Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > June 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5531 June 30, 1953 - FELIX DE VILLA v. CESAREO A FABRICANTE, ET AL.

093 Phil 423:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5531. June 30, 1953.]

FELIX DE VILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CESAREO A FABRICANTE and MARIA G. DE FABRICANTE, Defendants-Appellees.

Ed. Espinosa Antona for Appellant.

Buenaventura B. Blancaflor for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOTION TO DISMISS; INSTRUMENT OF MORTGAGE AND ITS REGISTRATION, IF LOST OR DESTROYED, MAY BE PROVED BY SECONDARY EVIDENCE. — Although according to the complaint the certificates of title to the properties alleged to have been mortgaged had been destroyed during the war and had not been reconstituted, yet if the plaintiff offers to prove the mortgage and its registration "by a recital of their contents in some authentic documents, or by the recollection of witnesses," the complaint should not be dismissed. Whether plaintiff counts with sufficient competent secondary evidence is another thing and his own lookout, to be determined upon the trial. Nothing in Republic Act No. 26, known as an Act providing a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed, can be construed to have replaced or modified the rule of evidence above referred to. It could not have been its intent to leave any creditor without a remedy, which would be the case where no vestiges of the missing papers and records from which reconstitution could be made, had been salvaged or could be found.


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


This appeal is from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur handed down in a suit to foreclose a mortgage and granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The grounds of the motion, both of which were sustained, were, first, that, according to the complaint, the certificates of title to the properties alleged to have been mortgaged had been destroyed during the war and had not been reconstituted, and, second, that the action was premature by reason of the debt Moratorium Law.

The complaint, filed on October 21, 1950, alleged that the defendants, man and wife residing in the municipality of Libmanan, province of Camarines Sur, executed on April 18, 1944, a deed of mortgage on two parcels of land situated in that province, to secure the payment of P150,000 and interest payable between April 19, 1948, and April 19, 1950; that the said deed was recorded in the office of the register of deeds for the province of Camarines Sur and annotated on the backs of the originals and the duplicates of the corresponding certificates of title; that the duplicates, which had been delivered to the mortgagee, and the originals, which were on file in the office of the register of deeds, were lost or destroyed on the closing days of the late war in the Philippines; that the copy of the deed of mortgage which was retained by the notary public who notarized the instrument was saved and from it the copy attached to the complaint as Annex A was made.

We believe that the court below erred in dismissing the action. A mortgage and its registration may be shown, upon proof of their execution and loss or destruction, "by a recital of their contents in some authentic documents, or by the recollection of witnesses." (Section 51, Rule 123, of the Rules of Court. This the plaintiff said in his opposition to the motion to dismiss he would do. Whether he counts with sufficient competent secondary evidence is another thing and his own lookout, to be determined upon the trial.

Nothing in Republic Act No. 26, known as An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed, can be construed to have replaced or modified the rule of evidence above referred to. It could not have been its intent to leave any creditor without a remedy, which would be the case where no vestiges of the missing papers and records from which reconstitution could be made, had been salvaged or could be found.

At any rate, there is no question as to the sufficiency of the averments that the defendants had received from the plaintiff a loan of P150,000 and that the note had fallen due when the action was brought. Assuming the truth of these allegations, as it must be assumed for the purpose of the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff had a clear cause of action for the amount sued upon, as a simple if not mortgage debt.

The second ground of the motion to dismiss has been decided in Rutter v. Esteban, G. R. No. L-3708, May 18, 1953, * in which the Court held Republic Act No. 342 no longer in operation.

The appealed order is, accordingly, reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with law and the tenor of this decision. With costs against the appellees.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* Supra, p. 68.




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






June-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5147 June 2, 1953 - ILDEFONSO ORTIZ v. HERMOGENES MANIA

    093 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-5384 June 12, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO VISAGAR

    093 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-6055 June 12, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA

    093 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. L-4568 June 16, 1953 - LA ORDEN DE PP. BENEDICTINOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. J. A. STIVER, ET AL.

    093 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. L-6534 June 16, 1953 - IRINEO V. BERNARDO, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO PASCUAL

    093 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-5704 June 17, 1953 - REGINO CRUZ v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    093 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-5960 June 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COMISION DE SERVICIO PUBLICO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-6512 June 19, 1953 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. MARCIANO ROQUE, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-5701 June 23, 1953 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    093 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-5003 June 27, 1953 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. QUEZON COLLEGE, INC.

    093 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-5085 June 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTA G. DE HILARIO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5085

  • G.R. No. L-4920 June 29, 1953 - FRANCISCO DIANA, ET AL. v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO.

    093 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-4770 June 30, 1953 - BALTAZAR RAYMUNDO v. BRAULIO SANTOS

    093 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-4824 June 30, 1953 - LINGAYEN GULF ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY v. IRINEO BALTAZAR

    093 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-5303 June 30, 1953 - KONG CHAI PIN v. ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY

    093 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-5436 June 30, 1953 - ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL. v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-5531 June 30, 1953 - FELIX DE VILLA v. CESAREO A FABRICANTE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-5834 June 30, 1953 - ISAGANI GALANG v. JUANA PANGAN VDA. DE REYES

    093 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-5858 June 30, 1953 - FILOMENA JUZON DE PO, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-6120 June 30, 1953 - CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS v. FELICISIMO OCAMPO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-6411 June 30, 1953 - HERMENEGILDO OMEGA, ET AL. v. HON. JUEZ ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 457