Case Digest (G.R. No. 243470)
Facts:
Spouses Danilo I. Yabut and Nelda Yabut, represented by their attorney‑in‑fact, Manuel C. Yabut, v. Michelle C. Nachbaur, G.R. No. 243470, January 12, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Spouses Yabut (through their son Manuel) claim that brothers Jose So and Antonio So owned a Torrens parcel (TCT No. 196082) at 1150 Lardizabal St., Sampaloc, Manila (the subject property) and sold it to them on July 2, 2007 for P3,300,000. Manuel alleges he was in possession under a lease since 2001, that Antonio delivered the original owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 196082 after payment, and that, to effect transfer, Manuel gave the original title to one Fe Manubay (Fe) to process registration. Fe purportedly returned a new title (TCT No. 271840) in Manuel’s name in November 2007, but the Register of Deeds later advised Manuel that that title was fake.
Sometime in late 2007 Manuel learned of a group conducting an ocular inspection of the subject property and found the property encumbered by an annotated Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (REM). Petitioners allege the SPA (dated November 15, 2007) and REM (dated December 6, 2007) were forged: the SPA purportedly gave Anita (Antonio’s wife) authority to mortgage the property, and Anita mortgaged it to respondent Michelle C. Nachbaur to secure a purported P800,000 loan. Respondent says she was referred to Anita, inspected the title and property through intermediaries, accepted identification, received the original title and tax declaration, and advanced P760,000 (5% interest withheld); the postdated checks she received bounced.
Manuel filed criminal charges against Fe for estafa and falsification and annotated an Adverse Claim on the title. He then sued respondent for annulment of the SPA and REM and for surrender of the original owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 196082 (complaint filed under Section 107 of PD No. 1529). At trial the brothers So and Anita denied executing the SPA, REM and promissory note and presented a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Yabuts and affidavits and testimony asserting the signatures on the SPA/REM were not theirs.
The Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 55) in a June 27, 2016 Decision dismissed the complaint, finding forgery was not proved by clear and convincing evidence and holding respondent a mortgagee in good faith entitled to rely on the Torrens certificate; the court also granted respondent’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees (P50,000). The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 109165, in a July 20, 2018 Decision (Castillo, J., penned; concur: Bueser, Inting), affirmed the RTC, ruling an unregistered sale cannot affect third persons and respondent had no duty to look beyon...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent was a mortgagee in good faith such that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage is superior to the unregistered Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)