Student Name: Anne Jhae Princess R.

Antes
Date Submitted: 18 October 2022
Student Number: 2019262441 Course/Section: Propery – JD2

Case Title: Philippine National Bank v. Sps. Bernard and Cresencia Marañon
Case No.: G.R. No. 189316 Date: 1 July 2013

ISSUE: Whether or not PNB as a mortgagee in good faith, is entitled to the fruits of the subject
property.

RULES: The following laws and rules were cited:

o Art 2127, Civil Code –  The mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the
improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or income not yet received when the
obligation becomes due, and to the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to the
proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for
public use, with the declarations, amplifications and limitations established by law,
whether the estate remains in the possession of the mortgagor, or it passes into the
hands of a third person.

o Cu Unijeng e Hijos v. Mabalacat Sugar Co. – Foreclosure proceedings shall cover not
only the property but all its accessions and accessories as well.

o Castro, Jr. v. CA – An indispensable requisite of a valid real estate mortgage is that the
mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the encumbered property. Hence, Article 2127
is based on the presumption that the ownership of accessions and accessories also
belongs to the mortgagor as the owner of the principal.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS:

By virtue of a falsified Deed of Sale bearing the forged signatures of Spouses Maranon, the title
of the 152 sq. m. subject property located at Cuadra-Smith Streets, Downtown, Bacolod, was
transferred in the Name of Emelie Montealegre. The same property was mortgaged by the latter
to PNB as security for a loan. Spouses Montealegre failed to pay the loan and the property was
foreclosed by PNB, to which the latter emerged as the highest bidder.

Spouses Maranon came before RTC and sought for the annulment of the Title and its
Reconveyance of it to them. The title was reconveyed to Sps. Maranon and they were declared to
as the true registered owners of the subject lot. It further held that PNB was a mortgagee in good
faith whose lien on the subject property must be respected. The said case was not appealed by
both of the parties.
Thereafter, by virtue of a granted motion and being adjudged as the rightful owners, Spouses
Maranon were able to collect all the rental deposits made by the building tenants on the subject
property during the pendency of the case. Hence, this petition.

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS:

Philippine National Bank Sps. Bernard and Crencia Marañon

 Its mortgage lien should be carried

over to the new title reconveying the
lot to Spouses Marañon.
 Since the redemption period has
lapsed, it is now the owner of the
subject lots and is entitled to its fruits.
 They are adjudged as the real and
lawful owner of the subject lot hence,
they are entitled to its fruits.

CONCLUSION:

NO. Spouses Marañon as the legal and rightful owner of the property, is entitled to the fruits
thereof. As a general rule, all accessories and accessions accruing or attached to the mortgaged
property are included in the mortgage. This rule cannot be applied if the mortgagor is later found
or declared to be not the true owner of the property. In the case at bar, PNB’s mortgagors are not
the true owners of the property as well as the building which produced the disputed rents. Hence,
the rents that accrued cannot be given in favor of PNB.

PNB’s lien as a mortgagee in good faith only pertains to the subject land alone and its right is
only limited insofar as to have its lien carried over and annotated on the new title issued to
Spouses Maranons. The Court cannot grant the claim of PNB over the rents as clear evidence
shows that no juridical tie exists between PNB and the improvements attach on the subject land.
The rents earned by the building on the subject lots properly belong to its rightful owners,
Spouses Marañon.