Title
Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 118375
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2003
Aurora QueaAo sought to annul a real estate mortgage, claiming she never received the loan proceeds. The Supreme Court ruled the mortgage void due to lack of consideration, affirming lower courts' decisions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 118375)

Key Dates

  • August 11, 1980: Loan application and execution of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.
  • September 11, 1980: Due date of promissory note and maturity of post-dated check.
  • August 14, 1981: Scheduled extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
  • August 11, 1981: Filing of cancellation suit before RTC.
  • March 8, 1991: RTC decision declaring mortgage void.
  • December 21, 1994: Court of Appeals affirmation.
  • October 3, 2003: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VIII, Section 6 – Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction by certiorari under Rule 45).
  • Rules of Court: Rule 45 (Review on Certiorari), Rule 130 (Evidence of Admissions).
  • New Civil Code:
    • Art. 1249 (Effect of delivery of checks).
    • Art. 1873 (Agency by special information/public advertisement).
    • Art. 1934 (Real contracts perfected upon delivery).
  • B.P. Blg. 22 (Dishonor of checks).

Procedural History

Aurora QueaAo obtained a purported P200,000 loan from Naguiat evidenced by two P95,000 checks (one indorsed, one issued) and a promissory note. QueaAo executed a real estate mortgage to secure the loan. Upon maturity, the P200,000 post-dated check bounced; QueaAo’s request to stop payment was denied. Naguiat initiated extrajudicial foreclosure, prompting QueaAo to file for cancellation of the mortgage before the Pasay City RTC. The RTC declared the mortgage void and ordered return of title duplicates. Naguiat appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. Naguiat then petitioned the Supreme Court for review on certiorari.

Issues

  1. Whether QueaAo actually received the loan proceeds covered by the checks.
  2. Whether the presumption of truth accorded to a notarized mortgage deed is overcome.
  3. Whether Ruebenfeldt’s statements bind Naguiat despite third-party status.

Supreme Court Ruling

Petitioner’s certiorari petition was denied; the decisions of the RTC and Court of Appeals were affirmed in toto.

Legal Analysis

  1. Scope of Review – Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court may review only questions of law. Factual findings of lower courts are generally binding absent exceptional circumstances, none of which are present here.
  2. Rebuttable Presumption of Notarial Instruments – While a notarized deed enjoys a presumption of truth, it yields to clear and convincing evidence showing absence of consideration. The courts below found unrefuted proof that the checks were never cashed or deposited, negating the loan’s perfection.
  3. Effect of Checks as Payment – Pursuant to Art. 1249 and Art. 1934 of the Civil Code, a simple loan is perfected only upon delivery of the object (i.e., actual payment). Issuance of checks alone does not constitute delivery; payment occurs only upon encashment. Naguiat offered no bank records or returned checks to demonstrate actual payment.
  4. Agency by Estoppel – Naguiat’s reliance on Ruebenfeldt’s statements failed. Evidence showed Ruebenfeldt acted with ap

...continue reading

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