Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Appellants, spouses Barretto, have filed a motion vigorously urging, for reason to be discussed in the course of this resolution, that our decision of 28 January 1961 be reconsidered and set aside, and a new one entered declaring that their right as mortgagees remain superior to be unrecorded claim of herein appellee for the balance of the purchase price of her rights, title, and interest in the mortgaged property.

It will be recalled that, with Court authority, Rosario Cruzado sold all her right, title, and interest and that of her children in the house and lot herein involved to Pura L. Villanueva for P19,000.00. The purchaser paid P1,500 in advance, and executed a promissory note for the balance of P17,500.00. However, the buyer could only pay P5,500 on account of the note, for which reason the vendor obtained judgment for the unpaid balance. In the meantime, the buyer Villanueva was able to secure a clean certificate of title (No. 32526), and mortgaged the property to appellant Magdalena C. Baretto, married to Jose G. Barretto, to secure a loan of P30,000.03, said mortgage having been duly recorded.

Pura Villanueva defaulted on the mortgage loan in favor of Barreto. The latter foreclosed the mortgage in her favor, obtained judgment, and upon its becoming final asked for execution on 31 July 1958. On 14 August 1958, Cruzado filed a motion for recognition for her "vendor’s lien" in the amount of P12,000.00 plus legal interest, invoking Articles 2242, 2243, and 2249 of the new Civil Code. After hearing, the court below ordered the "line" annotated on the back of Certificate of Title No. 32526, with the proviso that in case of sale under the foreclosure decree the vendor’s lien and the mortgage credit of appellant Barreto should be paid pro rata from the proceeds. Our original decision affirmed this order of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Appellants insists that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The vendor’s lien, under Articles 2242 and 2243 of the new Civil Code of the Philippines, can only become effective in the event of insolvency of the vendee, which has not been proved to exist in the instant case; and

(2) That the appellee Cruzando is not a true vendor of the foreclosed property.

We have given protracted and mature consideration to the facts and law of this case, and have reached the conclusion that our original decision must be reconsidered and set aside, for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. The previous decision failed to take fully into account the radical changes introduced by the Civil Code of the Philippines into the system of priorities among creditors ordained by the Civil Code of 1889.

Pursuant to the former Code, conflicts among creditors entitled to preference as to specific real property under Article 1923 were to be resolved according to an order of priorities established by Article 1927, whereby one class of creditors could exclude the creditors of lower order until the claims of the former were fully satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the real property subject of the preference, and could even exhaust such proceeds if necessary.

Under the system of the Civil Code of the Philippines, however, only taxes enjoy a similar absolute preference. All the remaining thirteen classes of preferred creditors under Article 2242 enjoy no priority among themselves, but must be paid pro rata, i.e., in proportion to the amount of the respective credits. Thus, Article 2249 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"if there are two or more credits with respect to specific real property or real rights, they shall be satisfied pro rata, after the payment of the taxes and assessments upon the immovable property or real right."cralaw virtua1aw library

But in order to make the prorating fully effective, the preferred creditors enumerated in Nos. 2 to 14 of Article 2242 (or such of them as have credits outstanding) must necessarily be convened, and the import of their claims ascertained. It is thus apparent that the full application of Articles 2249 and 2242 demands that there must be first some proceeding where the claims of all the preferred creditors may be bindingly adjudicated, such as insolvency, the settlement of a decedent’s estate under Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, or other liquidation proceedings of similar import.

This explains the rule of Article 2243 of the new Civil Code that —

"The claims or credits enumerated in the two preceding articles 1 shall be considered as mortgages or pledges of real or personal property or liens within the purview of legal provisions governing insolvency . . ." (Emphasis supplied).

and the rule is further clarified in the Report of the Code Commission, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The question as to whether the Civil Code and the Insolvency Law can be harmonized is settled by this Article (2243). The preferences named in Articles 2261 and 2262 (now 2241 and 2242) are to be enforced in accordance with the Insolvency Law." (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, it becomes evident that one preferred creditor’s third-party claim to the proceeds of a foreclosure sale (as in the case now before us) is not the proceeding contemplated by law for the enforcement of preferences under Article 2242, unless he claimant were enforcing a credit for taxes that enjoy absolute priority. If none of the claims is for taxes, a dispute between two creditors will not enable the court to ascertain the pro rata dividend corresponding to each, because the rights of the other creditors likewise enjoying preference under Article 2242 can not be ascertained. Wherefore, the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila now appealed from, decreeing that the proceeds of the foreclosure sale be apportioned only between appellant and appellee, is incorrect and must be reversed.

In the absence of insolvency proceedings (or other equivalent general liquidation of the debtor’s estate), the conflict between the parties now before us must be decided pursuant to the well established principle concerning registered lands; that a purchaser in good faith and for value (as the appellant concededly is) takes registered property free from liens and encumbrances other than statutory liens and those recorded in the certificate of title. There being no insolvency or liquidation, the claim of the appellee, as unpaid vendor, did not acquire the character and rank of a statutory lien co-equal to the mortgagee’s recorded encumbrance, and must remain subordinate to the latter.

We are understandably loath (absent a clear precept of law so commanding) to adopt a rule that would undermine the faith and credit to be accorded to registered Torrens titles and nullify the beneficent objectives sought to be obtained by the Land Registration Act. No argument is needed to stress that if a person dealing with registered land were to be held to take it in every instance subject to all the fourteen preferred claims enumerated in Article 2242 of the new Civil Code, even if the existence and import thereof can not be ascertained from the records, all confidence in Torrens titles would be destroyed, and credit transactions on the faith of such titles would be hampered, if not prevented, with incalculable results. Loans on real estate security would become aleatory and risky transactions, for no prospective lender could accurately estimate the hidden liens on the property offered as security, unless he indulged in complicated, tedious investigations. The logical result might well be a contraction of credit to unforeseeable proportions that could lead to economic disaster.

Upon the other hand, it does not appear excessively burdensome to require the privileged creditors to cause their claims to be recorded in the books of the Register of Deeds should they desire to protect their rights even outside of insolvency or liquidation proceedings.

B. The close study of the facts disclosed by the records casts strong doubt on the proposition that appellees Cruzados should be regarded as unpaid vendors of the property (land, buildings and improvements) involved in the case at bar so as to be entitled to preference under Article 2242. The record on appeal, specially the final decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the suit of the Cruzados against Villanueva, clearly establishes that after her husband’s death, and with due court authority, Rosario Cruzado, for herself and as administratrix of her husband’s estate, mortgaged the property to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) to secure repayment of a loan of P11,000, in installments but that the debtor failed to pay some of the installments; wherefore the RFC, on 24 August 1949, foreclosed the mortgage, and acquired the property, subject to the debtor’s right to redeem or repurchase the said property; and that on 25 September 1950, the RFC consolidated its ownership, and the certificate of title of the Cruzados was cancelled and a new certificate issued in the name of the RFC.

While on 26 July 1951 the RFC did execute a deed selling back the property to the erstwhile mortgagors and former owners Cruzados in installments, subject to the condition (among others) that the title to the property and its improvements "shall remain in the name of the Corporation (RFC) until after said purchase price, advances and interest shall have been fully paid", as of 27 September 1952, Cruzado had only paid a total of P1,360, and had defaulted on six monthly amortizations; for which reason the RFC rescinded the sale, and forfeited the payments made, in accordance with the terms of the contract of 26 July 1951.

It was only on 10 March 1953 that the Cruzados sold to Pura L. Villanueva all "their rights, title, interest and dominion on and over" the property, lot, house, and improvements for P19,000.00, the buyer undertaking to assume payment of the obligation to the RFC, and by resolution of 30 April 1953, the RFC approved "the transfer of the rights and interests of Rosario P. Cruzado and her children in their property herein above-described in favor of Pura L. Villanueva" ; and on 7 may 1953 the RFC executed a deed of absolute sale of the property to said party, who had fully paid the price of P14,269.03. Thereupon, the spouses Villanueva obtained a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 32526 in their name.

On 10 July 1953, the Villanuevas mortgaged the property to the spouses Barreto, appellants herein.

It is clear from the facts above-stated that ownership of the property had passed to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation since 1950, when it consolidated its purchase at the foreclosure sale and obtained a certificate of title in its corporate name. The subsequent contract of resale in favor of the Cruzados did not revest ownership in them, since they failed to comply with its terms and conditions, and the contract itself provided that the title should remain in the name of the RFC until the price was fully paid.

Therefore, when after defaulting in their payments due under the resale contract with the RFC the appellants Cruzados sold to Villanueva "their rights, title, interest and dominion" to the property, they merely assigned whatever rights or claims they might still have thereto; the ownership of the property rested with the RFC. The sale from Cruzado to Villanueva, therefore, was not so much a sale of the land and its improvements as it was a quitclaim deed in favor of Villanueva. In law, the operative sale was that from the RFC to the latter, and it was the RFC that should be regarded as the true vendor of the property. At the most, the Cruzados transferred to Villanueva an option to acquire the property, but not the property itself, and their credit, therefore, can not legally constitute a vendor’s lien on the corpus of that property that should stand on an equal footing with the mortgaged credit held by appellants Barretto.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the previous decision of this Court, promulgated on 28 January 1961, is hereby reconsidered and set aside, and a new one entered reversing the judgment appealed from and declaring the appellants Barrettos entitled to full satisfaction of their mortgaged credit out of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale in the hands of the Sheriff of the City of Manila. No costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador and Dizon, JJ., did not take part.

Endnotes:

---

* Editor’s Note: See main decision in 1 SCRA 288.

1. Arts. 2241 (credits affecting specific personality) and 2242 (credits on realty).