Banks Beware: Due Diligence is Key to Validating Mortgage Rights

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SILVESTRA CERENA AND HEIRS OF HILARION ALONZO REPRESENTED BY ALFREDO ALONZO, NAMELY: ALFREDO ALONZO, BASILICA A. NORONA, IN REPRESENTATION OF LIBERATO ALONZO (DECEASED): DUEDELYN, JACQUELINE AND ANDY, ALL SURNAMED ALONZO, IN REPRESENTATION OF ALEJANDRO ALONZO (DECEASED), LUCILA, LOLITA AND REYNALDO, ALL SURNAMED NATOLIA, IN REPRESENTATION OF CANDELARIA A. NATOLIA (DECEASED), RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 107109, February 06, 1996

Imagine a bank foreclosing on a property, only to discover later that their claim to it is invalid. This scenario, while seemingly improbable, highlights the critical importance of due diligence in real estate transactions, especially for financial institutions. The case of Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals underscores the principle that banks cannot blindly rely on titles; they must conduct thorough investigations to ensure the legitimacy of their mortgage claims. This case serves as a stark reminder that failing to exercise due diligence can result in significant financial losses and legal setbacks.

The Doctrine of Mortgagee in Good Faith Explained

The concept of a “mortgagee in good faith” is central to this case. A mortgagee in good faith is someone who lends money secured by a property, believing that the borrower has a valid right to mortgage it. However, this protection is not absolute. Philippine law requires mortgagees, especially banks, to exercise a higher degree of care. This is because banking institutions are imbued with public interest and handle money belonging to depositors.

Article 2085 of the Civil Code defines the essential requisites of a mortgage, including that the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged, and that they have free disposal of their property, or else be legally authorized for the purpose. Banks cannot simply rely on the face of a title; they must investigate beyond it.

For example, imagine a homeowner, Juan, wants to mortgage his land. The bank must not only check the title but also verify if there are any other claims or occupants on the property. If tenants are living on the land, the bank has a responsibility to inquire about their rights. A failure to do so may nullify their claim as a mortgagee in good faith.

How PNB Lost Its Claim: A Case Breakdown

The dispute originated from two parcels of land owned by the spouses Adriano Alonzo and Damiana Basibas. After their deaths, a series of transactions led to Margarita Alonzo selling a portion of the land to the Daa spouses. The Daa spouses then obtained loans from PNB, using the land as collateral. When the Daa spouses defaulted, PNB foreclosed on the property and consolidated the title in its name. However, the heirs of Hilarion and Hilario Alonzo contested the sale and mortgage, arguing that Margarita Alonzo was not a legitimate heir and therefore had no right to sell the land.

The case proceeded through the following key stages:

• Regional Trial Court (RTC): The RTC ruled in favor of the Alonzo heirs, finding that Margarita Alonzo was not a legitimate heir and that PNB failed to exercise due diligence.
• Court of Appeals (CA): The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, with a minor modification regarding attorney’s fees.
• Supreme Court (SC): PNB appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that its internal policies on asset disposition should be considered.

The Supreme Court ultimately denied PNB’s petition. The Court highlighted several critical lapses on PNB’s part, stating:

Banks, indeed should exercise more care and prudence in dealing even in registered lands, than private individuals for their business is one affected with public interest, keeping in trust money belonging to their depositors which they should guard against loss by not committing any act of negligence which amounts to lack of good faith…

The Court emphasized that PNB failed to conduct a proper investigation of the property before granting the loan, particularly noting the lack of a loan application and the failure to verify the occupants of the land. The Court further stated:

Clearly, petitioner is not entitled to an indemnity equivalent to the property’s fair market value considering that the subject lot cannot be considered an “acquired asset” under General Circular 49-98/ 84 entitled “New Scheme for Disposition of Assets Acquired.”

Practical Implications for Banks and Borrowers

This case has significant implications for banks and other lending institutions. It reinforces the need for stringent due diligence procedures before approving loans secured by real estate. Banks must go beyond simply checking the title; they must conduct thorough investigations to verify ownership, identify occupants, and uncover any potential claims or encumbrances on the property.

For borrowers, this case highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in loan applications. Providing accurate information and disclosing any potential issues with the property can help avoid future disputes and legal complications. It also reminds landowners of the importance of properly registering and protecting their property rights.

Key Lessons:

• Due Diligence is Paramount: Banks must conduct thorough investigations beyond the title to ensure the legitimacy of mortgage claims.
• Transparency Matters: Borrowers should be transparent about property ownership and potential issues.
• Protect Property Rights: Landowners should properly register and protect their property rights to avoid future disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What does it mean to be a “mortgagee in good faith”?

A: A mortgagee in good faith is someone who lends money secured by a property, believing that the borrower has a valid right to mortgage it, without knowledge of any defects in the title.

Q: What level of due diligence is expected of banks in mortgage transactions?

A: Banks are expected to exercise a higher degree of care than private individuals. They must investigate beyond the title to verify ownership, identify occupants, and uncover potential claims or encumbrances.

Q: What happens if a bank fails to conduct due diligence?

A: If a bank fails to conduct due diligence, it may lose its rights as a mortgagee in good faith, and its claim to the property may be invalidated.

Q: What can borrowers do to ensure a smooth mortgage transaction?

A: Borrowers should be transparent about property ownership and disclose any potential issues with the property during the loan application process.

Q: How does this case affect future real estate transactions?

A: This case reinforces the need for stringent due diligence procedures in real estate transactions, particularly for financial institutions, and highlights the importance of protecting property rights.

Q: What is the effect of canceling PNB’s consolidated title?

A: The cancellation of PNB’s consolidated title had the effect of rendering the same null and void and utterly worthless. In other words, PNB never acquired a valid title over the subject lot, so that the same cannot be considered its “acquired asset.”

ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Banking Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.