Evelyn Ruiz vs Bernardo Dimailig [G.R. No.

204280; November 9, 2016]

AUTHOR: John Maverick Espinola
TOPIC: Real Estate Mortgage
PONENTE: Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
 Bernardo F. Dimailig (Dimailig) was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-
361747 located in Alapan, Imus, Cavite.
 In 1997, he entrusted the owner's copy of the said TCT to his brother, Jovannie, who in turn gave the
title to Editha Sanggalang, a broker, for its intended sale.
 In 1998, the property was mortgaged to Evelyn V. Ruiz as evidenced by a Deed of REM without
Bernardo's knowledge and consent.
 Hence, Bernardo instituted this suit for annulment of the Deed of REM.
 Ruiz alleged that she:
o She met Jovannie when she inspected the subject property and assured her that Bernardo
owned the property and his title thereto was genuine.
o Jovannie mortgaged the property to her.
 In the pre-trial, both parties stipulated that it was not Dimailig who signed as mortgagor of the
property.
 In his testimony, Jovannie said:
o Sometime in December 1997, Editha convinced him to surrender the owner's copy of TCT No. T-
361747 which she would show her buyer.
o Editha then informed him that she misplaced the title. Hence, he executed in an affidavit of loss
and registered it with the RD. Editha finally admitted that the title was not lost but was in
Evelyn's possession because of the REM.
o Upon learning this, he inquired from Evelyn if Editha mortgaged Bernardo's property to her.
Purportedly, Evelyn confirmed said mortgage and told him that she would not return the
owner's copy of TCT No. T-361747 unless Editha pay the loan.
o He told Evelyn that Bernardo's alleged signature in the REM was not genuine since he was
abroad at the time of its execution.
 Ruiz still maintained that she was a mortgagee in good faith.
 The RTC dismissed the complaint. Ruled that Ruiz is a mortgagee in good faith.
 The CA, however, reversed the decision of the RTC, stating that Ruiz is not a mortgagee in good faith
since she failed to verify the real identity of the person introduced to her as Dimailig.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON Ruiz is a mortgagee in good faith
 No. Ruiz failed to prove that she is a mortgagee in good faith.
 Generally, no valid mortgage will arise unless the mortgagor has a valid title or ownership over
the mortgaged property.
 However, as an exception, a mortgagee can invoke that he or she derived title even if the
mortgagor's title on the property is defective, if he or she acted in good faith. In such instance,
the mortgagee must prove that no circumstance that should have aroused her suspicion on the
veracity of the mortgagor's title on the property was disregarded.
  The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith assumes that the title to the subject property had
already been transferred or registered in the name of the impostor who thereafter transacts
with a mortgagee who acted in good faith
 However, in this case, the title remained to be registered in the name of Bernardo, the rightful
and real owner, and not in the name of the impostor.
 Also, in this case, Ruiz failed to prove that she is a mortgagee in good faith.
 The Court took into consideration the following:
o First, the Deed of REM was established to be a forged instrument. As aptly discussed by
the CA, Bernardo did not and could not have executed it as he was abroad at the time of
its execution. During pre-trial, both parties agreed that it was not Bernardo who signed
as the mortgagor in the Deed of REM. For being a forged instrument, the Deed of REM is
a nullity and conveys no title.
o Second, Evelyn cannot invoke the protection given to a mortgagee in good faith. As
discussed, the title to the subject property remained registered in the name of
Bernardo. It was not transferred to the impostor's name when Evelyn transacted with
the latter.
o Third, Evelyn did not take the necessary steps to determine any defect in the title of the
alleged owner of the mortgaged property. She deliberately ignored pertinent facts that
should have aroused suspicion on the veracity of the title of the mortgagor "Bernardo."
o Fourth, the Court observes that Evelyn hastily granted the loan and entered into the
mortgage contract. As also testified by Corazon, a day after the supposed ocular
inspection on the property, Evelyn and "Bernardo" executed the Deed of REM even
without Evelyn verifying the identity of the property's occupant as well as the right of
the mortgagor, if any, over the same. Indeed, where the mortgagee acted with haste in
granting the loan, without first determining the ownership of the property being
mortgaged, the mortgagee cannot be considered as an innocent mortgagee in good
faith.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the October 22, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 95046 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Camper Realty Corp. vs. Maria Nena Pajo-Reyes, G.R. No.
179543 October 6, 2010 Author: Adrian
FACTS:
1. Rodolfo Pajo caused the notarization on March 27, 1974 by Atty. Naraval of a SPA executed by him and
purportedly by his 4 siblings: Nena, Godofredo, Tito and Isaias. The SPA authorized Rodolfo to sell a parcel
of land with an area of 8,060 sq m, situated in Davao City.
2. The day after, Rodolfo sold the property to Ligaya
Bajado who thereafter caused the cancellation of the title and issuance of a new title in her name.
3. 2 days after he notarized the SPA, Atty. Naraval
observed that all the signatures, except that of Rodolfo, were forged. He then wrote a letter to Rodolfo’s co-
owners, cancelling the SPA from his notarial register.
4. After Ligaya passed away, the property was
bequeathed to her son, Augusto. Ligaya’s title was cancelled and a new title was issued in the name of Augusto.
5. Augusto divided the property into two: one containing
7,420 sq m, which was sold to Camper Realty Corp (title was still in Augusto’s name), and the other, 640 sq m he
retained.
6. After 19 years, Nena filed a complaint against Augusto
and Rodolfo and Godofredo for declaration of nullity and cancellation of title before the RTC of Davao City. Upon
learning of Augusto’s sale to Camper Realty Corp, Nena impleaded the latter as necessary party.
7. Nena contended that no right could have been
transmitted to Ligaya and the subsequent transferees, the SPA being a forged document.
8. RTC: Dismissed the case. Nena is guilty of laches.
Titles to the property were already under the name of the transferors at the time of transfer. The court cannot
declare the nullity of the succeeding contracts.
9. CA: Reversed the RTC ruling. There was no valid transfer to Ligaya and, accordingly, to her son Augusto.
He did not acquire any right over the subject lot since an heir merely steps into the shoes of the decedent
and is merely the continuation of the personality of his predecessor-in-interest. Contract of sale entered
with Camper was invalid.

ISSUE:
WON Camper Realty Corp is entitled to the subject lot

HELD:
YES, Camper is a purchaser in good faith

RATIO:
1. Augusto acquired the property as his share in his mother Ligaya’s estate. As compulsory heir, he
merely stepped into the shoes of Ligaya. Since Ligaya’s title was derived from Rodolfo’s sale to her on
the basis of a forged SPA, Augusto’s title must be cancelled. Nemo dat quod non habet.
2. Notwithstanding the nullity of Augusto’s title, Camper Realty Corp is a purchaser in good faith.
3. A forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes.
For a prospective buyer of a property registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the
title, especially when he has no notice of any badge of fraud or defect that would place him on guard.
His rights are entitled to full protection, for the law considers him an innocent purchaser.
4. There was no duty on petitioner’s part to go beyond the face of Augusto’s title and conduct inquiries
on its veracity. Nena did not present any proof of any circumstance that could serve as caveat for
petitioner to undertake a searching investigation respecting the title. Moreover, the property was
registered in Ligaya’s name in 1974 yet, Augusto’s in 1986, and no encumbrance or lien was annotated
 either on Ligaya’s or Augusto’s title. For 18 years, there was no controversy or dispute hounding the
property to caution petitioner about Augusto’s title.

Levin vs. Bass

GR no. L-4340, May 28, 1952

FACTS:
 1943 – Levin, widow, 65 y/o, illiterate & knew only how to sign her name – owner of a lot with 2 houses
(No. 326 & No. 328) located at San Rafael St., Manila
 At the end of Dec. 1943 – respondent Bass called Levin at her house at No. 328 representing himself to
be a real estate broker & asked if Levin wanted to sell her lot & house at No. 326 adjoining her residence
w/c was at that time occupied & rented by Japanese civilians, officers & employees of Pacific Mining & 2
rooms privately rented by Angelita Martinez --- Levin refused several times to the offer until she gave in
as Bass told her that with the proceeds of the sale, Levin can purchase another property at Antonio
Rivera St. w/c she will be gaining a better profit for renting it out & w/o the fear that the other house
might just be appropriated by the Japanese & she’ll be getting nothing in return
 Levin w/ her houseboy went twice to Antonio Rivera St. to check the property that Bass told her she will
be purchasing from the proceeds of the sale on the house & lot on No. 326 but they were not able to
enter the 2nd flr as Bass told them that the owner is gone to Pampanga
 Relying on the presentation of Bass, Levin accepted the offer
 Levin, Dr. Manlapaz & Angelita Martinez were conversing at her house when Bass came & ask her to sign
several documents which accdg to Bass were only Authority to Sell the property (no copy was left to
Levin)
 Jan. 6, 1944 – Bass handed Levin Php 10K saying that it was the partial payment of the property w/c was
sold to a Japanese & asked her to give him the Torrens Title of the House & Lot --- w/c title was in the
possession of Agricultural & Industrial Bank due to a mortgage in the amount of Php 2k --- 2k was
deducted from 10K & they went to the Bank to pay the debt & get the title --- remaining 8k was also
taken by Bass as purported initial payment for the property at Antonio Rivera St. (w/ receipt but only 6k
was in the receipt – Levin did not realized the difference in the amount)
 Bass – gave Levin the rentals on the building at Antonio Rivera St. in order for Levin to believe that she
already owned that property
 Due to suspicions, Levin sought the help of Dr. Manlapaz regarding the property until they found out
that the documents Levin signed were:
 Deed of Absolute sale to one Estaquio – Php 30K for No. 326 house & lot --- w/c was later on sold to Bass
for Php 65K
 Deed of Sale to Bass – Php 65K for No. 328
 The Title of Levin was then cancelled & issued a new one in the name of Bass
 Bass mortgaged the property to Co Chin Leng to secure payment of PHP 70K w/c was duly annotated in
the title
 1944 – in consideration of PHP 200K, Bass sold the No. 328 property to Mintu (PHP 90K paid upon
execution of the document & PHP 10K will be paid upon the cancellation or removal of the notice of lis
pendens & the balance of PHP 100K to be paid to his bank after securing the release of the mortgage to
Co Chin Leng
 Mintu – Deed of Sale & owner’s duplicate COT were presented to the RD for registration (w/c later on
accdg to the RD were lost or burned) together w/ full payment of the fees

Issue: W/N the entry in the day book of a deed of sale w/c was presented & filed at the RD & full payment of
the reg fees constitute a complete act of registration w/c operates to convey & affect the land?
Held: YES!
 Voluntary Registration (sale,lease,etc)
 If the owner’s DC be not surrendered & presented or if no payment of registration fees be made w/in 15
days, entry in the book of the deed of sale does not operate to convey & affect the land sold
 (attachment, levy, execution,lis pendens) --- day book is sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse
claim
 Mintu – innocent purchaser for value – having done the required steps in the registration, the sale in
then presumed to be valid in both properties
 Strict & literal interpretation of the law is required in order to do justice to the innocent purchaser for
value as in this case it was the RD who failed to issue the new TCT in the name of Mintu which made him
not an innocent purchaser for value & a innocent holder of COT --- w/c should not be imputed against
Mintu
 ‘As bet. Not innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of a breach of trust, the one
who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss’

49 Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v. Reyes

No. L-3970 (1952)
Labrador, J. / Tita K
Subject Matter: Subsequent registration

Summary:
John owns a parcel of land covered by TCTs. The said land was mortaged by John to the respondents. Later on,
John entered into a contract of lease involving the same land with the petitioners. When the the terms of the
lease contract was amended, petitioners requested the respondents to allow them to take the TCTs to the
Register of Deeds so that the contract of lease may be annotated thereon. Respondents refused, hence
petitioners filed a motion to have the TCTs delivered to them. Respondents opposed the said motion arguing
that the contract of lease is invalid and that it was entered into without their knowledge. CFI ruled in favor of
the petitioner. WON the petitioners have the right to have the contract of lease annotated on the TCTs. The SC
still ruled in favor of the petitioners.
Doctrines:
The purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all persons. It is not intended by the
proceedings for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already registered rights over the land,
subsisting or existing at the time of the registration.
The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. If the purpose of
registration is merely to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of instruments are
expected to be decided after, not before, registration.
Respondents’ argument/issues as to the invalidity and lack of knowledge are not passed upon by the
court for the order of the registration of petitioners' contract of lease.
Parties:
GURBAX SINGH PABLA & CO., GURBAX SINGH PABLA, BELA SINGH PABLA,
Petitioner-Appellees OJAGAR SINGH,
DHARAM SINGH, TALOK SINGH and CIPRIANO TAN ENG KIAT
Respondents- HERMOGENES REYES and TEODORA TANTOCO
Appellants
Facts:
John Tan Chin Eng (John) is the owner of the land covered by transfer certificates of title (TCT) nos.
8071 and 8072. 23 July 1948 - John entered into a contract of lease with the petitioners under the
following terms:
 petitioners were to construct thereon a three-story building of concrete and of strong materials.
 the building shall become the exclusive property of the owner (John) of the land, but the
petitioners were to occupy, hold, or possess it as lessees for 3 years and 6 months from its
completion, without paying any rentals as the sum spent in the construction being considered
as the rentals
 after the 3 years and 6 months, petitioners were to continue occupying the said building for
another 2 years at a monthly rental of P2,000.
This contract of lease was filed and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila.
At the time that the contract was entered into, there was an existing mortgage over the land in favor of
Jose and Carlos Calvo (Calvos).
8 March 1949 - This mortgage in favor of the Calvos was cancelled, and a new mortgage was executed by
the owner (John) in favor of the respondents. The new mortgage was registered in the office of the
Register of Deeds.
14 May 1949 - The original contract of lease was amended to extend the original period to 7 years and 4
months (from 6yrs & 6mos.), and the rental for the additional two years thereafter reduced to P1,148
(from 2k). This amended contract of lease was also registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Manila.
25 May 1949 – Petitioners requested the respondents to allow them to take the certificates of title to the
office of the Register of Deeds of Manila for the annotation of the contracts of lease entered into by the
owner with them.
27 May 1949 – Respondents informed the petitioners did not grant the request
 CFI
Petitioners filed a motion in the CFI praying that an order be issued for the delivery of the owner's
duplicates of TCT 8071 and 8072 to the petitioners in order that the Register of Deeds may be able to
annotate thereon the contract of lease.
Respondents filed an opposition, alleging that (1) they had no knowledge of the contract of leaseor of its
amendment, and (2)that the execution of the amendment violated the express provision1 of the mortgage.
At the hearing of the nfotion no oral evidence was submitted; only documentary evidence was presented.
CFI issued an order directing the respondents to surrender the TCTs to the Register of Deeds in order
that the contract of lease may be noted thereon. It expressly found that respondents had knowledge of
the lease contract, but the respondents’ deed of mortgage of March 8, 1949, has priority over petitioner's
amended contract of lease.
Issue/s: WON petitioners have the right to have the contract of lease annotated on the
TCTs. (YES) Ratio:
YES– petitioners have the right to have the contract of lease annotated.
Respondents, as mortgagees, argue that they had no knowledge of the contract of lease and that the contracts
of lease are invalid because they violate the contracts of mortgage executed in favor of the owner of the land.
 The purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all persons (section 51, Act No.
496); it is not intended by the proceedings for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect
already registered rights over the land, subsisting or existing at the time of the registration. The
rights of these parties, who have registered their rights, are not put in issue when an instrument is
subsequently presented for registration; nor are its effects on other instruments previously registered
put in issue by the procedure of registration.
o Thus, the objections raised by the respondents (i.e. lack of knowledge of the contract of lease
and violation of contract of mortgage) are not passed upon by the court for the order of the
registration of petitioners' contract of lease.
o The objections, as well as the relative rights of all parties who have registered their deeds, shall
be decided in the proper suit or proceeding when the opportune occasion arises. They are not
now in issue, nor may they be adjudicated upon.
 Furthermore, invalidity is not a proof of a contract’s non-existence or a valid excuse for denying their
registration. The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered.
If the purpose of registration is merely to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or
invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided after, not before, registration. It must follow as
a necessary consequence that registration must first be allowed, validity or effect can be litigated
afterwards.
o Thus, the alleged invalidity of the contracts of lease is not a valid objection to their registration.
 However, parties may, by mutual consent, submit issues for determination at the time of the
proceeding to register a document. But, the court should only proceed therewith (determination of
the issues) upon giving all the parties concerned sufficient opportunity to present their respective sides
and the evidence in support thereof, and that if this can not be done, the determination of the issues
should be reserved in a subsequent proceeding and the registration of the document ordered.
o Therefore, the issues raised by respondents were not properly investigated because
respondents did not have the opportunity to present evidence thereon and did not even
present copy of their mortgage at the hearing, and the trial court decided the questions
without full and complete investigation.
 o The ruling of the trial court on the above issues should, therefore, be set aside and their
determination reserved in a proper proceeding.
Order affirmed in part and reversed in part.