Ruiz V Dimailig

Evelyn Ruiz vs Bernardo Dimailig [G.R. No.
204280; November 9, 2016]

AUTHOR: John Maverick Espinola
TOPIC: Real Estate Mortgage
PONENTE: Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
 Bernardo F. Dimailig (Dimailig) was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by
TCT No. T-361747 located in Alapan, Imus, Cavite.
 In 1997, he entrusted the owner's copy of the said TCT to his brother, Jovannie, who in
turn gave the title to Editha Sanggalang, a broker, for its intended sale.
 In 1998, the property was mortgaged to Evelyn V. Ruiz as evidenced by a Deed of REM
without Bernardo's knowledge and consent.
 Hence, Bernardo instituted this suit for annulment of the Deed of REM.
 Ruiz alleged that she:
o She met Jovannie when she inspected the subject property and assured her that
Bernardo owned the property and his title thereto was genuine.
o Jovannie mortgaged the property to her.
 In the pre-trial, both parties stipulated that it was not Dimailig who signed as mortgagor
of the property.
 In his testimony, Jovannie said:
o Sometime in December 1997, Editha convinced him to surrender the owner's
copy of TCT No. T-361747 which she would show her buyer.
o Editha then informed him that she misplaced the title. Hence, he executed in an
affidavit of loss and registered it with the RD. Editha finally admitted that the title
was not lost but was in Evelyn's possession because of the REM.
o Upon learning this, he inquired from Evelyn if Editha mortgaged Bernardo's
property to her. Purportedly, Evelyn confirmed said mortgage and told him that
she would not return the owner's copy of TCT No. T-361747 unless Editha pay
the loan.
o He told Evelyn that Bernardo's alleged signature in the REM was not genuine
since he was abroad at the time of its execution.
 Ruiz still maintained that she was a mortgagee in good faith.
 The RTC dismissed the complaint. Ruled that Ruiz is a mortgagee in good faith.
 The CA, however, reversed the decision of the RTC, stating that Ruiz is not a mortgagee
in good faith since she failed to verify the real identity of the person introduced to her as
Dimailig.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON Ruiz is a mortgagee in good faith
o No. Ruiz failed to prove that she is a mortgagee in good faith.
o Generally, no valid mortgage will arise unless the mortgagor has a valid title or
ownership over the mortgaged property.
o However, as an exception, a mortgagee can invoke that he or she derived title
even if the mortgagor's title on the property is defective, if he or she acted in good
faith. In such instance, the mortgagee must prove that no circumstance that
should have aroused her suspicion on the veracity of the mortgagor's title on the
property was disregarded.
o The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith assumes that the title to the subject property had
already been transferred or registered in the name of the impostor who thereafter
transacts with a mortgagee who acted in good faith
o However, in this case, the title remained to be registered in the name of Bernardo,
the rightful and real owner, and not in the name of the impostor.
o Also, in this case, Ruiz failed to prove that she is a mortgagee in good faith.
o The Court took into consideration the following:
o First, the Deed of REM was established to be a forged instrument. As
aptly discussed by the CA, Bernardo did not and could not have executed
it as he was abroad at the time of its execution. During pre-trial, both
parties agreed that it was not Bernardo who signed as the mortgagor in the
Deed of REM. For being a forged instrument, the Deed of REM is a
nullity and conveys no title.
o Second, Evelyn cannot invoke the protection given to a mortgagee in good
faith. As discussed, the title to the subject property remained registered in
the name of Bernardo. It was not transferred to the impostor's name when
Evelyn transacted with the latter.
o Third, Evelyn did not take the necessary steps to determine any defect in
the title of the alleged owner of the mortgaged property. She deliberately
ignored pertinent facts that should have aroused suspicion on the veracity
of the title of the mortgagor "Bernardo."
o Fourth, the Court observes that Evelyn hastily granted the loan and entered into
the mortgage contract. As also testified by Corazon, a day after the supposed
ocular inspection on the property, Evelyn and "Bernardo" executed the Deed of
REM even without Evelyn verifying the identity of the property's occupant as
well as the right of the mortgagor, if any, over the same. Indeed, where the
mortgagee acted with haste in granting the loan, without first determining the
ownership of the property being mortgaged, the mortgagee cannot be considered
as an innocent mortgagee in good faith.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the October 22, 2012 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95046 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Ruiz V Dimailig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ruiz V Dimailig

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ruiz V Dimailig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evelyn Ruiz vs Bernardo Dimailig [G.R. No.

204280; November 9, 2016]

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

You might also like