Philippine National Bank vs. Spouses Bernard and Cresencia Marañon GR No.
189316 July 01, 2013
Facts:
A 152 square meter lot in downtown Bacolod with a building leased to various tenants was subjected to a loan and
mortgage by Spouses Montealegre with Philippines National Bank. The property was under the name of Emolie
Montalegre under TCT 156512. The Spouses Montealegre failed to pay the loan and PNB foreclosed on said lot and
building. During auction sale PNB was the highest bidder on August 16, 1991, then was issued a Certificate of Sale
on December 17, 1991 and registered on February 4, 1992.
Spouses Marañon filed on July 29, 1992 before the RTC a complaint for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and
Damages against the Montealegres, PNB, the Register of Deeds and Provincial Sherriff. The civil case alleged that
the Marañons are rightful owners of the lot and the Montealegres forged their names in a Deed of Sale to transfer the
property to the Montealegres. PNB averred it is a mortgagee in good faith and the mortgage is binding and valid.
During the trial Paterio Tolete deposited with the Clerk of Court of Bacolod P144,000 and P30,000 with PNB of
rental payments.
RTC found in favor of the Marañon after it was determined that their signatures were in deed forged and the
conveyance to the Montealegres was null and void. PNB was also adjudged as a mortgagee in good faith and to
respect the lien on the property. Neither parties dissented.
Current controversy is the rental monies deposited.
Marañons filed an Urgent Motions for Withdrawal of Deposited Rental for the P144,000 and P30,000 deposited by
Tolete. The RTC granted the motion for both rental payments because the Spouses are the rightful owners and they
are entitled to the civil fruits of their property. The RTC issued Orders to return the P30,000 to the Spouses.
PNB dissented saying the mortgage lien was decided to be respected and they are entitled to both the P144,000 and
the P30,000 rental payments and filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals denied the petition rationalizing that the mortgage transaction was not between the current
petitioners and respondents and that PNB was not a mortgagee in good faith because as a financial institution should
have looked beyond the title presented by the Montealegres. Motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not that the mortgage the RTC decided should be respected should also include the fruits deposited to
answer for the debt.
Ruling:
No.
Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession. The rightful recipient
of the disputed rent in this case should thus be the owner of the subject lot at the time the rent accrued. It is beyond
question that Spouses Marañon never lost ownership over the subject lot. This is the precise consequence of the final
and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 7213 rendered by the RTC on June 3, 2006
whereby the title to the subject lot was reconveyed to them and the cloud thereon consisting of Emilie’s fraudulently
obtained title was removed. Ideally, the present dispute can be simply resolved on the basis of such pronouncement.
However, the application of related legal principles ought to be clarified in order to settle the intervening right of
PNB as a mortgagee in good faith.
The protection afforded to PNB as a mortgagee in good faith refers to the right to have its mortgage lien carried over
and annotated on the new certificate of title issued to Spouses Marañon as so adjudged by the RTC. Thereafter, to
enforce such lien thru foreclosure proceedings in case of non-payment of the secured debt, as PNB did so pursue.
The principle, however, is not the singular rule that governs real estate mortgages and foreclosures attended by
fraudulent transfers to the mortgagor.
Rent, as an accessory follow the principal. In fact, when the principal property is mortgaged, the mortgage shall
include all natural or civil fruits and improvements found thereon when the secured obligation becomes due as
provided in Article 2127 of the Civil Code, viz:
Art. 2127. The mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the improvements, growing fruits, and the rents or
income not yet received when the obligation becomes due, and to the amount of the indemnity granted or owing to
the proprietor from the insurers of the property mortgaged, or in virtue of expropriation for public use, with the
declarations, amplifications and limitations established by law, whether the estate remains in the possession of the
mortgagor, or it passes into the hands of a third person.
Accordingly, since the building was not foreclosed, it remains a property of Spouses Marañon; it is not affected by
non-redemption and is excluded from any consolidation of title made by PNB over the subject lot. Thus, PNB’s
claim for the rent paid by Tolete has no basis.
