Aniceto Recibedo vs People Facts: Caridad Dorol mortgaged her agricultural land to Aniceto Recibedo without executing a document

on the mortgage and instead gave a copy of the Deed of Sale executed in her favor by her father Juan Dorol. When Caridad was about to redeem the property, Aniceto refused and said that she had sold the property to him. Caridad insisted that it was a mortgage. When she verified with the City Assessor in Sorsogon, there was really a Deed of Sale made by her in favour of Aniceto in which her signature was forged. Criminal case was instituted against Aniceto which found him guilty, and ordered him to vacate the premise, hence this petition. Issue: WON Aniceto has the right of possession over the land Held: No. Aniceto has no valid basis of possession. The Deed of Sale was forged and as to the mortgage of the land, his possession became unlawful when caridad offered to redeem the land. Metrobank vs Alejo Facts: Spouses Acampado obtained a loan from Metrobank and as a security, they executed a Real Estate Mortgage on land and registered the same. Subsequently, a complaint for declaration of nullity was filed against the mortgaged land by Sy Tan Se against the spouses. The petitioner was not made a party to the case even if the mortgage was registered. When the Acampados defaulted in payment, foreclosure proceeding was made in favour of Metrobank. The petitioners only learned the nullity of the TCT when they filed for consolidation of ownership. Metrobank filed a petition for annulment of the ruling of the RTC which was dismissed. Hence this petition. Issue: WON the ruling of the trial court should be annulled. Held: Yes. The petitioner is an indispensable party to the case. They should be joined together as either petitioners or defendants. Their presence is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. Hence, without them a decision rendered cannot attain finality. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. Vs Dahican Lumber Facts: Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Corporation sold and assigned all its rights to Dahican Lumber to DALCO. To develop such, DALCO loan from Peoples Bank certain amount and mortgage 2 parcels of land in camarines norte as a security. On the same date, DALCO also executed another mortgage in favour of AG&P for the unpaid balance. Bothe deeds contained provisions extending mortgage liens to after acquired properties. On the books of DALCO there was a due to DALCO and CONNELL, their sale was subsequently rescinded. Peoples Banks wants the cancellation of the rescission of sale but DALCO refused. So the bank and ag&p commenced foreclosure proceedings. The trial court ordered the sale of the after acquired properties. Hence this petition. Issue: WON the after acquired properties is subject to the mortgage. Held: Yes. It is clear in the stipulation.

Gemma Hechanova vs Adil Facts: Jose Servando mortgaged his land to his cousin for 20,000 which was not made in a pubic instrument. Jose subsequently sold the land to the petitioner. Pio impugn the validity of the sale being fraudulent but was dismissed. On the appeal, judgement was made in favour of Pio, and the sale was annulled, hence this petition. Issue: WON there was a valid sale between Jose and the petitioner. Held: Yes. The Deed of mortgage is not valid being in a mere private document. It also contains stipulation of pactum comissorium, hence is void.. State Investment House vs CA Facts: On October 15, 1969, Contract to Sell No. 36 was executed by the Spouses Canuto and Ma. Aranzazu Oreta, and the Solid Homes, Inc. (SOLID),on instalment. On November 4, 1976, SOLID executed several real estate mortgage contracts in favor of State Investment Homes, Inc. (STATE). For Failure of SOLID to comply with its mortgage obligations contract, STATE extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties including the subject lot on April 6, 1983, with the corresponding certificate of sale issued thereof to STATE annotated at the back of the titles covering the said properties on October 13, 1983. On June 23, 1984; SOLID thru a Memorandum of Agreement negotiated for the deferment of consolidation of ownership over the foreclosed properties by committing to redeem the properties from STATE. On August 15, 1988, the spouses filed a complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, HLRB, against the developer SOLID and STATE for failure on the part of SOLID "to execute the necessary absolute deed of sale as well as to deliver title to said property . . . in violation of the contract to sell . . .," despite full payment of the purchase price as of January 7, 1981. In its Answer, SOLID, by way of alternative defense, alleged that the obligations under the Contract to Sell has become so difficult . . . the herein respondents be partially released from said obligation by substituting subject lot with another suitable residential lot from another subdivision which respondents own/operates". Upon the other hand, STATE, to which the subject lot was mortgaged, averred that unless SOLID pays the redemption price of P125,1955.00, (sic) it has "a right to hold on and not release the foreclosed properties. ISSUES: WON Sps. Oretas unregistered rights over the subject property are superior to the registered mortgage rights of petitioner State Investment House, Inc. (STATE) HELD: YES! STATE's registered mortgage right over the property is inferior to that of respondents spouses' unregistered right. The unrecorded sale between respondents-spouses and SOLID is preferred for the reason that if the original owner (SOLID, in this case) had parted with his ownership of the thing sold then he no longer had ownership and free disposal of that thing so as to be able to mortgage it again. Registration of the mortgage is of no moment since it is understood to be without prejudice to the better right of third parties.