Rod of Pampangga Vs PNB

G.R. No.
L-1781 September 27, 1949
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA and GONZALO PUYAT, petitioners-appellees,

vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and PEDRO B. CRUZ, oppositors-appellants.
This is a petition filed by Rodolfo R. Dimzon as Register of Deeds of Pampanga, whereby he seeks
to correct "the error, omission or mistake made in transfer certificate of title No. 16342 by transferring
on the said title the liens on the property covered by said certificate, consisting of a mortgage in
favor of Gonzalo Puyat under document No. 262 and the lease affecting the portion of 1,045,848
square meters under document No. 1149."
FACTS:
The parcels of land covered by transfer certificate of title No. 5377 of the office of the register of
deeds of Pampanga were registered in the name of Martin Gonzales. Among those parcels, there
was a lot 1-J which is a portion of lot No. 1 located in the municipality of Lubao, with an area of
3,045,848 square meters, more or less. All the parcels of land described in the said certificate No.
5377, as well as those described in certificate No. 5379, original certificate, of title No. 11578 and
original certificate of title No. 17261 and other parcels of land located in Bataan, were mortgaged in
favor of Gonzalo Puyat, to guaranty a loan of P250,000.
The above-mentioned mortgage was on October 23, 1943 registered in the office of the register of
deeds of Pampanga, and the corresponding annotation made on the back of the respective certificate
of title (5377) covering the lands affected by that encumbrance.
On September 8, 1944, a portion of lot No. 1-J consisting of 2,000,000 square meters was sold by
Jose Gonzales Carrion, as administrator of the estate of Martin Gonzales, to Pedro B. Cruz for the
sum of P60,000. On October 3, 1945, the remaining portion of the said lot No. 1-J covering an area of
1,045,848 square meters was likewise sold by the administrator to Pedro B. Cruz for P104,584.80.
By virtue of such sales, transfer certificate of title No. 5377 was partially cancelled as to the whole lot
No. 1-J, and transfer certificate of title No. 16342 was issued on November 26, 1945, in the name of
Pedro B. Cruz, and the only lien appearing thereon is the milling contract executed in favor of
Pampanga Sugar Mills.
On January 4, 1946, Pedro B. Cruz mortgaged the whole of lot No. 1-J described in transfer certificate
of title No. 16342 to the Philippine National Bank, Manila, for the sum of P50,000. Said mortgage was
duly registered in the office of the register of deeds of Pampanga.
It is contended by the register of deeds that Luis Panaguition, then acting vincial fiscal and ex-officio
register of deeds of Pampanga, "overlooked or failed to transfer in the title." the liens referring to the
mortgage in favor of Gonzalo Puyat (document No. 262).
The above petition was opposed by the Philippine National Bank on the ground that it will adversely
affect the interest of the mortgagee bank; it will defeat the primary object of the Torrens system, and
it will not be in accordance with law and the doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court.
But inasmuch as according to recent developments shown in the record, the oppositor Philippine
National Bank executed in favor of the other oppositor Pedro B. Cruz, a release of the mortgage for
P50,000 annotated on the back of transfer certificate of title No. 16342, and cancelled said mortgage,
by virtue of the fact that Pedro B. Cruz paid the Philippine National Bank the amount of his loan,
counsel for oppositor-appellant Philippine National Bank in his "Manifestation" attached to the record
on August 24, 1949, stated that "the question raised in the case at bar as ventilated by the parties in
their respective briefs are now academical."
There remains now for us to consider the merit of the petition of the register of deeds and his co-
petitioner Gonzalo Puyat, who pray that an error committed by the predecessor of the register of
deeds of Pampanga be corrected.
ISSUE:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA HAS THE

PERSONALITY TO FILE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 112 ACT NO. 496.
2. WHETHER OR NOT the order of the probate court in approving the sale of the land is res
judicata in the present case.
HELD:
1. YES, THE ROD OF PAMPANGA HAS THE PERSONALITY TO FILE. UNDER SEC 112,
ACT NO 496, Any registered owner or other person in interest may at any time apply
by petition to the court, upon the ground that registered interests of any description,
whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased, the
court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition after notice to all
parties in interest, and may order the entry of a new certificate, the entry or
cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such
terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem proper. IN
THIS CASE, even assuming arguendo that the register of deeds is not the "person in
interest" referred to in section 112, such defect, if any, has been cured when the mortgagee
Gonzalo Puyat joined in the petition of the register of deeds by making it his own.
2. RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. UNDER, SECTION 44 OF THE

JUDICIARY ACT (RA 296) IT STATES THAT, Courts of First Instance shall have original
jurisdiction in all matters of probate, both of testate and intestate estates, appointment of
guardians, trustees and receivers, and in all actions for annulment of marriage, and in all
such special cases and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for. HENCE, THE
pronouncement regarding the existence or non-existence of encumbrances regarding the lot
it authorized to be sold to Pedro B. Cruz, was beyond its jurisdiction as probate court. It is,
therefore, undeniable that since the probate court had no jurisdiction to cancel the mortgage,
the order given by it approving the sales of the properties of the estate of Martin Gonzales to
appellant Pedro B. Cruz did not and does not, in any manner, affect the existence of the
mortgaged executed by Gonzales in favor of Gonzalo Puyat.
The petition made herein by the register of deeds of Pampanga and Gonzalo Puyat WAS granted.

Rod of Pampangga Vs PNB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rod of Pampangga Vs PNB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rod of Pampangga Vs PNB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-1781 September 27, 1949

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA and GONZALO PUYAT, petitioners-appellees,

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA HAS THE

2. RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. UNDER, SECTION 44 OF THE

You might also like