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.
