Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Reyes, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 212483
Decision Date
Oct 5, 2016
PNB foreclosed properties mortgaged by Reyes spouses; Venancio claimed forgery, lack of consent. SC voided mortgage but held conjugal partnership liable for loan, affirming CA with modifications.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 976)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Marriage
    • Philippine National Bank (PNB) as petitioner and Venancio C. Reyes, Jr. (respondent) were adversaries in an action to annul a real estate mortgage and certificate of sale.
    • Venancio and Lilia C. Reyes were married in 1973 under the Conjugal Partnership of Gains regime.
  • Acquisition and Mortgage of Conjugal Properties
    • The spouses acquired three parcels in Malolos, Bulacan: TCT Nos. T-52812 and T-52813 registered in “Felicidad Pascual and Lilia C. Reyes, married to Venancio Reyes,” and TCT No. T-53994 in “Lilia C. Reyes, married to Venancio Reyes.”
    • On August 25, 1994, the three lots were mortgaged to PNB to secure a P1,100,000.00 loan, which was increased to P3,000,000.00 on October 6, 1994.
  • Extrajudicial Foreclosure and Certificate of Sale
    • After the Reyes spouses defaulted, PNB initiated extrajudicial foreclosure; the auction was held on September 19, 1997, where PNB was the highest bidder and obtained a certificate of sale.
    • On September 22, 1998, Venancio filed a complaint to annul the mortgage and certificate of sale, later amended to include Lilia and the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan.
  • Allegations and Lower Court Proceedings
    • Venancio alleged his signature on the loan and mortgage documents was forged and that he did not consent to the encumbrance of the conjugal properties.
    • The RTC of Malolos (Branch 81) on May 27, 2009 annulled the mortgage and certificate of sale for lack of spousal consent and ordered Lilia to reimburse PNB ₱3,324,771.18 with interest; the Court of Appeals affirmed on August 22, 2013, and denied reconsideration on May 5, 2014.
    • PNB then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending the mortgage was valid, the conjugal partnership bound, and that respondent’s cause was barred by laches.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the real estate mortgage void for want of the non-contracting spouse’s consent.
  • Whether the conjugal partnership of gains may be held liable for the loan contracted unilaterally by Lilia C. Reyes.
  • Whether respondent is guilty of laches or estoppel, thus barring his action to annul the mortgage and certificate of sale.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.