Title
Abad vs. Spouses Guimba
Case
G.R. No. 157002
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2005
Spouses Guimba discovered their land was mortgaged fraudulently. Court ruled petitioner, who failed to verify identities, was not a mortgagee in good faith; mortgage voided.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 157002)

Facts:

Ownership of the Property:

  • Respondents, Spouses Ceasar and Vivian Guimba, are the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. PT-80617.

Loan Application and Misplacement of Title:

  • On March 7, 1997, Vivian entrusted her Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title to Gemma de la Cruz to serve as collateral for a loan application. Vivian later changed her mind and requested the return of the title, but Gemma claimed it was deposited in a bank vault. Upon inquiry, Vivian discovered the title was not in the bank.

Discovery of the Mortgage:

  • In November 1997, Vivian received a telegram from petitioner Jose T. Abad, a stranger, reminding her of the impending maturity of a mortgage on her property. This was the first time respondents learned of any mortgage involving their property.

Legal Actions Taken:

  • Respondents filed an adverse claim on their title and met with petitioner to settle the matter. When no resolution was reached, they filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of the mortgage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. They also filed a criminal case against Gemma de la Cruz for falsification of public documents.

Petitioner’s Defense:

  • Petitioner claimed he met a couple posing as the Guimba spouses in March 1997, who presented the TCT as collateral for a loan. He verified the title with the Register of Deeds and accepted the mortgage. However, during the trial, he admitted that the couple he dealt with were not the respondents.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Rule 45 Petitions Limited to Questions of Law:

    • The Supreme Court reiterated that petitions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are limited to questions of law. Factual findings of the trial court are binding and conclusive unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or misapprehension of facts.
  2. Mortgagee in Bad Faith Not Protected by PD 1529:

    • A mortgagee in bad faith is not entitled to the protection of PD 1529. Petitioner’s failure to verify the identity and authority of the persons he dealt with rendered him a mortgagee in bad faith, and thus, the mortgage was declared null and void.
  3. Laches Requires Prejudice to Innocent Party:

    • Laches cannot be invoked against respondents because they took reasonable steps to protect their rights, and petitioner, as a mortgagee in bad faith, was not prejudiced by their actions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s decision, ruling that petitioner was not a mortgagee in good faith and that respondents were not barred by laches. The mortgage was declared null and void, and the annotation on the title was ordered to be canceled.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.