Key Takeaway: Notarization Irregularities Do Not Invalidate a Mortgage, But Damage Awards Require Clear Evidence

Pastora Ganancial v. Betty Cabugao, G.R. No. 203348, July 06, 2020

Imagine borrowing money and using your property as collateral, only to find yourself entangled in a legal battle over the validity of the mortgage document. This scenario is not uncommon in the Philippines, where disputes over real estate mortgages can lead to complex legal proceedings. In the case of Pastora Ganancial versus Betty Cabugao, the Supreme Court had to untangle a web of allegations and legal arguments surrounding a mortgage agreement. The central question was whether irregularities in notarization could invalidate a mortgage, and what evidence is needed to justify awards of damages.

Pastora Ganancial borrowed P130,000 from Betty Cabugao, securing the loan with her property in Pangasinan. The relationship soured, leading to lawsuits over the validity of the mortgage deed. Ganancial claimed she never signed the mortgage, while Cabugao sought to foreclose on the property. The case traversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, which had to determine the validity of the mortgage and the propriety of damage awards.

Understanding Mortgage and Damage Laws in the Philippines

In the Philippines, a mortgage is a legal agreement where a borrower uses property as security for a loan. Under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, a valid mortgage requires the borrower to be the absolute owner of the property, the mortgage to secure a principal obligation, and the borrower to have free disposal of the property. Additionally, Article 2125 states that while registration of the mortgage is required for it to be valid against third parties, the mortgage is still binding between the parties even if unregistered.

Notarization adds a layer of authenticity to documents, but as seen in Camcam v. Court of Appeals, irregularities in notarization do not necessarily invalidate a contract. Instead, such flaws reduce the document’s evidentiary value from public to private, requiring proof of due execution and authenticity for admissibility in court.

When it comes to damages, the Civil Code is clear. Moral damages, under Article 2217, are awarded for mental anguish or similar injuries resulting from wrongful acts. Exemplary damages, as per Article 2232, may be granted if the defendant acted in a wanton or fraudulent manner. Attorney’s fees, outlined in Article 2208, can be awarded in specific circumstances, such as when exemplary damages are granted or when the defendant’s actions compelled the plaintiff to litigate.

Consider a scenario where a homeowner mortgages their property to secure a loan for a business venture. If the notarization of the mortgage deed is later found to be irregular, the mortgage remains valid between the homeowner and the lender, but the homeowner would need to prove the deed’s authenticity in any legal dispute.

The Journey of Ganancial v. Cabugao

Pastora Ganancial and Betty Cabugao’s relationship began with a seemingly straightforward loan agreement. Ganancial borrowed P130,000 from Cabugao, using her property as collateral. However, when Ganancial failed to repay the loan, Cabugao sought to foreclose on the property. Ganancial claimed she was tricked into signing a blank document, which Cabugao later filled out as a mortgage deed.

The dispute led to two lawsuits filed in the RTC of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Cabugao filed for foreclosure, while Ganancial sought to declare the mortgage deed null and void. The RTC consolidated the cases and ruled in favor of Cabugao, finding no clear evidence of forgery and awarding her damages based on Ganancial’s alleged bad faith.

Ganancial appealed to the CA, arguing that the mortgage deed was invalid due to notarization irregularities. The CA upheld the RTC’s decision, stating that notarization flaws do not affect the deed’s validity and that Ganancial failed to prove forgery.

The case reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the mortgage’s validity despite notarization issues. However, the Court found fault with the RTC’s damage awards, noting that the trial court did not clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases for these awards, as required by Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution and Rule 36, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

“An irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a document to that of a private document, which requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence.”

And regarding damages:

“The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court deleted the damage awards, finding insufficient evidence of Ganancial’s bad faith and no justification for attorney’s fees and litigation costs under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

The ruling in Ganancial v. Cabugao has significant implications for property owners and lenders in the Philippines. It reaffirms that a mortgage’s validity is not solely dependent on proper notarization, emphasizing the importance of proving the authenticity of the mortgage deed in disputes.

For property owners, this case underscores the need to be cautious when signing documents, ensuring they understand the contents and implications. Lenders should also be diligent in documenting their agreements to avoid disputes over the validity of mortgage deeds.

Key Lessons:

• Irregularities in notarization do not automatically invalidate a mortgage agreement.
• Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove fraud or bad faith in mortgage disputes.
• Courts must provide clear and distinct reasons for awarding damages, adhering to constitutional and procedural mandates.
• Parties should carefully document their agreements to avoid disputes over document authenticity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What makes a mortgage valid in the Philippines?

A mortgage is valid if it secures a principal obligation, the mortgagor is the absolute owner of the property, and the mortgagor has free disposal of the property. Registration is required for validity against third parties but not for the mortgage to be binding between the parties.

Can a mortgage be invalidated due to notarization issues?

No, notarization irregularities do not invalidate a mortgage. They only affect the document’s evidentiary value, requiring additional proof of authenticity in legal disputes.

What is required to prove bad faith in a mortgage dispute?

Bad faith must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a standard higher than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Under what circumstances can moral and exemplary damages be awarded?

Moral damages can be awarded if the defendant’s wrongful act caused mental anguish or similar injuries. Exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, or malevolent manner.

What are the grounds for awarding attorney’s fees?

Attorney’s fees may be awarded in specific instances, such as when exemplary damages are granted, when the defendant’s actions compelled the plaintiff to litigate, or when the court deems it just and equitable.

ASG Law specializes in real estate and civil litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.