Facts:

On March 10, 1922, Santiago Fian executed a legal instrument acknowledging a debt of P33,000 owed to Yap Anton. This instrument also included a mortgage on ten parcels of land owned by Fian, which was duly recorded in the office of the register of titles. Following Fian's failure to fulfill his payment obligations as stipulated in the mortgage agreement, Yap Anton initiated foreclosure proceedings against Fian's estate after the latter's death. The case was brought before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, where a judgment favoring Yap Anton was rendered. The administratrix of Fian's estate, Adelaida Cabulong, appealed the decision, arguing that the instrument in question did not constitute a valid mortgage contract and therefore lacked legal enforceability. The appeal was primarily focused on the validity of the mortgage agreement itself.

Issue:

1. Is the instrument executed by Santiago Fian in favor of Yap Anton a valid contract of mortgage?
2. ...

Facts:

Execution of the Mortgage Instrument

• On March 10, 1922, Santiago Fian executed an instrument in favor of Yap Anton.
• The instrument acknowledged a debt of P33,000 due to Yap Anton.
• Along with acknowledging the debt, the instrument established a mortgage on ten parcels of land.
• The document was duly recorded in the office of the register of titles.

Default and Initiation of Foreclosure

• Santiago Fian failed to make the payment as provided in the mortgage instrument.
• Following Fian’s death, Yap Anton initiated an action of foreclosure against the estate of the deceased.
• A foreclosure judgment was obtained in the Court of First Instance of Leyte.

Evidence and Exception Raised

• The mortgage instrument was offered in evidence during the proceedings and was admitted without any exception from the opposing party at that time.
• An exception was raised only on the following day—after the case was adjourned for further deliberation by the defendant’s counsel—arguing that the instrument was not a true contract of mortgage.
• This delayed exception did not comply with the requirements of section 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legal Framework Relevant to the Case

• Section 194 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Acts Nos. 2837 and 3344, governs the validity of such mortgage instruments.
• Under this provision, regardless of any defects in the description of the real estate, the mortgage is considered valid “between the parties thereto” once registered in the office of the register of deeds.

Issue:

Timeliness and Procedural Compliance

• Whether the exception to the admissibility of the mortgage instrument was raised in a timely manner as required by section 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Whether the delayed exception could preclude the foreclosure judgment.

Validity of the Mortgage Instrument

• Whether the mortgage executed by Fian, despite any possible defects in the description of the property, remains a valid contract between the parties.
• How the provisions of section 194 of the Administrative Code affect the enforceability of the instrument against the estate, especially regarding its effect as “between the parties to the mortgage.”

Impact on the Foreclosure Action

• Whether the mortgage, being admitted in evidence and registered, holds sufficient legal force to support the foreclosure action against the deceased’s estate.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)