Case Summary (G.R. No. 96357)
Factual Background
The Supreme Court found it undisputed that the deed of absolute sale dated May 12, 1983, allegedly purporting to be executed by Domingo Uy and Sy Siu Ken in favor of Manuel Uy and Mely Tan, was falsified. That falsified deed purportedly conveyed the one-half undivided share of Domingo Uy and his spouse in the subject properties. Relying on the falsified document, the properties were transferred and registered solely in the name of Manuel Uy and his spouse, resulting in the issuance of new transfer certificates of title, TCT Nos. T-52.257(M) and T-52.276(M), issued on May 18, 1983.
After the new titles were presented to it, the bank granted a loan of P5 Million to Manuel Uy and Mely Tan, acting as president and treasurer of Sonice Enterprises, Inc. The loan was secured by a joint real estate and chattel mortgage executed by the spouses, covering both parcels of land and their improvements. Because the spouses failed to pay, the bank initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure. A certificate of sale was issued in favor of the bank as the highest bidder. When the spouses failed to redeem within the prescribed period, ownership was consolidated in favor of the bank, and new certificates of title were issued to it.
Upon discovering the fraud, Domingo Uy and Sy Siu Ken filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, seeking annulment of the deed of sale and the joint real estate and chattel mortgage, and challenging the foreclosure insofar as it affected Domingo Uy’s one-half undivided share.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decree
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on August 28, 1987 in favor of the plaintiffs. It declared null and void the deed of absolute sale insofar as it affected the one-half undivided share of Domingo Uy, and it likewise declared the joint real estate and chattel mortgage and the extrajudicial foreclosure null and void insofar as they related to that one-half share. The trial court ordered the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, Meycauayan Branch, to issue new transfer certificates of title corresponding to Domingo Uy’s one-half share with all existing improvements, including the “Unchida” corrugator machine covered by the relevant titles. It further ordered the spouses Manuel Uy and Mely Tan to pay P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 exemplary damages; to pay P200,000.00 corresponding to Domingo Uy’s share in Sonice Enterprises, Inc.; and to pay jointly and severally attorney’s fees equivalent to twenty-five percent of whatever amount was due from defendants.
The trial court dismissed the counterclaims for lack of factual and legal basis.
The Bank’s Appeal and the Issues Raised
The bank appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that it was a mortgagee in good faith. It argued, in substance, that the trial court erred in holding the conveyance and the mortgage void as to Domingo Uy’s share and further erred in concluding that the bank was not a mortgagee in good faith. It also raised the asserted error that the court failed to consider possible collusion between the Uy brothers to the prejudice of the bank.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated May 30, 1990, affirmed the trial court and dismissed the bank’s appeal for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals denied the bank’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated December 4, 1990.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of Mortgagee in Good Faith
The Supreme Court held that the falsified deed of absolute sale was the operative basis for the issuance of sole titles in Manuel Uy’s name and for the bank’s subsequent extension of the P5 Million loan secured by the mortgage. The Court recognized that the bank relied on the titles presented by the mortgagors and treated it as an innocent mortgagee for value acting in good faith. The Court emphasized that a mortgagee-bank is not required to conduct further investigation of the titles as security for the mortgage.
It acknowledged that the bank knew at the outset that the properties were co-owned by the Uy brothers and their spouses. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that the evidence failed to show that the bank knew that the later transfer of the share of Domingo Uy and his spouse to Manuel Uy and his spouse was falsified, or that the issuance of the new titles in Manuel Uy’s name resulted from forgery. The Court noted that there was no notice of any flaw in the titles of Manuel Uy and his spouse when these titles were presented to the bank as collateral.
Rejection of the Court of Appeals’ View on the Need for Inquiry
The Supreme Court considered untenable the appellate court’s view that the bank should have inquired into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Domingo Uy’s share to Manuel Uy and his spouse. It held that there was no reason for the bank to suspect that fraud and forgery attended the transfer and the issuance of the new titles. It also held that the appellate court should have taken into account that, after the trial court’s judgment in favor of Domingo Uy and his spouse, only the bank appealed. Manuel Uy and Mely Tan did not appeal, which the Court treated as a factual circumstance supporting the improbability of collusion from the bank’s perspective and underscoring the bank’s status as an innocent mortgagee left to bear the consequences of the mortgagors’ fraud.
Fact of Utilization of Loan Proceeds and Its Implications
The Supreme Court further addressed the possibility of collusion as raised by the bank. It held that such possibility was not remote and referred to evidence in the record that the loan proceeds of P5 Million had been used to pay the Uy brothers’ prior joint obligation to the PISO bank, amounting to about P3 Million. The Court inferred that Domingo Uy and his spouse benefited from the loan, which furnished an additional reason why Manuel Uy and his spouse may have chosen not to appeal the trial court’s adverse ruling.
Despite the above, the Court’s controlling conclusion remained that the bank was a mortgagee in good faith who relied on clean titles and had no basis to
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 96357)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Planters Development Bank filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals decision and resolution.
- The respondents were Spouses Domingo P. Uy and Sy Siu Ken, who were the plaintiffs in the trial court action.
- The defendants in the trial court included Spouses Manuel Uy and Mely Tan Uy, and the bank impleaded Planters Development Bank as a defendant.
- The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, where the trial court rendered judgment on August 28, 1987.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision on May 30, 1990, and denied reconsideration in a resolution dated December 4, 1990.
- The petition before the Court invoked asserted errors on the validity of the underlying conveyance, the corresponding mortgage portion, and the bank’s alleged lack of good faith.
Key Factual Allegations
- Domingo Uy and Manuel Uy were full-blood brothers who, together with their respective spouses, were registered co-owners in fee simple in equal shares pro indiviso of two parcels in Barangay Lambakin, Marilao, Bulacan.
- The parcels were covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-228169 and T-229353 issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan.
- Manuel Uy and his spouse Mely Tan were president and treasurer, respectively, of Sonice Enterprises, Inc., a family corporation.
- On May 12, 1983, spouses Manuel Uy and Mely Tan caused the execution of a falsified deed of absolute sale purporting to convey Domingo Uy’s share to them for P50,000.00.
- Relying on the falsified deed, title transferred and was registered solely in the name of Manuel Uy and spouse, producing TCT Nos. T-52.257(M) and T-52.276(M) issued on May 18, 1983.
- After presenting the newly issued titles, the bank granted a loan of P5 Million to Manuel Uy and Mely Tan in their corporate capacities, secured by a joint real estate and chattel mortgage over the parcels and improvements.
- The spouses failed to pay, prompting extrajudicial foreclosure, after which the bank was the highest bidder and received a certificate of sale.
- After the redemption period lapsed without exercise by the spouses, ownership consolidated in favor of the bank, and new certificates of title were issued to it.
- Upon discovery of the fraud, Domingo Uy and Sy Siu Ken sued for annulment of the deed of sale and the joint real estate and chattel mortgage, and they impleaded the bank.
- The trial court declared the deed and the mortgage null and void insofar as they affected Domingo Uy’s one-half undivided share.
Trial Court and Appellate Outcomes
- The Regional Trial Court declared the deed of Absolute Sale null and void insofar as it pertained to Domingo Uy’s one-half share.
- The same nullity was applied to the Joint Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage and the related extrajudicial foreclosure insofar as it pertained to that one-half share.
- The trial court ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new titles corresponding to Domingo Uy’s one-half undivided share, including existing improvements and the referenced “Unchida” Corrugator Machine.
- The trial court awarded P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 exemplary damages against Manuel Uy and Mely Tan.
- The trial court ordered P200,000.00 as corresponding to plaintiffs’ share in Sonice Enterprises, Inc.
- The trial court also ordered all defendants to pay jointly and severally attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of whatever amount due from defendants.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the bank’s appeal for lack of merit.
- The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in its resolution dated December 4, 1990.
Issues Raised on Certiorari
- The petition challenged the trial court ruling that Domingo P. Uy’s conveyance to Manuel P. Uy was void and without legal effect.
- The petition also challenged the trial court ruling that the mortgage was void as to the portion corresponding to plaintiffs’ share.
- The petition contested the findi