In a case involving a property dispute, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a bank which accepts a mortgage based on a seemingly valid title, after exercising due diligence, is considered a mortgagee in good faith. This means that even if the mortgagor’s title is later proven to be based on a fraudulent transaction, the bank’s right to foreclose the property and consolidate the title in its name will be respected. This ruling underscores the importance of the integrity of the Torrens system and protects financial institutions that rely on clean titles when granting loans. This decision highlights the balance between protecting property rights and ensuring stability in financial transactions.

Void Title, Valid Mortgage? PNB’s Due Diligence Dilemma

This case revolves around a parcel of land in Nueva Ecija originally owned by Spouses Victor and Filomena Andres. After their deaths, a series of transactions led to the property being mortgaged to Philippine National Bank (PNB) by Reynaldo Andres, a nephew of Onofre Andres, who claimed ownership. Onofre filed a complaint, alleging that Reynaldo’s title was based on a falsified “Self-Adjudication of Sole Heir” document. The trial court sided with Onofre, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring PNB’s title valid. The central legal question is whether PNB could be considered a mortgagee in good faith, thereby protecting its rights despite the defects in the mortgagor’s title.

The Supreme Court addressed whether a valid title could be derived from a void one, and whether PNB qualified as an innocent mortgagee for value and in good faith. The court emphasized that a petition for review on certiorari should only raise questions of law, not questions of fact. Determining whether PNB acted in good faith and exercised due diligence are factual issues, which generally fall outside the scope of the Court’s review. The Court acknowledged that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive.

Petitioner heirs argued that the trial court did not explicitly rule on PNB’s good faith but impliedly rejected it by declaring the mortgage void due to a lack of object and cause. They highlighted that the extrajudicial partition among the heirs of Victor and Filomena Andres was flawed, as it omitted three children, thus invalidating subsequent transfers of title. The Court of Appeals, however, found that PNB followed standard banking practices by inspecting the property and verifying the title before approving the loan. PNB’s representative, Gerardo Pestaño, testified that he investigated the property’s status with the Register of Deeds and Assessor’s Office.

The Court of Appeals emphasized that PNB acted in good faith by relying on the face of the title presented by Spouses Reynaldo Andres and Janette de Leon, which appeared regular and free from any encumbrances. The court highlighted the principle established in Cabuhat v. Court of Appeals, which protects innocent mortgagees for value. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, citing the doctrine of protecting mortgagees and innocent purchasers in good faith, which stems from the social interest in the indefeasibility of titles. This doctrine places the burden of discovering invalid transactions on the co-owners or predecessors of the title holder.

The Court acknowledged that banks are businesses imbued with public interest, requiring them to maintain high standards of integrity and performance. Banks must exercise greater care, prudence, and due diligence in their property dealings. The standard practice includes conducting an ocular inspection of the property and verifying the title’s genuineness to determine the real owner(s). Unlike the bank in Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, PNB complied with this standard operating practice. The Court noted that PNB’s appraiser, Gerardo Pestaño, conducted an ocular inspection and verified the property’s ownership status.

Petitioner heirs argued that Pestaño’s investigation was insufficient and that he should have discovered that Reynaldo Andres did not own the residential building on the property. They also claimed PNB was negligent by not considering the two-year period under Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. The Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that PNB’s appraiser conducted an ocular inspection, verified the property’s status at relevant government offices, and interviewed laborers working on the property. Moreover, the two-year period under Rule 74, Section 4 had lapsed, and no heir or creditor of Roman Andres had invoked their right under this provision. Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC 4. Liability of distributees and estate. – If it shall appear at any time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation.  And if within the same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.

The Court found that PNB complied with the standard operating practice expected of banks when dealing with real property. The Supreme Court reiterated that banks must exercise greater care, prudence, and due diligence in all their property dealings. The Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ findings that PNB complied with the standard practices and met the requisite level of diligence when it inspected the property and verified its ownership and title. As a result, PNB was deemed a mortgagee in good faith, and its title from the foreclosure sale was protected.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether PNB was an innocent mortgagee for value and in good faith, which would protect its right to the property despite defects in the mortgagor’s title. The case hinged on whether PNB exercised due diligence in verifying the title before granting the loan.
What does it mean to be a mortgagee in good faith?	A mortgagee in good faith is one who relies on a seemingly valid title without any signs that would arouse suspicion, and who exercises due diligence in investigating the property before accepting it as collateral. This protects the mortgagee’s rights even if the mortgagor obtained the title through fraud.
What steps did PNB take to verify the title?	PNB sent its appraiser, Gerardo Pestaño, to conduct an ocular inspection of the property, verify the status of ownership with the Register of Deeds and Assessor’s Office, and interview laborers working on the property. He also requested and inspected the property’s tax declaration.
Why did the Supreme Court side with PNB despite the falsified document?	The Supreme Court sided with PNB because the bank had exercised due diligence in verifying the title and had no reason to suspect any irregularity. The Court upheld the principle that an innocent mortgagee for value is protected, even if the mortgagor’s title was later found to be defective.
What is the significance of Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 74, Section 4 allows excluded heirs or unpaid creditors to compel the settlement of an estate within two years after its distribution if they were unduly deprived of their lawful participation. However, this rule did not apply in this case as the two-year period had lapsed and Onofre Andres was not an excluded heir or creditor.
What is the standard of due diligence expected of banks in property dealings?	Banks, as businesses impressed with public interest, are expected to exercise greater care, prudence, and due diligence in all their property dealings. This includes conducting an ocular inspection of the property and verifying the genuineness of the title.
How does this case relate to the principle of indefeasibility of titles?	The indefeasibility of titles, as embedded in the Torrens system, supports the protection of mortgagees and innocent purchasers in good faith. It promotes stability and reliability in land transactions by allowing parties to rely on the face of a clean title.
What was the key difference between this case and Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation?	In Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, the bank failed to conduct an ocular inspection of the property, which was a crucial factor in the court’s decision. In contrast, PNB complied with the standard practice of conducting an ocular inspection and verifying the title.

This case reaffirms the importance of due diligence in property transactions, especially for banks and other financial institutions. It underscores the protection afforded to innocent mortgagees for value, balancing the need to protect property rights with the need to ensure stability and confidence in financial transactions. Understanding these principles is crucial for anyone involved in real estate and mortgage dealings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Onofre Andres vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 173548, October 15, 2014