the spouses and

borrowers.
On the following day, Calayag brought two

Rosalinda Yu on the following day.


The whole amount of the loan was delivered

he was looking for Abundio Madrid and

to the supposed Rosalinda Yu immediately

Rosalinda Yu who had executed a deed of

after the registration of the document of

mortgage on the lot where the house they

mortgage in the Office of the Register of

were in then stood, and that the term of the

Deeds of Rizal, according to Florentino

mortgage had already expired, he added.


7. Abundio and Rosalinda then retorted that they
had not mortgaged their land to anyone.

Calayag.
The appellate court found that the petitioner
"visited the property proposed for mortgage to

find out at the same time who was the real owner

proviso.

thereof. But he contented himself with the

information given to him by the person living then

part of par. 2 in the sense that in order that the

on the land that the owner was woman known as

holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of

'Taba'. There ended his inquiry about the identity

the registration of a voluntary instrument may be

of the prospective mortgagors."(Dec. of the Court

considered a holder in good faith for value, the

of Appeals, p. 8).

instrument registered should be forged. When the

This last proviso is a limitation of the first

instrument presented is forged, even if


The lower court based it decision on the case of

accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate

Lara, et al., vs. Ayroso, 95 Phil., 185, 50 Off. Gaz.,

of title, the registered owner does not thereby

(10), 4838, in which we held that as the land

lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the

mortgaged was still in the name of the real owner

forged deed acquire any right or title to the

when mortgaged to the mortgagees by an

property.

impostor, the mortgagees were defrauded not


because they relied upon what appeared in a

In the second assignment of error it is

Torrens certificate of title, but because they

further argued that as the petitioner is an

believed the words of the impostor; that it was

innocent purchaser for value, he should be

the duty of the mortgagees to ascertain the

protected as against the registered owner

identity of the man with whom they were dealing

because the latter can secure reparation

which circumstances differentiate the case

from the assurance fund.

from the previous cases of De la Cruz vs, Fabie,

35 Phil., 144 and Blondeau, et al., vs. Nano and

in not the innocent purchaser for value protected

Vallejo, 61 Phil., 625.

by law is one who purchases a titled land by

The fact is, however, that petitioner herein

virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner


ISSUE:

himself, not by a forged deed, as the law


expressly states. Such is not the situation of the

HELD:

petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors


pretending to be registered owners but who are

In the first assignment of error it is argued

not said owners.

that since par. 2 of Sec. 55 of the Land


Registration Act expressly provides that

The next assignments of errors are

predicted on the assumption that both the

"in all cases of registration by fraud the

owner may pursue all his legal and equitable

petitioner and the respondents are guilty of

remedies against the parties to the fraud, without

negligence.

prejudice to the rights of any innocent holder for

value of a certificate of title",

Carmencita de Jesus is in itself no act of

negligence on the part of respondents; it was

the second proviso in the same section

The giving of the certificate of title to

"that a registration procured by the presentation

perfectly a legitimate act.

of a forged deed shall be null and void" should be

overlooked. There is no merit in this argument,

no act of neglect either, as respondents have not

which would have the effect of deleting the last

executed any deed or document authorizing

Delay in demanding the certificate of title is

Carmencita de Jesus to execute deeds for and on


their behalf.

It was petitioner who was negligent, as he

to date, to that no court action would be resorted

to.
It further appears that the above-described car

did not take enough care to see to it that the

found its way again into the United Car

persons who executed the deed of mortgage are

Exchange which sold to O. N. Borlough on April

the real registered owners of the property.

6, 1952, in cash for P4,000. Accordingly, he

registered it on the following day with the Motor

The argument raised by petitioner's counsel

that in case of negligence on the part of both the


one who committed a breach of faith is

N. Borlough took possession of the vehicle from

responsible, is not applicable.

Vehicles Office.
It also appears from the record that defendant 0.

Petitioner alone is guilty of neglect, so he

must suffer from it.

the time he purchased it


On July 10, 1952, Fortune Enterprises, Inc.
brought action against Salvador Aguinaldo to

recover the balance of the purchase price.


Borlough filed a third-party complaint, claiming

the vehicle.
Thereupon, Fortune Enterprises, Inc. amended
its complaint, including Borlough as a defendant
and alleging that he was in connivance with
Salvador Aguinaldo and was unlawfully hiding
and concealing the vehicle in order to evade

BORLOUGH V. FORTUNE ENTERPRISES, INC. and


CA

seizure by judicial process.


Borlough answered alleging that he was in legal
possession thereof, having purchased it in good

On March 8, 1952, the United Car Exchange

faith and for the full price of P4,000, and that he

sold to the Fortune Enterprises, Inc

had a certificate of registration of the vehicle

Chevrolet
Type :

(1947);
Sedan;

Plate

No.

34-1465

Motor No. EAA-20834 (Exhibit D).

The same car was sold by the Fortune

Enterprises, Inc. to Salvador Aguinaldo


Aguinaldo executed a promissory note for not

issued by the Motor Vehicles Office, and he


prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, the
return of the vehicle and for damages against

the plaintiff.
The vehicle was seized by the sheriff of Manila

paying in full. The amount of P2,400 payable in

on August 4, 1952 and was later sold at public

20 installments including interest thereon at 12

auction.
The CFI rendered judgment in favor of Borlough, it

per cent per annum.


To secure the payment of promissory note,

ordered Fortune Enterprices to pay Borlough the

Aguinaldo executed a deed of chattel mortgage

sum of P4,000, with interest at 6 per cent per

over said car. The deed was duly registered in

annum, from the date of the seizure of the car on

the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila at

August 4, 1952, and in addition thereto, attorney's

1:12 p.m. on March 11, 1952.


Aguinaldo, as the buyer-mortgagor defaulted in

fees in the sum of P1,000.

the payment of the installments due, counsel for

Upon appeal to the CA, it modified of the judgment

Fortune Enterprises Inc. addressed a letter on

on the ground that the mortgage was superior, being

May 16, 1952, requesting him to make the

prior in point of time, to whatever rights may have

necessary payment and to keep his account up

been acquired by Borlough by reason of his

possession and by the registration of his title in the


Motor Vehicle Office.

Implied repeals are not favored; implied repeals are


permitted only in cases of clear and positive

ISSUE: Whether the prior mortgage executed over a

inconsistency.
The first paragraph of section 5 indicates that the

motor vehicle, registered under the Chattel Mortgage

provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicles Law

Law only, without annotation thereof in the Motor

regarding registration and recording of mortgage are

Vehicles Office, should prevail over a subsequent

not incompatible with a mortgage under the Chattel

registration of the vehicle in the Motor Vehicles Office

Mortgage Law.
The section merely requires report to the Motor

accompanied by actual possession of the motor vehicle.

Vehicles Office of a mortgage; it does not state

NO

that the registration of the mortgage under the


HELD: the court upheld the right to vehicle of
Borlough

as

against

mortgage to Fortune

the

previous

and

prior

Enterprises, which failed to

record its lien in accordance with the Revised Motor


Vehicles Law
It is to be noted that under section 4 (b) of the Revised
Motor Vehicles Law the Chief of the Motor Vehicles

Chattel Mortgage Law is to be dispensed with.


We have, therefore, an additional requirements in
the Revised Motor Vehicles Law, aside from the
registration of a chattel mortgage, which is to report
a mortgage to the Motor Vehicles Office, if the
subject of the mortgage is a motor vehicle; the report
merely

supplements

or

complements

the

Office is required to enter or record xxx transfers of

registration.
The recording provisions of the Revised Motor

motor vehicles "with a view of making and keeping the

Vehicles Law, therefore, are merely complementary

same and each all of them as accessible as possible to


and for persons and officers properly interested in the

to those of the Chattel Mortgage Law.


A mortgage in order to affect third persons should

same," and to "issue such reasonable regulations

not only be registered in the Chattel Mortgage

governing the search and examination of the documents

Registry, but the same should also be recorded in

and records . . . as will be consistent with their

the motor Vehicles Office as required by section 5

availability to the public and their safe and secure

(e) of the Revised Motor Vehicles Law. And the

prevention."

failure of the respondent mortgage to report the

Two recording laws are here being invoked, one by each

mortgage executed in its favor had the effect of

contending party the Chattel Mortgage Law (Act No.

making

1508), by the mortgagor and the Revised Motor Vehicles

Borlough, who had his purchase registered in

Law (Act No. 3992), by a purchaser in possession. What

the said Motor Vehicles Office.

effect did the passenger of the Revised Motor Vehicles


Law have on the previous enactment?
Passage of the Revised Motor Vehicles Law had the
effect of repealing the Chattel Mortgage Law, as
regards registration of motor vehicles and of the
recording of transaction affecting the same.
The provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicles Law

said

mortgage

ineffective

against

Revised Motor Vehicles Law


is a special legislation enacted to "amend and

Chattel Mort
is a general

compile the laws relative to motor vehicles

of personal p

the latest attempt to assemble and compile the


motor vehicle laws of the Philippines, all the earlier
laws on the subject having been found to be very
deficient in form as well as in substance

on registration are not inconsistent with does of the

it had been designed primarily to control the

Chattel Mortgage Law.

registration and operation of motor vehicles


On failure to comply with the statute, the transferee's title
is rendered invalid as against a subsequent purchaser

from the transferor, who is enabled by such failure of

The Revised Motor Vehicles Law, expressly and

compliance to retain the indicia of ownership, such as a

specifically regulate the registration, sale or transfer and

subsequent purchaser in good faith, or a purchaser from

mortgage of motor vehicles. The following provisions of

a conditional buyer in possession; and the lien of a

said law may help decide the legal question now under

chattel mortgage given by the buyer to secure a

consideration:

purchase money loan never becomes effective in such

SEC. 5 (c) Reports of motor vehicle

case as against an innocent purchaser. (60 Corpus Juris

sales. On the first day of each month,

Secundum, p. 171.)

every dealer in motor vehicles shall

One holding a lien on a motor vehicle, in so far as he

furnish the Chief of the Motor Vehicles

can reasonably do so, must protect himself and

Office a true report showing the name

others thereafter dealing in good faith by complying

and address of each purchase of a

and requiring compliance with the provisions of the

motor vehicle during the previous month

laws concerning certificates of title to motor

and the manufacturer's serial number

vehicles, such as statutes providing for the notation

and motor number; a brief description of

of liens or claims against the motor vehicle

the vehicle, and such other information

certificate of title or manufacturer's certificate, or for

as the Chief of the Motor Vehicles Office

the issuance to the mortgagee of a new certificate of

may require.

ownership.

SEC. 5 (e) Report of mortgages.

Where the lien holder has satisfied himself that the

Whenever any owner hypothecates or

existence of the lien is recited in the certificate of title, he

mortgage any motor vehicle as surety

has done all that the law contemplates that he should do,

for a debt or other obligation, the

and there is notice to the public of the existing lien, which

creditor or person in whose favor the

continues valid until the record shows that it has been

mortgage is made shall, within seven

satisfied and a new certificate issued on legal authority,

days, notify the Chief of the Motor

even though another certificate which does not disclose

Vehicles Office in writing to the effect,

the lien is procured as the result of false statements

stating the registration number of the

made in the application therefore, and the vehicle is

motor vehicle, date of mortgage, names

purchased by a bona fide purchaser.

and addresses of both parties, and such

The holder of a lien who is derelict in his duty to comply

other information as the Chief of the

and require compliance with the statutory provisions acts

Motor Vehicles Office may require. This

at his own peril, and must suffer the consequence of his

notice shall be signed jointly by the

own negligence; and accordingly, he is not entitled to the

parties to the mortgage.

lien as against a subsequent innocent purchaser filed as

On

provided by other chattel mortgage statutes. The rule is

foreclosure of the mortgage, a similar

otherwise, however, as against claimants not occupying

written notice signed by both parties,

the position of innocent purchaser, such as a judgment

shall be forwarded to the Chief of the

creditor, or one acquiring title with actual notice of an

Motor Vehicles Office by the owner.

unregistered lien, and the statutes do not protect a

These notice shall be filed by the

purchaser holding under registered title if a link in the

Chief of the Motor Vehicles Office in

title is forgery. Moreover, such statute will not impair

the

vested rights of a mortgage under a chattel mortgage

absence of more specific information,

duly recorded. (60 C.J.S., pp. 181-182.

shall be deemed evidence of the true

termination,

motor

cancellation

records,

and

in

or

the

status of ownership of the motor

necessary that the property be first

vehicle.

liquidated and transferred in the name of

(Revised

Motor

Vehicles

Law.)

the surviving spouse and the heirs of the


deceased wife by means of extrajudicial
settlement or partition and that the
consent of such other heir or heirs must
be procured by means of another
document ratifying this sale executed by
their father.

TEODORO ALMIROL v. ROD OF AGUSAN

In view of such refusal, Almirol went to CFI of


Agusan on a petition for mandamus , to compel
the Register of Deeds to register the deed of sale

On June 28, 1961 Teodoro Almirol purchased from

and to issue to him the corresponding transfer

Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in the

certificate of title, and to recover P5,000 in moral

municipality of Esperanza, province of Agusan, and

damages and P1,000 attorney's fees and expenses

covered by original certificate of title P-1237 in the


name of "Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M.

of litigation.
Almirol's asserted that it is but a ministerial duty of

Abalo."
Sometime in May, 1962 Almirol went to the office of

the respondent to perform the acts required of him,

the Register of Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to

remedy in the ordinary course of law.

register the deed of sale and to secure in his name a

transfer certificate of title.


Registration was refused by the Register of Deeds

and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate

damages, the ROD of Agusan reiterated the grounds


stated in his letter of May 21, 1962, averred that the

upon the following grounds, inter alia, stated in his

petitioner has "other legal, plain, speedy and

letter of May 21, 1962:

adequate remedy at law by appealing the

1. That Original Certificate of Title No. P-

decision of the respondent to the Honorable

1237 is registered in the name of

Commissioner of Land Registration," and prayed

Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M.

for dismissal of the petition.

Abalo, and by legal presumption, is


considered conjugal property;
2. That in the sale of a conjugal property
acquired after the effectivity of the New
Civil Code it is necessary that both

In his answer with counterclaim for P10,000

CFI, on October 16, 1963, ", dismissed the petition and


declared that "mandamus does not lie . . . because the
adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of Rep.
Act 1151.

spouses sign the document; but

3. Since, as in this case, the wife has

ISSUE: whether mandamus will lie to compel the

already died when the sale was made,

respondent to register the deed of sale in question. NO

the surviving husband can not dispose

HELD: The court a quo correctly dismissed the petition

of the whole property without violating

for mandamus.

the existing law (LRC Consulta No. 46

The administrative remedy must be resorted to by the

dated June 10, 1958).

petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.

Hence the present appeal by Almirol.

To effect the registration of the

Under Section 4 of RA 1151 (An Act Creating the Land

aforesaid deed of absolute Sale, it is

Registration Commission) provides that "where any

party in interest does not agree with the Register of

or

Deeds . . . the question shall be submitted to the

registration, all that he is supposed to do is to

Commissioner of Land Registration," who thereafter

submit and certify the question to the Commissioner

shall "enter an order prescribing the step to be taken

of Land Registration who shall, after notice and

or memorandum to be made," which shall be

hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be

"conclusive and binding upon all Registers of

taken on the doubtful question. Section 4 of R.A. 1151

Deeds."

reads as follows:

The Court also held that ROD of Agusan has no legal

other

instrument

presented

to

him

for

Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of

grounds to refuse to register the deed.

Land Registration. When the Register of Deeds is in

Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the register

doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or

of deeds to determine; this function belongs properly to a

memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed,

court of competent jurisdiction.

mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for

The law on registration does not require that

registration, or where any party in interest does not

only valid instruments shall be registered. How

agree with the Register of Deeds with reference to any

can parties affected thereby be supposed to

such matter, the question shall be submitted to the

know their invalidity before they become aware,

Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the

actually or constructively, of their existence or of

certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the

their provisions?
If the purpose of registration is merely to give

question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the

notice, then questions regarding the effect or

thereupon the Commissioner, after consideration of the

invalidity of instruments are expected to be

matter shown by the records certified to him, and in case

decided after, not before, registration.


It must follow as a necessary consequence

of registered lands, after notice to the parties and

that registration must first be allowed, and


validity or effect litigated afterwards. (Gurbax
Singh Pablo & Co. vs. Reyes and Tantoco, 92
Phil. 182-183).
Indeed, a register of deeds is entirely precluded by
section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising his
personal judgment and discretion when confronted
with the problem of whether to register a deed or
instrument on the ground that it is invalid.
For under the said section, when he is in doubt as to
the proper step to be taken with respect to any deed

suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and

hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be


taken or memorandum to be made. His decision in such
cases shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers
of Deeds: Provided, further, That when a party in interest
disagrees

with

the

ruling

or

resolution

of

the

Commissioner and the issue involves a question of law,


said decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court
within thirty days from and after receipt of the notice
thereof.