Go Ong v. CA 154 Scra 270
Go Ong v. CA 154 Scra 270
Go Ong v. CA 154 Scra 270
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the March 21, 1986 Decision * of the
Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. CV No. 02635, "Julita Ong etc. vs. Allied Banking Corp.
et al." affirming, with modification, the January 5, 1984 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-35230.
The uncontroverted facts of this case, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as
follows:
...: Two (2) parcels of land in Quezon City Identified as Lot No. 12,
Block 407, Psd 37326 with an area of 1960.6 sq. m. and Lot No. 1, Psd
15021, with an area of 3,660.8 sq. m. are covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 188705 in the name of "Alfredo Ong Bio Hong
married to Julita Go Ong "(Exh. D). Alfredo Ong Bio Hong died on
January 18, 1975 and Julita Go Ong was appointed administratrix
of her husband's estate in Civil Case No. 107089. The letters of
administration was registered on TCT No. 188705 on October 23, 1979.
Thereafter, Julita Go Ong sold Lot No. 12 to Lim Che Boon, and
TCT No. 188705 was partially cancelled and TCT No. 262852 was
issued in favor of Lim Che Boon covering Lot No. 12 (Exh. D-4). On June
8, 1981 Julita Go Ong through her attorney-in-fact Jovita K. Yeo
(Exh. 1) mortgaged Lot No. 1 to the Allied Banking Corporation
to secure a loan of P900,000.00 obtained by JK Exports, Inc. The
mortgage was registered on TCT No. 188705 on the same date with the
following notation: "... mortgagee's consent necessary in case of
subsequent alienation or encumbrance of the property other
conditions set forth in Doc. No. 340, Page No. 69, Book No. XIX, of the
Not. Public of Felixberto Abad". On the loan there was due the sum of
P828,000.00 and Allied Banking Corporation tried to collect it from
Julita Go Ong, (Exh. E). Hence, the complaint alleging nullity of the
contract for lack of judicial approval which the bank had
allegedly promised to secure from the court. In response thereto,
the bank averred that it was plaintiff Julita Go Ong who promised to
secure the court's approval, adding that Julita Go Ong informed the
defendant that she was processed the sum of P300,000.00 by the JK
Exports, Inc. which will also take charge of the interest of the loan.
Petitioner filed her Memorandum on May 13, 1987 (Ibid., pp. 45-56), while private
respondent filed its Memorandum on May 20, 1987 (Ibid., pp. 62-68).
The sole issue in this case is
WHETHER OR NOT THE MORTGAGE CONSTITUTED OVER THE PARCEL OF LAND
UNDER PETITIONER'S ADMINISTRATION IS NULL AND VOID FOR WANT OF
JUDICIAL APPROVAL.
The instant petition is devoid of merit.
The well-settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great
respect, carries even more weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals as in the
case at bar.
In brief, the lower court found: (1) that the property under the administration of
petitioner the wife of the deceased, is a community property and not the
separate property of the latter; (2) that the mortgage was constituted in the wife's
personal capacity and not in her capacity as administratrix; and (3) that the
mortgage affects the wife's share in the community property and her inheritance in
the estate of her husband.
Petitioner, asserting that the mortgage is void for want of judicial approval, quoted
a sense true, that fact alone is not sufficient to invalidate the whole mortgage,
willingly and voluntarily entered into by the petitioner. An opposite view would
result in an injustice.
Under similar circumstances, this Court applied the provisions of Article 493 of the
Civil Code, where the heirs as co-owners shall each have the full ownership of his
part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even effect of the alienation or mortgage, with respect to
the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership (Philippine National Bank vs.
Court of Appeals, 98 SCRA 207 [1980]).
Consequently, in the case at bar, the trial court and the Court of Appeals cannot be
faulted in ruling that the questioned mortgage constituted on the