Tambunting v.

Rehabilitation Finance Corporation

G.R. Nos. 54224-25
FACTS:
 Spouses Escueta obtained a loan from RFC which loan was secured by a mortgage
over the land owned by the former.
 Subsequently, with the consent of RFC, Escuetas created a second mortgage over
the same property to secure another loan obtained from Spouses Tambunting.
 Escuetas defaulted in the payment of both loans.
 RFC obtained the property after commencing an extra-judicial foreclosure and sale
thereof.
 Meanwhile, Tambuntings offered to redeem the property from RFC to which the
latter agreed to with a condition of right of redemption in favor of Escuetas.
 Within the redemption period, Escuetas assigned their right of redemption to
Spouses Hernandez.
 RFC then notified the Tambunting that their contract of conditional sale was deemed
revoked in view of the redemption by Hernandez, the Escuetas' successor-in-
interest.
 However, Tambunting refused to sell the land to Hernandez claiming that Escuetas
violated the stipulation concerning the redemption.
RTC: ruled in favor of RFC
CA: affirmed in toto

ISSUE:
Whether the assignment made by Escuetas in favor of Hernandez violated the
terms of the mortgage – NO

RULING:
 Regarding the matter of whether or not the assignment was fictitious is an issue of
fact and the CA’s resolution is final and conclusive on this Court. 
 The contention that the deed of assignment executed by the Escuetas in favor of
Hernandez was violative of Spouses Tambunting’s second mortgage is untenable.
 A mortgagor, by encumbering his property, does not ordinarily lose the right to sell
the same or create another mortgage over it, although of course obliged, when
exercising said right, to preserve and maintain the superiority of the prior
mortgagee's rights.
 Indeed, recognition of the propriety of subsequent encumbrances is implicit in the
grant of the right of redemption by Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended, in cases of
extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, to "any person having a lien on the property
subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold," in
addition to the "debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment
creditor of said debtor.
 While agreements prohibiting the owner form constituting subsequent mortgages
over the property has been held to be permissible, stipulations forbidding the owner
from alienating the mortgaged immovable are expressly declared void by law (Art.
2130).
- ARTICLE 2130. A stipulation forbidding the owner from alienating the immovable
mortgaged shall be void. (n)
 The provision in the Deed of second mortgage between Escuetas and Tambuntings
prohibiting the subsequent agreements can only be construed as directed against
subsequent mortgages or encumbrances, not to alienation.
 The assignment was not a subsequent mortgage but was actually a sale.
 The Court also ruled that since the Spouses Tambunting, in their own deed of
conditional sale with the RFC, had accepted the provision that said contract could be
revoked within 1 year at the option of RFC should the EScuetas exercise their right
to redeem the property, they cannot go against said provision in their agreement.
 The acquisition by the Spouses Hernandez of the Escuetas' right over the property
carried with it the assumption of the obligations burdening the property.
- By stepping into the latter’s shoes, they now had the obligation to pay the
mortgage debts.