12/9/2015 G.R.No.

167848

THIRDDIVISION


BANKOFCOMMERCE, G.R.No.167848
Petitioner,

Present:



YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,

Chairperson,

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
versus
CALLEJO,SR.,

CHICONAZARIO,and

NACHURA,JJ.






SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO,
Promulgated:
JR., and NATIVIDAD O. SAN

PABLO,
April27,2007
Respondents.
xx

DECISION


CHICONAZARIO,J.:


BeforethisCourtisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRevisedRules
of Court, filed by petitioner Bank of Commerce seeking to reverse and set aside the
[1] [2]
Decision oftheCourtofAppealsdated10September2004,anditsResolution dated
10March2005.TheCourtofAppeals,initsassailedDecisionandResolutionreversedthe
[3]
Decision oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMandaueCity,Branch56dated25June

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 1/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

[4]
2002, which affirmed the Decision, of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mandaue
City,Branch2,dismissingforlackofmeritthecomplaintagainstMelencioSantos(Santos)
and the Bank of Commerce filed by the respondent Spouses Prudencio (Prudencio) and
Natividad (Natividad) San Pablo for the declaration of nullity of the Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) and cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage. The dispositive portion of the
CourtofAppealsDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for review is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Order of the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch56,MandaueCity,Cebu,inCivilCase4135Amustbeasthey
arehereby,SETASIDE.WethereforedeclarethesocalledSpecialPowerofAttorney,the
DeedofRealEstateMortgageandtheForeclosureproceedingstobeNULLandVOIDab
initio. And, in the meantime, if the subject Lot No. 1882C1A covered by Transfer
CertificateofTitleNo.(26469)7561hasbeensoldandanewtransfercertificateoftitlehad
beenissued,lettheRegistryofdeedsofMandaueCitycancelthenewtitleandissueanew
oneinfavorofNatividadO.SanPablo,unlessthenewtitleholderisapurchaseringood
faith and for value. In the latter case, respondent Bank of Commerce and respondent
Melencio G. Santos are hereby held jointly and severally liable to petitioners for the fair
market value of the property as of the date of finality of this decision. Moreover, private
respondentsarelikewiseheldjointlyandseverallyliabletopetitionersP50,000.00asmoral
damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, P25,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per count
appearanceasattorneysfeesandP10,000.00aslitigationexpenses.Nocosts.
Theantecedentfactualandproceduralfactsofthiscaseareasfollows:

On 20 December 1994, Santos obtained a loan from Direct Funders Management and
[5]
ConsultancyInc.,(DirectFunders)intheamountofP1,064,000.40.

[6]
Asasecurityfortheloanobligation,NatividadexecutedaSPA infavorofSantos,
authorizingthelattertomortgagetoDirectFunders a paraphernal real property registered
[7]
under her name and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (26469)7561
(subjectproperty).
[8]
IntheDeedofRealEstateMortgage executedinfavorofDirectFunders,Natividadand
her husband, Prudencio, signed as the comortgagors of Santos. It was, however, clear
between the parties that the loan obligation was for the sole benefit of Santos and the
spousesSanPablomerelysignedthedeedinordertoaccommodatetheformer.

TheaforesaidaccommodationtransactionwasmadepossiblebecausePrudencio and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 2/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

Santos were close friends and business associates. Indeed, Prudencio was an incorporator
and a member of the Board of Directors of Intergems Fashion Jewelries Corporation
(Intergems),adomesticcorporationinwhichSantosactedasthePresident.

Sometime in June 1995, the spouses San Pablo received a letter from Direct Funders
informingthemthatSantosfailedtopayhisloanobligationwiththelatter.Whenconfronted
with the matter, Santos promised to promptly settle his obligation with Direct Funders,
whichheactuallydidthefollowingmonth.

UponlearningthatSantosdebtwithDirectFundershadbeenfullysettled,thespouses
SanPablothendemandedfromSantostoturnovertothemtheTCTofthesubjectproperty
butthelatterfailedtodosodespiterepeateddemands.Such refusal prompted the spouses
SanPablotoinquireastothestatusoftheTCTofthesubjectpropertywiththeRegisterof
Deeds of Mandaue City and to their surprise, they discovered that the property was again
used by Santos as collateral for another loan obligation he secured from the Bank of
Commerce.

As shown in the annotation stamped at the back of the title, the spouses San Pablo
purportedlyauthorizedSantostomortgagethesubjectpropertytotheBankofCommerce,
asevidencedbytheSPAallegedlysignedbyNatividadon29 March 1995. It was further
shownfromtheannotationatthebackofthetitlethatthespousesSanPablosignedaDeed
of Real Estate Mortgage over the subject property in favor of Bank of Commerce, which
[9]
theyneverdid.
In order to free the subject property from unauthorized encumbrances, the spouses San
Pablo, on 22 December 1995, filed a Complaint seeking for the Quieting of Title and
NullificationoftheSPAandthedeedofrealestatemortgagewiththeprayerfordamages
againstSantosandtheBankofCommercebeforetheMTCofMandaueCity,Branch2.
In their complaint, the spouses San Pablo claimed that their signatures on the SPA
andtheDeedofRealEstateMortgageallegedlyexecutedtosecurealoanwiththeBankof
Commerce were forged. They claimed that while the loan with the Direct Funders was
obtained with their consent and direct participation, they never authorized the subsequent
loanobligationwiththeBankofCommerce.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 3/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

During the pendency of the case, the Bank of Commerce, for nonpayment of the loan,
initiated the foreclosure proceedings on the strength of the contested Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage. During the auction sale, the Bank of Commerce emerged as the highest bidder
andthusaCertificateofSalewasissuedunderitsname.Accordingly,thespousesSanPablo
[10]
amendedtheircomplainttoincludetheprayerforannulmentoftheforeclosuresale.

[11]
In his Answer, Santos countered that the loan with the Bank of Commerce was
deliberatelyresortedtowiththeconsent,knowledgeanddirectparticipationofthespouses
SanPabloinordertopayofftheobligationwithDirectFunders.Infact,itwasPrudencio
whocausedthepreparationoftheSPAandtogetherwithSantos,theywenttotheBankof
Commerce, Cebu City Branch to apply for the loan. In addition, Santos averred that the
spouses San Pablo were receiving consideration from Intergems for extending
accommodationtransactionsinfavorofthelatter.

[12]
For its part, Bank of Commerce filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,
alleging that the spouses San Pablo, represented by their attorneyinfact, Santos, together
with Intergems, obtained a loan in the amount of P1,218,000.00. It denied the allegation
advanced by the spouses San Pablo that the SPA and the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
werespurious.Sincetheloanalreadybecamedueanddemandable,theBankofCommerce
soughttheforeclosureofthesubjectproperty.

AfterthePreTrialConference,trialonthemeritsensued.

During the trial, Anastacio Barbarona, Jr., the Manager of the Bank of Commerce,
CebuCityBranch,testifiedthatthespousesSanPablopersonallysignedtheDeedofReal
[13]
Estate Mortgage in his presence. The testimony of a document examiner and a
handwriting expert, however, belied this claim. The expert witness, after carefully
examiningtheloandocumentswiththeBankofCommerce,attestedthatthesignaturesof
[14]
thespousesSanPabloontheSPAandtheDeedofRealEstateMortgagewereforged.
[15]
On 10 July 2001, the MTC rendered a Decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 4/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

merit. The MTC declared that while it was proven that the signatures of the spouses San
Pabloontheloandocumentswereforged,theBankofCommercewasneverthelessingood
faith.Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the instant complaint is hereby ordered
DISMISSEDforlackofmerit.Thedismissalofthiscaseiswithoutprejudicetothefilingof
the appropriate criminal action against those responsible for the falsification of the
questionedspecialpowerofattorneyanddeedofrealestatemortgage.

Aggrieved, the spouses San Pablo appealed the adverse decision to the RTC of
MandaueCity,Branch56,which,inturn,affirmedtheunfavorablerulingoftheMTCinits
[16]
Decision promulgatedon25June2002.Thedecretalpartofthesaiddecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby resolves to affirm the
assailedDecision.


SimilarlyillfatedwastheMotionforReconsiderationfiledbythespousesSanPablo
[17]
whichwasdeniedbytheRTCforlackofmerit.

Unyielding, the spouses San Pablo elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals
[18]
throughaPetitionforReviewunderRule42oftheRevisedRulesofCourt, assailingthe
adversedecisionsoftheMTCandRTC.

[19]
InaDecision dated10 September 2004, the appellate court granted the petition
filedbythespousesSanPabloandreversedthedecisionsoftheMTCandRTC.Insetting
aside the rulings of the lower courts, the Court of Appeals ruled that since it was duly
proventhatthesignaturesofthespousesSanPabloontheloandocumentswereforged,then
suchspuriousdocumentscouldneverbecomeavalidsourceoftitle.Themortgagecontract
executed by Santos over the subject property in favor of Bank of Commerce, without the
authorityofthespousesSanPablo,wasthereforeunenforceable,unlessratified.

The Bank of Commerce is now before this Court assailing the adverse decision
[20]
rendered by the Court of Appeals. For the resolution of this Court are the following

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 5/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

issues:

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE MTC HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE
CASEFILEDBYTHESPOUSESSANPABLO.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE FORGED SPA AND SPECIAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY COULD BECOME A VALID SOURCE OF A RIGHT TO
FORECLOSEAPROPERTY.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE AWARDS OF DAMAGES, ATTRONEYS
FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES ARE PROPER IN THE INSTANT
CASE.


Inquestioningtheadverserulingoftheappellatecourt,theBankofCommerce,for
the first time in more than 10 years of pendency of the instant case, raises the issue of
jurisdiction.Itasseveratesthatsincethesubjectmatterofthecaseisincapableofpecuniary
estimation,thecomplaintforquietingoftitleandannulmentoftheSPA,theDeedofReal
Estate Mortgage, and foreclosure proceedings should have been originally filed with the
RTC and not with the MTC. The decision rendered by the MTC, which did not acquire
jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthecase,isthereforevoidfromtheverybeginning.
Necessarily, the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the petition when the
tribunaloriginallytryingthecasehadnoauthoritytotrytheissue.

Wedonotagree.

Uponcursoryreadingoftherecords,wegatheredthatthecasefiledbythespouses
SanPablobeforetheMTCwasanactionforquietingoftitle,andnullificationoftheSPA,
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, and foreclosure proceedings. While the body of the
complaint consists mainly of allegations of forgery, however, the primary object of the
spousesSanPabloinfilingthesamewastoeffectivelyfreethetitlefromanyunauthorized
lienimposeduponit.

Clearly,thecruxofthecontroversybeforetheMTCchieflyhingesonthequestionof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 6/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

whohasthebettertitleoverthesubjectproperty.IsitthespousesSanPablowhoclaimthat
theirsignaturesontheloandocumentwereforged?OrisittheBankofCommercewhich
maintains that the SPA and the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage were duly executed and,
therefore, a valid source of its right to foreclose the subject property for nonpayment of
loan?

Anactionforquietingoftitleisacommonlawremedyfortheremovalofanycloud
uponordoubtoruncertaintywithrespecttotitletorealproperty.AsclarifiedbythisCourt
[21]
inBaricuatro,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals :

xxxOriginatinginequityjurisprudence,itspurposeistosecureanadjudicationthataclaim
oftitletooraninterestinproperty,adversetothatofthecomplainant,isinvalid,sothatthe
complainantandthoseclaimingunderhimmaybeforeverafterwardfreefromanydangeror
hostile claim. In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to
determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to
place things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable
respectandnotdisturbtheother,butalsoforthebenefitofboth,sothathewhohastheright
would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards
without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the
property as he deems best (citation omitted). Such remedy may be availed of under the
circumstancesenumeratedintheCivilCode:

ART.476.Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or
any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbranceorproceedingwhichisapparentlyvalidoreffectivebutisin
truthandinfactinvalid,ineffective,voidable,orunenforceable,andmaybe
prejudicialtosaidtitle,anactionmaybebroughttoremovesuchcloudor
toquietthetitle,

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
upontitletorealpropertyoranyinteresttherein.

The mortgage of the subject property to the Bank of Commerce, annotated on the
Spouses San Pablos TCT, constitutes a cloud on their title to the subject property, which
may,atfirst,appearvalidandeffective,butisallegedlyinvalidorvoidableforhavingbeen
madewithouttheirknowledgeandauthorityasregisteredowners.Wethushaveestablished
that the case filed by the spouses San Pablo before the MTC is actually an action for
quieting of title, a real action, the jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed
[22]
value of the property. The assessed value of the subject property located in Mandaue

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 7/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

City,asallegedinthecomplaint,isP4,900.00,whichaptlyfallswithinthejurisdictionof
theMTC.

AccordingtoSection33ofBatasPambansaBlg.129,asamended,otherwiseknownasThe
JudiciaryReorganizationActof1980:

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsshallexercise:

xxxx

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
propertyorinterestthereindoesnotexceedtwentythousandpesos(P20,000.00)or,in
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos(P50,000.0)exclusiveofinterest,damagesofwhateverkind,attorneysfeeslitigation
expensesandcosts:Provided,Thatincasesoflandnotdeclaredfortaxationpurposes,the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (As
amended,R.A.No.7691.)

EvengrantingforthesakeofargumentthattheMTCdidnothavejurisdictionoverthecase,
theBankofCommerceisneverthelessestoppedfromrepudiatingtheauthorityofthecourt
totryanddecidethecaseafterhavingactivelyparticipatedintheproceedingsbeforeitand
invokingitsjurisdictionbyseekinganaffirmativerelieftherefrom.

As we have explained quite frequently, a party may be barred from raising questions of
jurisdictionwhenestoppelbylacheshassetin.Estoppelbylachesisfailureorneglectfor
unreasonableandunexplainedlengthoftimetodowhat,byexercisingduediligence,ought
tohavebeendoneearlier,warrantingthepresumptionthatthepartyentitledtoassertithas
either abandoned it or has acquiesced to the correctness or fairness of its resolution. This
doctrineisbasedongroundsofpublicpolicywhich,forthepeaceofthesociety,requires
the discouragement of stale claims, and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere
questionoftimebutisprincipallyanissueofinequityorunfairnessinpermittingarightor
[23]
claimtobeenforcedorespoused.

InSolivenv.FastformsPhilippines,Inc.,wethusruled:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 8/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

Whileitistruethatjurisdictionmayberaisedatanytime,thisrulepresupposesthat
estoppelhasnotsupervened.Intheinstantcase,respondentactivelyparticipatedinallstages
of the proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an
affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial courts
[24]
jurisdiction,especiallywhentheadversejudgmentisrendered.

Participationinallstagesbeforethetrialcourt,thatincludedinvokingitsauthorityinasking
for affirmative relief, effectively bars the party by estoppel from challenging the courts
[25]
jurisdiction. TheCourtfrownsupontheundesirablepracticeofapartyparticipatingin
theproceedingsandsubmittinghiscasefordecisionandthenacceptingthejudgment,only
[26]
iffavorable,andattackingitforlackofjurisdictionwhenadverse.

We now proceed to resolve the issue of whether a forged SPA or Deed of Real Estate
Mortgagecouldbeasourceofavalidtitle.Settledisthefact,asfoundbytheMTCandas
affirmed by both the RTC and the Court of Appeals, that the SPA and the Deed of Real
EstateMortgagehadbeenforged.Suchfactisnolongerdisputedbytheparties.Thus,the
only issue remaining to be threshed out in the instant petition is whether the Bank of
Commerce is a mortgagee in good faith. The MTC and the RTC held that the Bank of
Commerce acted in good faith in entering into the loan transaction with Santos, while the
CourtofAppeals,ontheotherhand,ruledotherwise.

The Bank of Commerce posits that it is a mortgagee in good faith and therefore
entitledtoprotectionunderthelaw. It strenuously asserts that it is an innocent party who
had no knowledge that the right of Santos to mortgage the subject property was merely
simulated.

[27]
In Cavite Development Bank v. Spouses Lim, the Court explained the doctrine of
mortgageeingoodfaith,thus:

There is, however, a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the
ownerofthemortgagedproperty,histitlebeingfraudulent,themortgagecontractandany
foreclosure sale arising there from are given effect by reason of public policy. This is the
doctrine of the mortgagee in good faith based on the rule that all persons dealing with
property covered by the Torrens Certificates of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not
requiredtogobeyondwhatappearsonthefaceofthetitle.Thepublicinterestinupholding
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 9/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

theindefeasibilityofacertificateoftitle,asevidenceoflawfulownershipofthelandorof
any encumbrance thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon
whatappearsonthefaceofthecertificateoftitle.

Indeed,amortgageehasarighttorelyingoodfaithonthecertificateoftitleofthe
mortgagorofthepropertygivenassecurity,andintheabsenceofanysignthatmightarouse
suspicion,themortgageehasnoobligationtoundertakefurtherinvestigation.Thisdoctrine
presupposes, however, that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner of the property,
hasalreadysucceededinobtainingTorrenstitleoverthepropertyinhisnameandthat,after
obtaining the said title, he succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on
whatappearsonthetitle.ThisisnotthesituationinthecaseatbarsinceSantoswasnotthe
registeredownerforhemerelyrepresentedhimselftobetheattorneyinfactofthespouses
SanPablo.

Incaseswherethemortgageedoesnotdirectlydealwiththeregisteredownerofreal
property,thelawrequiresthatahigherdegreeofprudencebeexercisedbythemortgagee.
[28]
AswehaveenunciatedinthecaseofAbadv.Guimba:

x x x While one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look behind the
certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not a registered owner is expected to
examinenotonlythecertificateoftitlebutallthefactualcircumstancesnecessaryfor[one]
todetermineifthereareanyflawsinthetitleofthetransferor,orin[the]capacitytotransfer
theland.Althoughtheinstantcasedoesnotinvolveasalebutonlyamortgage,thesamerule
appliesinasmuchasthelawitselfincludesamortgageeinthetermpurchaser.

Thisprincipleisappliedmorestrenuouslywhenthemortgageeisabankorabanking
institution.InthecaseofCruzv.BancomFinanceCorporation,Weruled:

Respondent,however,isnotanordinarymortgageeitisamortgageebank.Assuch,
unlikeprivateindividuals,itisexpectedtoexercisegreatercareandprudenceinitsdealings,
includingthoseinvolvingregisteredlands.Abankinginstitutionisexpectedtoexercisedue
diligence before entering into a mortgage contract. The ascertainment of the status or
condition of a property offered to it as security for a loan must be a standard and
[29]
indispensablepartofitsoperations.

We never fail to stress the remarkable significance of a banking institution to
commercialtransactions,inparticular,andtothecountryseconomyingeneral.Thebanking
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 10/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the
economiclifeofeverycivilizednation.Whetherasmerepassiveentitiesforthesafekeeping
and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have
become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with
[30]
respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence. Consequently, the highest
degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even
[31]
required,ofit.

The Bank of Commerce clearly failed to observe the required degree of caution in
ascertainingthegenuinenessandextentoftheauthorityofSantos to mortgage the subject
property.ItshouldnothavesimplyreliedonthefaceofthedocumentssubmittedbySantos,
asitsundertakingtolendaconsiderableamountofmoneyrequiredofitagreaterdegreeof
diligence.Thatthepersonapplyingfortheloanisotherthantheregisteredownerofthereal
property being mortgaged should have already raised a red flag and which should have
induced the Bank of Commerce to make inquiries into and confirm Santos authority to
mortgagetheSpousesSanPablosproperty.Apersonwhodeliberatelyignoresasignificant
fact that could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an innocent
[32]
purchaserforvalue.

HavinglaidthatthebankofCommerceisnotingoodfaithnecessitatesustoaward
moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and costs of litigation in favor of the
spouses San Pablo. Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to
[33]
compensatetheplaintifffortheinjurieshemayhavesuffered. Willfulinjurytoproperty
maybealegalgroundforawardingmoraldamagesifthecourtshouldfindthat,underthe
[34]
circumstances,suchdamagesarejustlydue. Intheinstantcase,wefindthattheaward
ofmoraldamagesisproper.TheBankofCommerce,inallowingSantostosecurealoanout
ofthepropertybelongingtothespousesSanPablo,withouttakingthenecessaryprecaution
demandedbythecircumstancesowingtothepublicpolicyimbuedinthebankingbusiness,
causedinjurytothelatterwhichcallsfortheimpositionofmoraldamages.Asfortheaward
of exemplary damages, we deem that the same is proper for the Bank of Commerce was
remiss in its obligation to inquire into the veracity of Santos authority to mortgage the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 11/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

[35]
subject property, causing damage to the spouses San Pablo. Finally, we rule that the
award of attorneys fees and litigation expenses is valid since the spouses San Pablo were
compelledtolitigateandthusincurexpensesin order to protect its rights over the subject
[36]
property.

Prescindingfromtheabove,wethusrulethattheforgedSPAandDeedofRealEstate
Mortgage is void ab initio. Consequently, the foreclosure proceedings conducted on the
strengthofthesaidSPAandDeedofRealEstateMortgage,islikewisevoidabinitio.Since
theBankofCommerceisnotamortgageeingoodfaithoraninnocentpurchaserforvalue
on the auction sale, it is not entitled to the protection of its rights to the subject property.
Considering further that it was not shown that the Bank of Commerce has already
transferred the subject property to a third person who is an innocent purchaser for value
(sincenointerventionorthirdpartyclaimwasinterposedduringthependencyofthiscase),
itisbutproperthatthesubjectpropertyshouldberetainedbytheSpousesSanPablo.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated 10 September 2004 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
76562, is hereby AFFIRMED. The SPA, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, and the
ForeclosureProceedingsconductedinpursuanttosaiddeed,areherebydeclaredVOIDAB
INITIO. The Register of Deeds of Mandaue City is hereby DIRECTED to cancel Entry
Nos.9089V.9D.Band9084V.9D.BannotatedonTCTNo.(26469)7561inthenameof
NatividadOpolontesimaSanPablo.TheBankofCommerceisherebyORDEREDtopay
the spouses San Pablo P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages,
P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and P20,000.00 as litigation expenses. Cost against the
petitioner.

SOORDERED.



MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice




http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 12/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

WECONCUR:


CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson


MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision





CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedin
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 13/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteL.YapwithAssociateJusticesArsenioMagpaleandRamonBato,Jr.,concurring.
[2]
Rollo,pp.6466.
[3]
Id.at101110.
[4]
Id.at88100.
[5]
Records,Vol.I,pp.1521.
[6]
Id.at14.
[7]
Id.at1012.
[8]
Id.at1521.
[9]
Id.at11.
[10]
Id.at96103.
[11]
Id.at5051.
[12]
Id.at118120.
[13]
TSN,19October2000records,Vol.II.
[14]
TSN,28February1999.
[15]
Records,Vol.I,pp.448460.
[16]
Id.,Vol.II,pp.508518.
[17]
Id.at543545.
[18]
Id.at547558.
[19]
Rollo,pp.6990.
[20]
Id.at1250.
[21]
G.R.No.105902,9February2000,325SCRA137,146147.
[22]
Section33ofBatasPambansaBlg.129.
[23]
Laxina,Sr.v.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,G.R.No.153155,30September2005,471SCRA542,554.
[24]
G.R.No.139031,18October2004,440SCRA389,395.
[25]
PantrancoNorthExpress,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.105180,5July1993,224SCRA477,491.
[26]
ProducersBankofthePhilippinesv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,359Phil.45,52(1998).
[27]
381Phil.355,368(2000)ascitedinEreav.QuerrerKauffman,G.R.No.165853,22June2006,492SCRA298,319.
[28]
G.R.No.157002,29July2005,465SCRA356,369.
[29]
429Phil.225,239(2002).
[30]
MetropolitanBankandTrustCompanyv.Cabilzo,G.R.No.154469,6December2006.
[31]
BankofthePhilippineIslandsv.CasaMontessoriInternationale,G.R.No.149454,28May2004,430SCRA261,283.
[32]
Id.
[33]
Bautistav.MangaldanRuralBank,Inc.,G.R.No.100755,10February1994,230SCRA16,21.
[34]
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,193Phil.560,579(1981).
[35]
SimexInternational(Manila),Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.88013,19March1990,183SCRA360,367368.
[36]
RizalSuretyInsuranceCompanyv.CourtofAppeals,329Phil.786,810811(1996).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 14/15
12/9/2015 G.R.No.167848

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/167848.htm 15/15