1) Adriano Vs Pangilinan

Guillermo Adriano, petitioner, vs. Romulo Pangilinan, respondent. Art. 2085.
Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of

[G.R. No. 137471] [January 16, 2002] pledge and mortgage:
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal
FACTS: obligation;
Guillermo Adriano is the registered owner of a parcel of land. (2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing
Sometime Nov 1990, he entrusted the TCT of the land to Angelina pledged or mortgaged;
Salvador, a distant relative, for the purpose of securing a mortgage. (3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free
W/o the knowledge & consent of Adriano, Salvador mortgaged the disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be
property to Romulo Pangilinan. legally authorized for that purpose.
Upon verifying the status of his title in the Registry of Deeds, Adriano
was surprised to discover that there is a REM annotated in the TCT, Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure
supposedly executed by one Guillermo Adriano in favor of Pangilinan. the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. (1857)
Adriano denied that he executed the deed of mortgage and denounced
his signature thereon as forgery. In the case at bar, not only was it proven in the trial court that the signature of
Adriano repeatedly demanded from Pangilinan the return or the mortgagor had been forged, but also that somebody else -- an impostor --
reconveyance of the said land to him but the demands were ignored or had pretended to be the former when the mortgagee made an ocular inspection
disregarded. of the subject property.
Pangilinan in his defense testified that he was a businessman engaged
in the buying and selling as well as in the mortgage of real estate In Parqui v. Philippine National Bank, this Court affirmed the trial courts ruling
properties; that Salvador, together with a person w/ Macanaya and a that a mortgage was invalid if the mortgagor was not the property owner:
person who introduced himself as Guillermo Adriano came up to him to
inquire on how they could secure a loan over a parcel of land; that After carefully considering the issue, we reach the conclusion that His Honors
petitioner voluntarily entrusted his title to the subject property to decision was correct. One of the essential requisites of a valid mortgage, under
Salvador for the purpose of securing a loan, thereby creating a the Civil Code is that the thing pledged or mortgaged be owned by the person
principal-agent relationship between the plaintiff and Salvador who pledges or mortgages it (Art. 1857, par. 2); and there is no question that
Roman Oliver who pledged the property to the Philippine National Bank did not
RTC own it. The mortgage was consequently void.
The signature on the REM was forged therefore; the court set aside and
nullified the said REM. The next question to be answered was petitioner negligent in entrusting and
delivering his TCT to a relative who was supposed to help him find a money
CA lender? And if so, was such negligence sufficient to deprive him of his property?
Did not dispute the findings of the RTC but said that it is undeniable
and irrefutable that Adriano did in fact entrusted the TCT to Salvador as It is crucial to determine whether herein respondent was an innocent
a security or collateral for the purpose of securing a REM debt of loan. mortgagee for value. After a careful review of the records and pleadings of the
case, we hold that he is not, because he failed to observe due diligence in the
ISSUE: grant of the loan and in the execution of the real estate mortgage.
W/N there is a property execution of mortgage
Respondent testified that he was engaged in the real estate business, including
HELD: NO the grant of loans secured by real property mortgages. Thus, he is expected to
ascertain the status and condition of the properties offered to him as collaterals,
Petitioner contends that because he did not give his consent to the real estate as well as to verify the identities of the persons he transacts business with.
mortgage (his signature having been forged), then the mortgage is void and Specifically, he cannot simply rely on a hasty examination of the property
produces no force and effect. Article 2085 of the Civil Code enumerates the offered to him as security and the documents backing them up. He should also
essential requisites of a mortgage, as follows: verify the identity of the person who claims to be the registered property
owner.
From the testimony of respondent, he dismally failed to verify whether the
individual executing the mortgage was really the owner of the property. The
ocular inspection respondent conducted was primarily intended to appraise the
value of the property in order to determine how much loan he would grant. He
did not verify whether the mortgagor was really the owner of the property
sought to be mortgaged. Because of this, he must bear the consequences of his
negligence.
As between petitioner and respondent, we hold that the failure of the latter to
verify essential facts was the immediate cause of his predicament. If he were an
ordinary individual without any expertise or experience in mortgages and real
estate dealings, we would probably understand his failure to verify essential
facts. However, he has been in the mortgage business for seven years. Thus,
assuming that both parties were negligent, the Court opines that respondent
should bear the loss. His superior knowledge of the matter should have made
him more cautious before releasing the loan and accepting the identity of the
mortgagor.
Given the particular circumstances of this case, we believe that the negligence of
petitioner is not enough to offset the fault of respondent himself in granting the
loan. The former should not be made to suffer for respondents failure to verify
the identity of the mortgagor and the actual status of the subject property
before agreeing to the real estate mortgage. While we commiserate with
respondent -- who in the end appears to have been the victim of scoundrels --
his own negligence was the primary, immediate and overriding reason that put
him in his present predicament.

1) Adriano Vs Pangilinan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1) Adriano Vs Pangilinan

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

1) Adriano Vs Pangilinan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guillermo Adriano, petitioner, vs. Romulo Pangilinan, respondent. Art. 2085.

Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of

You might also like