El Hogar Filipino vs. Paredes

Facts:

El Hogar Filipino v. Geronimo Paredes, G.R. No. 19843. October 03, 1923, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner El Hogar Filipino, a mutual building and loan association, sued Geronimo Paredes, Register of Deeds of the Province of Occidental Negros (respondent), seeking a writ of mandamus to compel registration of a deed purporting to transfer a rural estate following an extrajudicial foreclosure; Dona Aniceta Ardosa (the mortgagor) was later made a party defendant and demurred.

On September 26, 1919, Dona Aniceta Ardosa executed a mortgage over the Hacienda de Bayabas y Agtongtong in Manapla, Occidental Negros, in favor of El Hogar Filipino to secure a loan. Two clauses of the mortgage are material: Clause 10 conferred on the association’s manager an irrevocable power, upon default and after specified publication (once weekly for three weeks in a paper of general circulation), to effect an extrajudicial public sale before a notary or auctioneer and, after thirty days during which the debtor could redeem, to execute a deed to the highest bidder; Clause 15 authorized the association to bid and, if highest bidder, to accept conveyance by the manager acting as agent of the debtor.

After default, the manager conducted an extrajudicial sale in conformity with the mortgage provisions; the association itself became the highest bidder and, after the thirty-day redemption period expired without redemption, the manager executed a deed transferring title to the association. The hacienda was not registered under Act No. 496 (Torrens) but was recorded in the Iloilo property register. To complete transfer, petitioner presented the deed and sale documents to the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros for registration under Administrative Code, section 194, as amended by Act No. 2837. Registration was refused by respondent Paredes on the ground that Clause 10 (the power of sale) was void.

Petitioner filed a petition in this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel registration. The respondent admitted the material facts but contended the clause was void; the Court cited respondent to answer. Petitioner moved to make Ardosa a party; she was served and interposed a general demurrer. The Court treated Paredes’s answer as...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• May the Register of Deeds lawfully refuse to register a deed of conveyance that resulted from an extrajudicial foreclosure effected pursuant to a mortgage clause granting the mortgagee a power of sale?
• Are parties to a mortgage of real property free to insert a clause conferring upon the mortgagee the power to foreclose by extrajudicial sale (i.e., is such ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)