Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6080)
Facts:
Susara v. Martinez, G.R. No. 6080, October 18, 1910, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court.On October 28, 1909, Marcelo Susara (plaintiff/appellant) filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Mariano Martinez (defendant/appellee), who was the court-appointed administrator of the intestate estate of the late Francisco Martinez. During Francisco Martinez’s life the latter had been judicially declared incapable of managing his property and Attorney Vicente Ilustre had been appointed his guardian on March 30, 1906. Ilustre, as guardian, entered into a written instrument dated March 30, 1906 (Exhibit A), by which, with judicial approval of April 3, 1906, he purported to mortgage the property described as Nos. 93, 95, and 97 Calle Sevilla, Binondo, in favor of Susara for P4,125 (consisting of P2,000 advanced then and P2,125 asserted as an existing debt evidenced by an earlier promissory note dated July 8, 1903).
Susara alleged the mortgage created a secured credit payable within three years (term expiring March 30, 1909) with specified annual interest payments; he claimed unpaid principal and interest (totaling P4,248.50) plus alleged damages so that the total prayer was P4,494.50, and he sought judgment and, if necessary, sale of the mortgaged property under the mortgage-action remedies of the Code of Civil Procedure. Francisco Martinez died January 21, 1909; Ilustre ceased to act and Mariano Martinez was appointed administrator of the estate.
In his answer the defendant denied critical allegations regarding interest and amount due and asserted as a special defense that the plaintiff’s remedy was a claim against the deceased’s estate to be presented to the commissioners of appraisal under the law (Code of Civil Procedure, secs. 636 et seq.). At trial the plaintiff introduced oral evidence; on March 7, 1910, the Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff moved for a new trial and excepted; the trial court overruled the motion and produced a bill of exceptions which, despite defence objections that it had not been presented in due time, the court approved and forwarded to the Supreme Court.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (via the approved bill of exceptions), the Court characterized the action as a mortgage action governed by section 254 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure and examined whether Exhibit A created a valid mortgage. The trial court had dismissed because Exhibit A did not appear to be entered in the registry of property, and therefore, under Civil Code article 1875, the mortgage had not been validly constituted. The Supreme Court affirmed: because the mortgage instrument was not registered as article 1875 requires, no mortgage credit existed that would sustain a mortgage action; any creditor remedy against the estate would have to proceed by presentation of a claim to the commissioners in accordance with sect...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the incidental question of improper admission of the appeal (via the approved bill of exceptions) properly before the Supreme Court?
- Did Exhibit A constitute a valid mortgage that entitled the plaintiff to prosecute a mortgage action, despite its lack of registration in the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)