Case Summary (G.R. No. 36524)
Background of the Case
Ty Camco Sobrino, the registered owner of two parcels of land in Rosario, Pangasinan, executed a deed of first mortgage in favor of the Philippine National Bank on April 2, 1924. Subsequently, on February 21, 1930, he executed a second mortgage on the same properties in favor of Cu Yeg Keng and Simon A. Chan Bona, without obtaining the required written consent from the Philippine National Bank. This act made the registration and notation of the second mortgage a point of contention as the initial mortgage contract contained explicit prohibitions against secondary encumbrances without consent.
Legal Framework and Mortgage Provisions
The deed of mortgage executed by Sobrino contained specific clauses that restricted the mortgagor from selling, disposing of, or encumbering the property with a second mortgage without the written consent of the initial mortgagee. It further stipulated that failure to comply with these conditions would enable the mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage according to law. These provisions underscore the legal obligations and restrictions placed on Sobrino under the terms of the initial mortgage.
Court Proceedings and Appeals
On April 14, 1931, the Philippine National Bank filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, seeking a declaration that the second mortgage was null and void. The Bank of the Philippine Islands, having acquired the rights of the Philippine National Bank through purchase, later sought to substitute itself as the petitioner. However, the Court of First Instance determined that questioning the validity of the second mortgage required an ordinary action rather than the process invoked by the petitioner under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496).
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court focused on whether the stipulation in the original mortgage prohibiting the second mortgage without consent was valid and binding. It acknowledged that such a contract should be interpreted as a whole. Reading the mortgage clauses indicated that while the act of creating the second mortgage was prohibited, the consequence of violating such a prohibition did not render the second mortgage void, but rather provided rights of foreclosure to the mortgagee.
Evaluation of Judicial Precedents
The Court referenced previous decisions, elaborating on the distinction between the validity of a second mortgage and the obligations arising from the first mortgag
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 36524)
Case Overview
- This case involves a dispute over two parcels of land owned by Ty Camco Sobrino, located in Rosario, Province of Pangasinan, and registered under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 1803 and 1804.
- The primary legal issue revolves around the validity of a second mortgage executed by Sobrino in favor of Cu Yeg Keng and Simon A. Chan Bona without the written consent of the first mortgagee, the Philippine National Bank.
Background Facts
- On April 2, 1924, Ty Camco Sobrino executed a deed of first mortgage on the aforementioned properties in favor of the Philippine National Bank, which was duly noted on the titles.
- On February 21, 1930, Sobrino executed a second mortgage for the same properties in favor of Cu Yeg Keng and Simon A. Chan Bona without obtaining prior written consent from the Philippine National Bank, which was a condition in the first mortgage.
- The second mortgage was subsequently registered by the register of deeds for Pangasinan, despite the prohibitive clauses in the first mortgage.
Legal Context
- The first mortgage included specific clauses prohibiting the mortgagor from executing a second mortgage without the consent of the mortgagee, and stipulated consequences for such violations, including the right of the mortgagee to foreclose.
- A third mortgage was later executed with the consent of the Philippine National Bank, which further co