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 Summary (G.R. No. L-50261)

Petitioner and Respondent

PNB seeks to enforce a mortgage and certificate of sale following extrajudicial foreclosure for unpaid loans. Reyes challenges the mortgage’s validity for lack of his consent and alleges forgery of his signature on the loan documents.

Key Dates

– Marriage of Venancio and Lilia Reyes: 1973
– Mortgage executed: August 25, 1994 (P1.1 M), increased October 6, 1994 (P3 M)
– Extrajudicial foreclosure and auction: September 19, 1997
– Complaint filed for annulment of mortgage and certificate of sale: September 22, 1998
– RTC Decision annulling mortgage: May 27, 2009
– Court of Appeals Decision affirming RTC: August 22, 2013
– Supreme Court Decision: October 5, 2016

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution
– Family Code of 1987, Articles 121 (liability of conjugal partnership and spouses), 122 (debts redounding to benefit of family), 124 (spousal consent for disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property)
– Civil Code provisions on conjugal property regime
– Jurisprudence: Manotok Realty, Ayala Investment, Philippine National Bank v. Banatao, Torbela v. Rosario

Validity of Encumbrance on Conjugal Property

Under Article 124 of the Family Code, any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property without the written consent of the non-contracting spouse is void. Reyes did not consent to the mortgage; therefore, it is void ab initio.

Evidentiary Finding of Forgery

Reyes presented clear and convincing expert testimony from the National Bureau of Investigation’s handwriting examiner, who established that his signature on the promissory notes and mortgage did not match his standard signature. Both the RTC and the CA upheld this factual finding, entitled to finality under established rules.

Principal Obligation and Liability of Conjugal Partnership

The accessory real estate mortgage’s void status does not affect the underlying loan agreement. Article 122 of the Family Code presumes that a spouse’s loan for use in the family business redounds to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The loan served as additional working capital for the Reyes printing business; thus, the partnership is liable for the principal obligation.

Accessory Nature of Real Estate Mortgage

A real estate mortgage is merely accessory to the principal loan. Its invalidity does not extinguish the indebtedness it secured. PNB may still enforce the loan against the partnership despite the mortgage’s nullity (Phil. Nat’l Bank v. Banatao).

Laches and Redemption Period

Reyes filed his annulment action within the statutory period for redemption of foreclosed property and promptly notified the bank upon discovering the alleged forgery. His delay does not constitute laches, as the action was brought within applicable prescrip

...continue reading

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