RUIZ vs DIMAILIG verify the real identity of the person introduced by Editha

as Bernardo
FACTS:
ISSUE: whether or not CA erred in holding that Evelyn is
1.Subject: a parcel of land in Imus, Cavite ; Owner: herein
not a mortagee in good faith despire the presence of
respondent Bernardo Dimailig
substantial evidence to support such conclusion of fact.
2. he entrusted the owner's copy of the TCT to his
petitioner's contention: she is a mortgagee in good faith,
brother, Jovannie, whi gave it to Editha Sanggalang, a
totally unaware. stresses that a person dealing with a
broker, for its intended sale. However, the property was
property covered by a cert of title is not required to look
then mortgaged to Evelyn Ruiz without Bernardo's
beyond what appears on the face of the title
knowledge and consent. Hence, Bernardo instituted this
suit for annulment of the Deed of REM respondents contention: since the person who
mortgaged the property was a mere impostor, then
3. Evelyn Ruiz contended that she met Jovanie when she
Evelyn cannot claim that she was a mortgagee in good
inspected the subject property and assured her that
faith. This is because a mortgage is void where the
Bernardo owned the property and his title was genuine
mortgagor has no title at all to the property subject of
-she further claimed that Jovanie mortgaged the such mortgage. Evelyn transacted only with Editha, not
property to her ; also insisted that as a mortgagee in good with "Bernardo," despite the fact that Editha and the
faith and for value, REM cannot be annulled and that she other real estate agents who assisted Evelyn in the
had the right to keep the owner's copy of the TCT until mortgage transaction were not armed with a power of
the loan was fully paid to her. attorney.

4. during pre-trial, the parties arrived at the ff RULING: -the mortgagee must prove that no
stipulations: it was not Bernardo who signed as circumstance that should have aroused her suspicion on
mortgagor in the Deed of REM, there was a demand the veracity of the mortgagor's title on the property was
letter sent to Evelyn to cause a release of mortgage on disregarded.
the subj property
-the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith assumes that
5. Bernardo testified that when he went abroad, he left the title to the subject property had already been
it TCT to his brother as they intended to sell the the transferred or registered in the name of the impostor
subject property. However a REM was executed. He who thereafter transacts with a mortgagee who acted in
argued that his alleged signature was forged. He told good faith. In the case at bench, it must be emphasized
Evelyn and demanded the return of his title. He filed a that the title remained to be registered in the name of
complaint for estafa through falsification against Editha Bernardo, the rightful and real owner, and not in the
(guilty) and Evelyn (dismissed) name of the impostor.

6. Jovanie also testified and he said that Editha convinced -In this case, Evelyn insists that she is a mortgagee in
him to surrender the owners copy of TCT and later, she good faith and for value. Thus, she has the burden to
told Jovanie that she misplaced the title. Eventually she prove such claim and must provide necessary evidence
admitted that she did not lose it but it was in Evelyn's to support the same. Unfortunately, Evelyn failed to
possession because of the REM. Evelyn confirmed it and discharge her burden.
told him that she would not return the owner's copy
-the Deed of REM was established to be a forged
uless Editha pay the loan.
instrument. As aptly discussed by the CA, Bernardo did
7. Evitha maintained that she was a mortgagee in good not and could not have executed it as he was abroad at
faith. However, she admitted that she neither verified the time of its execution.
from the neighborhood the owner of the property nor
-Evelyn did not take the necessary steps to determine
approached the occupant thereof.
any defect in the title of the alleged owner of the
RTC: dismissed - mortgagee in good faith ; CA: reversed - mortgaged property. She deliberately ignored pertinent
Evelyn's claim of good faith cannot stand as she failed to facts that should have aroused suspicion on the veracity
of the title of the mortgagor "Bernardo."
ESGUERRA vs TRINIDAD RULING: -respondents contention: lacking verification
and certification against forum shopping and failing to
FACTS:
attach to it an affidavit of service and material portions
1. Subject: 2 parcels of land in Bulacan ; Owners: Felipe of the record in support thereof
Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera
-petitioner's contention: procedural deficiencies have
2. Half of the land was sold to their grandchildren (herein been mooted by the filing of a compliance
petitioners) – Esguerras ; Part of the 2nd land was sold to
1. there should be an effort on the part of the party
the petitioners as well, and some were sold to the other
invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or
grandchildern - the Trinidad brothers.
meritorious explanation for his failure to comply with the
3. the Esguerra spouses executed a Deed of Sale in favor rules. in petitioner's case, no such explanation has been
of their grandchildren. Both docs were executed before advanced.
notary public Maximo Abaño.
-it is not a mere technicality but an essential req
4. Eulalio Trinidad later sold his share to his daughters -
2.Factual findings of the trial court, when armed by the
herein respondents. However, a portion of the land was
Court of Appeals, are final, conclusive and binding on this
later assigned duting a cadastral survey conducted in the
Court, which is not a trier of facts, hence, bereft of
late 1960s.
function under Rule 45 to examine and weigh the
5. when the respondents applied for registration of title, probative value of the evidence presented, its
the CFO awarded Lot 3593 in their favor jurisdiction being limited only to the review and revision
of errors of law.
6. under a notarized Deed of Sale, the petitioners sold to
respondents' parents a portion of their land which they -Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption
previously acquired frim the Esguerra spouses. of validity, which correlatively carries a strong
presumption that the provisions of the law governing the
7. in the same cadastral survey, it was discovered that registration of land which led to its issuance have been
about 5000sqm portion of petitioners' parcel of land sold duly followed. Fraud being a serious charge, it must be
to the Trinidad sps actually measured 6268sqm supported by clear and convincing proof. Petitioners
8. it was then awarded to Eulalio Trinidad; when the failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Trinidad sps died, it was transmitted to the respondents 3. In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not
by succession. at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or
9. the petitioners filed 2 separate complaints for their number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the
nullification on the ground that the OCTs were procured price, although there be a greater or less areas or
through fraud or misrepresentation. number than that stated in the contract.

10. both cases were consolidated. RTC - dismissed ; CA - -Where both the area and the boundaries of the
dismissed immovable are declared, the area covered within the
boundaries of the immovable prevails the area covered
ISSUE: within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the
1. . . . in misappreciating the fact that the act of the stated area.
respondent Eulalio Trinidad in acquiring the property -What really defines a piece of ground is not the area,
from Felipe Esguerra constituted fraud. calculated with more or less certainty, mentioned in its
2. . . . in the interpretation and application of the description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as
provisions of Article 1542 of the New Civil Code. enclosing the land and indicating its limits.

3. . . . in ruling that there is prescription, res judicata, and -indefeasible after 1 year
violation of the non-forum shopping. -petition denied