ASG Law

Tag: Article 2085 Civil Code

  • Mortgagor’s Ownership and Estoppel: Upholding Real Estate Mortgage Validity

    The Supreme Court ruled that a real estate mortgage (REM) is valid if the mortgagor was the declared owner of the property at the time the mortgage was created, even if a contract to sell for a dwelling unit on the property was executed later. The Court also held that the mortgagors were estopped from denying the validity of the mortgage, as they had benefited from the loan and allowed the property to be foreclosed. This decision reinforces the principle that parties cannot benefit from a contract and then later challenge its validity, ensuring stability in real estate transactions.

    Can a Prior Tax Declaration Validate a Mortgage Despite a Later Contract to Sell?

    The case revolves around spouses Alejandro and Myrna Reblando who obtained a loan from Philippine National Bank (PNB), securing it with a real estate mortgage (REM) over two properties, one of which was identified as Lot No. 10. When the Reblandos defaulted on their loan, PNB foreclosed on the properties. The Reblandos then filed a complaint seeking the nullification of the mortgage over Lot No. 10, arguing they weren’t the owners when the mortgage was constituted, relying on a Contract to Sell entered into after the mortgage.

    PNB countered that the mortgage was valid, as the Reblandos had already mortgaged Lot No. 10 in the original REM contract. The central legal question was whether the mortgage over Lot No. 10 was valid, considering the Reblandos’ claim that they did not own the lot when the mortgage was created. Article 2085 of the Civil Code specifies the requisites for a valid mortgage, including that the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the property.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Reblandos, declaring the mortgage over Lot No. 10 null and void, primarily because the RTC believed the Reblandos were not the absolute owners of the property at the time of the mortgage. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, agreeing that PNB should have exercised more diligence in determining the ownership of Lot No. 10. The appellate court highlighted that the Contract to Sell indicated the Reblandos only acquired rights to the property after the mortgage was constituted, reinforcing the idea that they were not the owners at the time of the mortgage.

    However, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, finding that the mortgage over Lot No. 10 was valid. The Court emphasized that the RTC and CA made factual errors by overlooking crucial evidence. The Court pointed out that the original REM contract, executed on January 28, 1992, included Lot No. 10 as collateral. Crucially, Tax Declaration (TD) No. 59006, issued on September 12, 1990, declared Alejandro Reblando as the owner of Lot No. 10, predating the mortgage.

    The Court stated:

    Contrary to the findings of the courts a quo, the evidence on record reveals that, at the time the subject mortgage was created, respondent Alejandro was the declared owner of Lot No. 10. His ownership is reflected in TD No. 59006 issued on September 12, 1990 or a little less than two years prior to the constitution of the mortgage on Lot No. 10 in January 1992. The fact of being in actual possession of the property is another indication of such ownership.

    The Supreme Court clarified that the Contract to Sell pertained to a dwelling unit, Unit No. 10, and not to the land itself. Therefore, the contract did not negate Alejandro’s ownership of Lot No. 10 as evidenced by the tax declaration. The Court cited Cequeña v. Bolante, emphasizing the evidentiary value of tax declarations and receipts in establishing ownership:

    Tax receipts and declarations are prima facie proofs of ownership or possession of the property for which such taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof of actual possession of the property, they may become the basis of a claim for ownership. x x x

    Moreover, the Supreme Court invoked the principle of estoppel. Estoppel prevents a party from denying the validity of a contract after enjoying its benefits. Rule 131, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court states:

    Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.

    The Court reasoned that the Reblandos, having entered into the mortgage contract, benefited from the loan, and then defaulted, were estopped from challenging the mortgage’s validity. This ruling aligns with the principle articulated in Toledo v. Hyden, that a party cannot deny the validity of a contract after enjoying its benefits.

    The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of thorough due diligence in real estate transactions and reinforces the principle that parties are bound by their agreements, especially when they have benefited from them. The court noted that the Reblandos acted in bad faith by attempting to mislead the lower courts by omitting a portion of the REM contract as an annex to the complaint, concealing the simultaneity of the mortgage. Parties should not attempt to deceive courts into believing their cause by making it appear that their evidence supports their position when, in fact, it is not in any way related to the case.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the mortgage over Lot No. 10 was valid, given the Reblandos’ claim that they did not own the lot at the time the mortgage was created. The Supreme Court examined the validity of the mortgage in relation to the requirements of Article 2085 of the Civil Code.
    What is a real estate mortgage (REM)? A real estate mortgage is a contract where real property is used as security for the fulfillment of an obligation, typically a loan. If the borrower defaults, the lender can foreclose on the property to recover the debt.
    What is the principle of estoppel? Estoppel prevents a party from denying the validity of a contract or agreement after benefiting from it. It is based on the idea that it would be unfair and unjust to allow someone to take advantage of an agreement and then later challenge its validity.
    What is the significance of a tax declaration in proving ownership? Tax declarations and receipts are considered prima facie evidence of ownership or possession of property. While not conclusive, they can support a claim of ownership, especially when coupled with actual possession of the property.
    What was the importance of the Contract to Sell in this case? The Contract to Sell was presented by the Reblandos to argue that they did not own Lot No. 10 at the time of the mortgage. However, the Supreme Court found that the contract pertained to a dwelling unit (Unit No. 10) and not the land itself, thus it didn’t negate Alejandro’s ownership of Lot No. 10.
    Why did the Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision? The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision because the lower courts overlooked key evidence, specifically the tax declaration showing Alejandro as the owner of Lot No. 10 prior to the mortgage. Additionally, the lower courts misconstrued the Contract to Sell as evidence against ownership of the land.
    What is required for a valid mortgage? According to Article 2085 of the Civil Code, the following are the requisites for a valid mortgage: (a) that it be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation; (b) that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged; and (c) that the persons constituting the mortgage have free disposal of their property, and in the absence of free disposal, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.
    What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision on estoppel? The Supreme Court based its decision on estoppel on the fact that the Reblandos entered into the mortgage contract, benefited from the loan, and then defaulted. The Court reasoned that they could not then challenge the validity of the mortgage after enjoying its benefits, without any proof of coercion or fraud on the part of PNB.

    This case provides important guidance on the factors considered in determining the validity of a real estate mortgage, particularly regarding ownership and the application of estoppel. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of honest and transparent conduct in legal proceedings. Parties must act with justice, honesty, and good faith in their dealings, and should not attempt to deceive the courts by manipulating evidence.

    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: Philippine National Bank vs. Spouses Alejandro and Myrna Reblando, G.R. No. 194014, September 12, 2012

  • Mortgage Law in the Philippines: Why You Can’t Mortgage Property You Don’t Own

    Understanding Mortgage Law: Why Ownership Matters in Philippine Real Estate Transactions

    TLDR; This case clarifies a fundamental principle in Philippine mortgage law: you cannot validly mortgage property you do not own. A mortgage constituted on property still owned by another party, like the government in a contract-to-sell scenario, is void from the beginning. This ruling protects property rights and ensures the integrity of real estate transactions in the Philippines.

    G.R. Nos. 115981-82, August 12, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine losing your home due to a loan taken out by someone who didn’t fully own the property in the first place. This was the predicament at the heart of Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals. In the Philippines, where land ownership disputes are common, this case underscores a critical aspect of mortgage law: the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the property being mortgaged. The case revolves around a property in Paco, Manila, initially awarded by the City of Manila to Julio Arizapa under a contract to sell. The legal battle ensued when Ruben Lagrosa attempted to claim rights over the property based on a mortgage executed by Arizapa before he fully owned it. The central legal question: Can a mortgage be validly constituted on property that the mortgagor does not yet fully own?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP AS A MORTGAGE REQUIREMENT

    Philippine law is very clear on the requisites for a valid mortgage. Article 2085 of the Civil Code of the Philippines explicitly states the essential requirements for contracts of pledge and mortgage. Crucially, paragraph (2) mandates: “That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged.” This provision is not merely a technicality; it is a cornerstone of property law designed to prevent fraudulent transactions and protect the rights of true property owners.

    This requirement of absolute ownership stems from the very nature of a mortgage. A mortgage is a real right, a lien that attaches to specific property to secure the fulfillment of an obligation. It essentially allows a creditor to have the property sold to satisfy a debt if the borrower defaults. However, you can only encumber or give as security what you rightfully possess. If the mortgagor is not the absolute owner, they cannot confer a valid security interest to the mortgagee.

    Prior Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld this principle. For instance, it is well-established that a contract to sell does not immediately transfer ownership to the buyer. Ownership is retained by the seller until full payment of the purchase price. During the contract to sell period, the prospective buyer only has an inchoate right, a mere expectancy of ownership, not absolute dominion over the property. Therefore, any mortgage constituted by the buyer before acquiring full ownership is legally infirm.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: LAGROSA VS. BANUA – A TALE OF TWO EJECTMENT SUITS

    The Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals case unfolded through a series of legal actions, highlighting the complexities of property disputes. Here’s a step-by-step breakdown:

    1. City of Manila’s Land Award: The City of Manila awarded the property to Julio Arizapa under a contract to sell, payable over 20 years.
    2. Arizapa’s Mortgage: Before fully paying for the property and obtaining title, Arizapa mortgaged his ‘rights’ to Presentacion Quimbo. He later defaulted on this loan.
    3. Assignment to Lagrosa: Quimbo, instead of foreclosing, assigned the mortgage to Ruben Lagrosa. Lagrosa claimed this assignment gave him possessory rights.
    4. Conflicting Ejectment Suits:
      • Banua’s Ejectment (Civil Case No. 93-65646): Evelyn Banua, Arizapa’s heir who obtained title from the City of Manila after full payment, filed an ejectment case against Lagrosa to recover possession. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 49) ruled in Banua’s favor.
      • Lagrosa’s Ejectment (Civil Case No. 92-62967): Lagrosa, surprisingly, also filed an ejectment case against Cesar Orolfo, Banua’s caretaker. In this case, the MTC and RTC (Branch 12) initially ruled in Lagrosa’s favor due to the defendant’s (Orolfo’s) former counsel’s negligence in presenting evidence.
    5. Court of Appeals Consolidation: To resolve the conflicting RTC decisions, the Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases.
    6. Court of Appeals Ruling: The Court of Appeals sided with Banua, affirming the decision in Civil Case No. 93-65646 and reversing the decision in Civil Case No. 92-62967. The CA declared the mortgage and its assignment to Lagrosa void because Arizapa was not the absolute owner when he mortgaged the property.
    7. Supreme Court Appeal: Lagrosa appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues about the validity of the mortgage and Banua’s title.
    8. Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, firmly stating that “For a person to validly constitute a valid mortgage on real estate, he must be the absolute owner thereof as required by Article 2085 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.” The Court emphasized that since Arizapa was not the absolute owner when he mortgaged his ‘rights,’ the mortgage was void, and consequently, Lagrosa acquired no rights through the assignment. The Supreme Court also highlighted that in ejectment cases, the only issue is possession de facto, and Banua, holding the title, had a superior right to possess.

    The Supreme Court quoted its agreement with the Court of Appeals’ finding that:

    “The Deed of Assignment of Mortgage executed by Presentacion B. Quimbo in his favor. This deed of assignment was correctly declared illegal by the Honorable Romeo Callejo in SP No. 31683. It was declared illegal for the simple reason that the Deed of Mortgage executed by the late Julio Arizapa in favor of Presentacion D. Quimbo was fatally defective in that the property subject thereof was still owned by the City of Manila when said deed of mortgage was executed.”

    And further reiterated the principle:

    “Even if the mortgage is valid as insisted by herein petitioner, it is well-settled that a mere mortgagee has no right to eject the occupants of the property mortgaged. This is so, because a mortgage passes no title to the mortgagee. Indeed, by mortgaging a piece of property, a debtor merely subjects it to lien but ownership thereof is not parted with.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND AVOIDING VOID MORTGAGES

    Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of due diligence and understanding property rights in real estate transactions, especially mortgages in the Philippines. This case has significant practical implications for:

    • Prospective Mortgagees (Lenders): Lenders must conduct thorough due diligence to verify the mortgagor’s absolute ownership. This includes checking the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and tracing the ownership history. In cases involving properties under contract to sell or similar arrangements, lenders should be extremely cautious and recognize the risk of a void mortgage if the borrower is not yet the absolute owner.
    • Property Buyers under Contracts to Sell: Buyers under contracts to sell should be aware that they do not have absolute ownership until full payment and title transfer. Mortgaging the property before acquiring full ownership is legally risky and can lead to complications and legal battles.
    • Real Estate Professionals: Lawyers, brokers, and agents involved in real estate transactions have a responsibility to advise their clients about the ownership requirements for valid mortgages and the implications of contracts to sell.

    Key Lessons from Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals:

    • Absolute Ownership is Key: A valid real estate mortgage requires the mortgagor to be the absolute owner of the property.
    • Contracts to Sell Do Not Transfer Ownership Immediately: Under a contract to sell, ownership remains with the seller until full payment. Mortgaging property under such contracts before full payment is precarious.
    • Void Mortgage = No Rights: A void mortgage confers no rights to the mortgagee or their assignees, including the right to possess or eject occupants.
    • Due Diligence is Crucial: Lenders and buyers must conduct thorough due diligence to verify ownership and the nature of property rights before engaging in mortgage transactions.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is a Contract to Sell?

    A: A Contract to Sell is an agreement where the seller promises to sell property to the buyer upon full payment of the purchase price. Ownership is not transferred until the full price is paid.

    Q2: What makes a mortgage valid in the Philippines?

    A: For a mortgage to be valid, several requisites must be met, including: it must secure a principal obligation, the mortgagor must be the absolute owner, and the mortgagor must have free disposal of the property.

    Q3: What happens if a mortgage is declared void?

    A: A void mortgage is considered invalid from the beginning. It has no legal effect, and the mortgagee acquires no rights over the property, including the right to foreclose or possess the property based on that void mortgage.

    Q4: Can I mortgage property if I only have a Contract to Sell?

    A: Technically, you can mortgage your rights under the contract to sell, but this is different from mortgaging the property itself. Lenders are often hesitant to accept mortgages on mere rights because of the inherent risks and complexities. A mortgage on the property itself, constituted before you become the absolute owner, will likely be deemed void.

    Q5: What should lenders do to avoid void mortgages?

    A: Lenders should conduct thorough due diligence, including title verification at the Registry of Deeds, to confirm the borrower’s absolute ownership. They should also carefully review the borrower’s documents and the nature of their property rights.

    Q6: What is an ejectment case?

    A: An ejectment case is a summary court proceeding to recover possession of real property. It focuses solely on who has the right to physical possession (possession de facto), not necessarily ownership.

    Q7: Is a Deed of Assignment of Mortgage valid if the original mortgage is void?

    A: No. If the original mortgage is void, any assignment of that mortgage is also void because you cannot assign rights that do not legally exist.

    Q8: What is the significance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)?

    A: The TCT is the primary evidence of ownership of registered land in the Philippines. It provides crucial information about the property’s owner and any encumbrances on it. Verifying the TCT is a fundamental step in due diligence for real estate transactions.

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