ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 167352.� June 15, 2005]
BANCO SAN JUAN vs. SAPUNGAY
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 15 2005.
G.R. No. 167352 (Banco San Juan, Inc. vs. Norma Sapungay represented by Nora Sapungay.)
Before us is this petition for review on certiorari of the decision [1] cralaw dated February 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69484, reversing and setting aside an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court at Tarlac City, Branch 64 which dismissed the complaint for Annulment of Special Power of Attorney and Real Estate Mortgage; Cancellation of Encumbrance under TCT No. 148965, E-34-21083 & E-34-21084; and Annulment of Foreclosure of Mortgage with Damages, thereat commenced by the herein respondent Norma Sapungay against, among others, her husband Renato Sapungay, the latter's alleged mistress, Lydia Sapalan, and the herein petitioner, Banco San Juan, Inc.
Respondent Norma Sapungay and her husband Renato Sapungay were married on April 28, 1968. sometime in 1979, Renato's parents donated to him a parcel of land which was eventually titled under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 148965 in the name of Renato "married to" Normita (or Norma) Salazar.
In 1984, Norma went to Perenz, Italy to work as a domestic helper. She remitted money to her husband for their children's support and for the construction of a house on the subject lot. The construction was completed in 1991. In 1995, Norma stopped remitting money after she discovered that Renato was keeping a certain Lydia Sapalan as his mistress.
When Norma returned home for a vacation in 1993, she entrusted the owner's copy of TCT No. 148965, which was then in her possession, to her daughter and attorney-in-fact, Nora Sapungay.
On July 19, 1993, unknown to Norma, her husband Renato filed a petition for the issuance of a second owner's copy of said title, alleging that the original thereof was eaten by termites. Thereafter, and on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney signed by Renato and purportedly by Norma in favor of respondent Lydia Sapalan, the latter mortgaged the property to herein petitioner Banco San Juan, Inc.
Renato defaulted in the payment of amortizations. Hence, on October 21, 1997, petitioner bank foreclosed the mortgage.
Upon discovering what had happened, Norma immediately filed the aforestated complaint before the Regional Trial Court, therein alleging that her purported signature on the aforementioned Special Power of Attorney was falsified.
In his answer, Renato admitted that Norma gave him the money used for the construction of their house. He claimed, however, that Norma signed a blank paper which they agreed to be used for the mortgage of the property if she fails to remit money. Sometime in 1991, when he got sick, he begged Norma to send money but the latter did not heed his request, thereby constraining him to mortgage the property with the petitioner bank. Renato insisted that Norma later gave her consent over the phone to mortgage the property.
In a decision [2] cralaw dated November 23, 2000, the trial court dismissed Norma's complaint upon its finding that the disputed property is a capital or the exclusive property of Renato, in accordance with Article 92 of the Family Code. According to the trial court, the phrase "married to" found in TCT No. 148965 was merely descriptive of Renato's civil status, and, therefore, Norma's signature on the Special Power of Attorney, even if falsified was a mere surplusage.
Aggrieved, Norma went to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court erred in holding that: (1) the disputed property was the exclusive property of Renato alone; and (2) petitioner bank was a mortgagee in good faith.
In the herein assailed decision [3] cralaw dated February 23, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside that of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 23, 2000 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(1)����������� Declaring Special Power of Attorney and the Real Estate Mortgage both dated October 10, 1994 entered as E-34-21083 and E-34-21084 in TCT No. 148965 of the Register of Deeds of the Province3 of Tarlac null and void;
(2)����������� Cancelling the annotation of encumbrance on said title; and
(3)����������� Annulling the Extra-Judicial Foreclosure Proceedings of Title No. 148965 undertaken by Notary� Public Maximo Silao.
SO ORDERED.
In its decision, the appellate court, even as it acknowledged the fact that the subject property is excluded from the community property of the spouses Renato and Norma in accordance with Article 92 of the Family Code [4] cralaw , it did not sustain the trial court's ruling that Norma's signature on the Special Power of Attorney was unnecessary.
According to the Court of Appeals, although the subject property is an exclusive property of the husband Renato, the approval of the wife, herein respondent Norma Sapungay, was still necessary for a valid disposition or encumbrance thereof because the couple built their house thereon whereat the family resides. To the appellate court, from the time they resided in said house and lot, it became their family home [5] cralaw which is protected under the Family Code, adding that the fact that the lot belongs exclusively to Renato is of no moment since Article 156 of the same Code specifically provides that the family home may be constituted on the exclusive property of either spouse with the latter's consent. [6] cralaw
We agree.
Although the subject property as a family home is not exempt from execution for debts secured by mortgages before or after its constitution as such, [7] cralaw Norma's signature on the Special Power of Attorney was still necessary by express mandate of Article 158 of the Family Code, to wit:
Article 158. The family home may be sold, alienated, donated, assigned or encumbered by the owner or owners thereof with the written consent of the person constituting the same, the latter's spouse, and a majority of the beneficiaries of legal age. In case of conflict, the court shall decide.
Clearly, it was not only Norma's consent which was necessary but also the spouses' children who are the beneficiaries of the family home. [8] cralaw
It is petitioner's main contention, however, that the appellate court committed reversible error when, in its assailed decision, it reversed that of the trial court on the basis of its own declaration that the property in question constitutes the family home, an issue which was never raised, much less touched upon, before the trial court nor assigned by respondent as error in her appeal to the Court of Appeals.
We take this occasion to reiterate once more the pronouncement of this Court that appellate courts have ample opportunity to rule on matters not specifically assigned as errors in an appeal, if these are indispensable or necessary to the just resolution of the pleaded issues. [9] cralaw
Unquestionably, one of the pleaded issues, if not the principal issue raised by respondent before the trial court is, in effect, the authority of her husband Renato to mortgage the subject property to the petitioner. Necessarily, an inquiry into such authority is indispensable to the resolution of the issues pleaded or related thereto, not the least of which is the nature of the property so mortgaged.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon with Associate Justices Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp.51-58.
[4] cralaw Article 92. The following shall be excluded from the community property.
(1)������� Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided that by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property.
[5] cralaw "ARTICLE 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of the family, is the dwelling house where they and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated.
ARTICLE 153. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law."
[6] cralaw ARTICLE 156. The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter's consent. It may also be constituted by an unmarried head of a family on his or her own property.
Nevertheless, property that is the subject of a conditional sale on installment where ownership is reserved by the vendor only to guarantee payment of the purchase price may be constituted as a family home.
[7] cralaw ARTICLE 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment except:
(1)������� For nonpayment of taxes;
(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution; and
(4)������� For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have rendered service ����������� furnished material for the construction of the building.
[8] cralaw ARTICLE 154. The beneficiaries of a family home are:
(1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head of a family; and
(2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal support.
[9] cralaw Lu vs. Manipon, 381 SCRA 788 [2002].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
