Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

053 Phil 28:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 30513. March 19, 1929.]

VICENTE ARDOSA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL., Defendants. EL HOGAR FILIPINO, Appellant.

Antonio Sanz for Appellant.

Simeon Bitanga for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MORTGAGE; EXTRAJUDICIAL AUCTION; NULLITY OF TRANSFER AND SALE. — As the sale of the lot in question in this case, made at an extrajudicial auction, was effected in the mistaken belief that said of lot was one of the parcels of land included in the mortgage authorizing the sale of the lands therein encumbered if the debtors violated certain conditions agreed upon, it goes without saying that such a transfer by reason of said sale based on mistake, is null and void, for lack of legal consent and therefore the transfer of the certificate of title, made by virtue of such invalid sale, is also null and void before the law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The circumstance that no encumbrance appears in the original title to the lot, does not preclude this conclusion. What caused the nullity of such sale at the extrajudicial auction is not the mortgage of said lot to the plaintiff, but the fact that it is not included in the mortgage in favor of El Hogar Filipino. And whether the lot was unencumbered or not, upon the face of the certificate of title, it was not and could not have been legally affected by said sale at the extrajudicial auction, because said lot was not the subject matter of the contract between El Hogar Filipino and its aforementioned debtors.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


Although there are two lots, among other property, dealt with in the present case of foreclosure of mortgage, nevertheless, only lot No. 212 is the subject matter of this appeal, because only in it does the appellant show any interest, holding, that it validly acquired it, and that it also validly transferred the same to defendant Esteban de la Rama, who did not appeal from the judgment of the court below.

The plaintiff is the creditor of the defendant spouses Emeterio Jarder and Aniceta Ardosa for P14,800 and to secure the payment of said amount, it obtained a mortgage on several properties, among them the lands later designated by Nos. 167 and 212 in cadastral proceedings of the municipality of Manapla of the Province of Occidental Negros.

When the mortgage was executed, that is, on May 31, 1922, this parcel of land now known as lot No. 212, was not yet registered under the Land Registration Law, Act No. 496, and the said mortgage had to be registered under the provisions of Act No. 2837. This registration took place on June 16, 1922.

On June 2, 1923, the certificate of title to lot No. 212 was issued in favor of the debtor Aniceta Ardosa, under Act No. 496.

On October 8, 1924, El Hogar Filipino obtained the adjudication of said lot 212 to itself, as the highest bidder in an extrajudicial auction, held by said entity, believing itself entitled to do so by virtue of the terms of the mortgage deed executed in its favor by the said spouses Emeterio Jarder and Aniceta Ardosa, thus succeeding in procuring the transfer of the proper certificate of title to it. This action of El Hogar Filipino is based on the contention that lot 212 is one of the properties mortgaged to it by the said spouses. But such is not the case. Lot 212 was never in any way mortgaged to El Hogar Filipino, but only to plaintiff Vicente Ardosa.

As the sale of this lot 212 in the aforesaid extrajudicial auction was effected in the mistaken belief that said lot was one of the parcels of land included in the mortgage authorizing the sale of the lands therein encumbered, if the debtors violated certain conditions agreed upon, it goes without saying that such a transfer, by reason of said sale based on mistake, is null and void and, therefore, the transfer of the certificate of title, made by virtue of such invalid sale, is also null and void before the law. The circumstance that no encumbrance appears in the original title to the lot, does not preclude this conclusion. What caused the nullity of such sale at the extrajudicial auction is not the mortgage of said lot to the herein plaintiff, but the fact that it is not included in the mortgage in favor of El Hogar Filipino. And whether the lot was unencumbered or not, upon the face of the certificate of title to lot 212, it was not and could not have been legally affected by said sale at the extrajudicial auction, because said lot was not the subject matter of the contract between El Hogar Filipino and its aforementioned debtors.

From this it follows that both the transfer of this lot No. 212 to Esteban de la Rama, and the lien herein appearing in favor of El Hogar Filipino are null and void, because the person who transferred it and in whose favor the lien appears to be, could not make the transfer, and he who received said transfer could not encumber the lot, because he did not receive any right thereto.

We cannot and should not discuss the effect of the registration of the mortgage in favor of the plaintiff inasmuch as this question is not duly raised before us. The ones who could have questioned said registration were the spouses, the mortgagors, but they did not appeal from the lower court’s judgment. And in view of the conclusion we have reached the El Hogar Filipino has no legal right to or interest in the lot in question, neither can said corporation derive any benefit from discussing the effectiveness of the registration of the mortgage executed by the aforesaid debtor spouses in favor of the plaintiff, because, even supposing for a moment that such registration were ineffective and therefore that there never was a valid mortgage, such a hypothetical conclusion would not avail El Hogar Filipino anything, the latter not being the owner of the lot and having no right or interest therein.

As to the first assignment of error, we find it groundless, inasmuch as El Hogar Filipino certainly claims rights to the land under the certificate of transfer in its favor, and the certificate of transfer in favor of Esteban de la Rama, where such corporation appears as a mortgagee; and under the provisions of section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it had to be included as a defendant in the litigation.

The appealed judgment is affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172