G.R. No. L-19519

G.R. No.
L-19519 November 28, 1964
IN RE: Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim. ANANIAS ABUSTAN, petitioner-

appellee,
vs.
RUPERTO FERRER and CONSUELO V. GOLEZ (spouses), oppositors-appellants.
Facts:
The spouses Ruperto Ferrer and Consuelo V. Golez(Ferrers), seek the review of an order
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal directing the cancellation of an annotation of their
adverse claim to a parcel of land situated in the Municipality of Makati, Province of Rizal,
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 76141 of the Office of the Register of
Deeds of said province, issued in the name of appellee Ananias Abustan on May 4, 1960,
upon cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30520 in the name of Vicente C.
Gomez, married to Cirila Sulingco Manuel, of the same province.
The record shows that on April 6, 1955, Gomez had executed the document, constituting a
mortgage on said land in favor of the Ferrers, to guarantee the payment of P2,500.00,
within one (1) year from said date; that document provided that, if Gomez failed to redeem
the property within the aforementioned period, the Ferrers could, "at their election," assume
an obligation of Gomez in favor of the Meralco Loan and Savings Association (Meralco
Association), which had a first mortgage on said property, and Gomez would execute the
corresponding deed of sale thereof in favor of the Ferrers; and that document was neither
registered nor annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 30520, because the former
stated erroneously that said proper was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 16488
of the City of Manila.
Subsequently, the mortgage in favor of the Meralco Association was cancelled in

pursuance of a deed to this effect. On the same date, a deed of real estate mortgage,
executed by Gomez in favor of the spouses Brigido Campita and Fausta Domingo, for the
sum of P3,000, was duly registered, but the annotation thereof was duly cancelled on June
8, 1957, on which date another deed of mortgage on the same property, for the sum of
P6,000, in favor of the Manila Building and Loan Association (Manila Association) was duly
registered.
The Ferrers instituted, against Gomez, for the recovery of the sum of money referred to in
the document but this case was later dismissed for non-appearance of the parties on the
date set for the hearing thereof. Instead of seeking a revocation of the order of dismissal,
the Ferrers commenced Civil Case No. 5726 of the same court, against Gomez and the
Manila Association.
Gomez and the Manila Association moved to dismiss the complaint in Case No. 5726,
upon the ground that the same is barred by the order of dismissal of Case No. 4820. This
motion was granted and the complaint in said Case No. 5726 was, accordingly, dismissed.
No appeal was taken from the order of dismissal, which accordingly, became final and
executory.
Subsequently,Mrs. Ferrer filed with the office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal an affidavit
of adverse claim to the property above referred to, based upon Exhibit E. Soon thereafter,
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 76141 was issued in the name of Ananias D. Abustan,
married to Librada Buan. This Transfer Certificate of Title No. 76141 carried thereon two
(2) memoranda, of "encumbrances," namely, the annotation of the first mortgage in favor of
the Manila Association and that of the adverse claim of the Ferrers.
Abustan filed in Land Registration Case No. 3861, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 2029,
under which the property in question is registered, a petition for cancellation of said
annotation of adverse claim upon the ground that the same had been "improperly
registered in violation of Section 112 of Act 496, because the right or interest sought to be
enforced by the spouses, Ruperto Ferrer and Consuelo Golez, has become unenforceable
by virtue of a final decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal , in Civil Case
No. 5726," referring to the aforementioned order of dismissal thereof. After due hearing this
petition was granted and, a reconsideration of the action thus taken by the lower court
having been denied, the, Ferrers have interposed the present appeal by writ of error.
The Ferrers maintain that the lower court erred (a) in holding that the deed of mortgage
constituted in their favor had become unenforceable owing to the dismissal of Civil Cases
Nos. 4820 and 5726 of Rizal; (b) in not holding that the registration of the adverse claim in
question operated as a registration of the deed of real estate mortgage in their favor; (c) in
not holding that Civil Case No. 5726 operated as a reopening of Civil Case No. 4820; and
(d) in giving due course to appellee's petition instead of requiring them to file an ordinary
action.
Issue:
(1) Whether the lower court erred in holding that the deed of mortgage constituted in their
favor had become unenforceable owing to the dismissal of Civil Cases Nos. 4820 and 5726
of Rizal
(2) Whether the lower court erred in not holding that the registration of the adverse claim in
question operated as a registration of the deed of real estate mortgage in their favor
Held:
(1) This appeal is clearly devoid of merit. Indeed, the dismissal of Case No. 4820 had the
effect of extinguishing the debt of Gomez in favor of the Ferrers. As a consequence, the
latter lost the right to demand the conveyance in their favor of the lot in dispute, such right
being predicated upon the default of Gomez in the payment of said debt. The extinction
thereof necessarily operated to wipe out the default, if any, and, as a consequence, the
relief stipulated for such event, namely, the conveyance of the property to the Ferrers.
Regardless of the foregoing, the dismissal of Case No. 5726 extinguished the light, if it still
existed, to said conveyance, which was sought to be enforced in that case.
(2) Even if the annotation of the adverse claim amounted to the registration of a deed of
real estate mortgage — and it did not have such effect — the dismissal of Case No. 4820,
had extinguished the debt secured by the mortgage, and, accordingly, of the latter. Being
merely an accessory contract, a mortgage cannot exist without the principal obligation it
seeks to guarantee (Article 2085, Civil Code of the Philippines). So, too, even if Case No.
5726 had amounted to a reopening of Case No. 4820, which is not a fact, the dismissal of
Case No. 5726 wiped out the right of the Ferrers under Exhibit E to the conveyance in their
favor if the property in question — regardless of its nullity under Article 2088 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines — no appeal having been taken from the order of dismissal of said
case No. 5726.

G.R. No. L-19519

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-19519

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

G.R. No. L-19519

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-19519 November 28, 1964

IN RE: Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim. ANANIAS ABUSTAN, petitioner-

Subsequently, the mortgage in favor of the Meralco Association was cancelled in

You might also like