Title
Planters Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 96357
Decision Date
May 29, 1991
Domingo Uy’s share in co-owned properties was fraudulently sold by Manuel Uy to secure a bank loan. SC ruled bank acted in good faith, dismissing Domingo’s complaint.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 87135)

Relevant Events and Actions

On May 7, 1983, while Domingo and his spouse were abroad, Manuel Uy sought a loan from Planters Development Bank, offering the jointly owned land as collateral. A real estate mortgage required both Domingo and Manuel's signatures due to their joint ownership. However, on May 12, 1983, Manuel and his spouse executed a falsified deed of absolute sale, transferring Domingo's share in the properties to themselves for P50,000. Following this, they successfully obtained a P5 million loan from the bank with the properties as collateral after presenting the falsified titles.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

Upon failure to repay the loan, Planters Development Bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The properties were auctioned, and the bank emerged as the highest bidder, leading to the issuance of a certificate of sale and eventual consolidation of ownership in favor of the bank after the failure of Manuel and Mely Tan to redeem within the statutory period. Subsequently, upon discovering the fraudulent sale, Domingo and Sy Siu Ken filed a complaint aimed at annulling the deed of sale and the mortgage against Manuel Uy, Mely Tan, and Planters Development Bank in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan.

Lower Court’s Decision

On August 28, 1987, the lower court ruled in favor of Domingo and Sy, declaring the falsified sale and subsequent mortgage contracts void. The court ordered the restoration of ownership in the property to Domingo and Sy and awarded them damages. The bank's involvement was also deemed part of the fraudulent transfer, as the bank was seen as relying on the falsified titles.

Appeals and Arguments Presented

Dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling, Planters Development Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting its status as a mortgagee in good faith. The bank contested the finding that the sale and mortgage involving Domingo's interest were void, arguing that it acted based on the clean titles presented and that it was not privy to the fraudulent actions of the Uys.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

On May 30, 1990, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision and dismissed the bank's appeal, leading to the bank filing a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied. The bank then escalated the matter by petitioning for review on certiorari, alleging various errors in the appellate court’s judgment.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, recognizing that the falsified deed of sale executed by Manuel and Mely Tan unjustly facilitated their wrongful registration as sole owners of the disputed pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.