Case #20 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE,

G.R. NO. 196577, FEBRUARY 25, 2013

FACTS

Respondent obtained a loan from Kapantay Multi-Purpose Cooperative and mortgaged Lot
No. 29 to guarantee payment of such loan. Kapantay, in turn, used OCT No. P-12026 as collateral
under its Loan Account No. 97-CC-013 with Land Bank-Sablayan Branch.

In 1998, Poblete decided to sell Lot No. 29 to pay her loan. Maniego agreed to buy Lot No.
29 for ₱900,000.00, but he suggested that a deed of absolute sale for ₱300,000.00 be executed
instead to reduce the taxes. In the Deed, Poblete described herself as a "widow." Poblete, then,
asked Balen(Poblete’s son-in-law) to deliver the Deed to Maniego and to receive the payment in
her behalf. Balen testified that he delivered the Deed to Maniego however; he did not receive from
Maniego the agreed purchase price. Maniego told Balen that he would pay the amount upon his
return from the United States. In an Affidavit, Poblete stated that she agreed to have the payment
deposited in her Land Bank Savings Account.

Based on a Certification issued by Land Bank-Sablayan Branch, Maniego paid Kapantay’s

Loan Account for ₱448,202.08. On 2000, Maniego applied for a loan of ₱1,000,000.00 with Land
Bank, using OCT No. P 12026 as collateral. Land Bank alleged that as a condition for the approval
of the loan, the title of the collateral should first be transferred to Maniego.

On 14 August 2000, pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale the Register of Deeds of

Occidental Mindoro issued TCT No. T-20151 in Maniego’s name. On the next day, Maniego and
Land Bank executed a Credit Line Agreement and a Real Estate Mortgage over TCT No. T- 20151
and the latter released the loan proceeds to Maniego. Subsequently, Maniego failed to pay the loan.
Land Bank, later, filed an Application for Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.

Poblete filed a Complaint for Nullification of the Deed and TCT No. T-20151,
Reconveyance of Title and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Issuance
of Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Poblete alleged that despite her demands, she did not receive
the consideration of ₱900,000.00 and that without her knowledge, Maniego used the Deed dated
9 November 1998 to acquire OCT No. P-12026 from Kapantay. Poblete claimed that the Deed
dated 11 August 2000 bearing her and her deceased husband’s supposed signatures was a forgery
as their signatures were forged. As proof of the forgery, Poblete presented the Death Certificate
dated 27 April 1996 of her husband and a report showing that the signatures were forgeries.

Land Bank filed its Answer claiming that it is a mortgagee in good faith and it observed
due diligence prior to approving the loan by verifying Maniego’s title with the Register of
Deeds.Maniego separately filed his Answer, denying the allegations of Poblete and alleging that
he paid the consideration of the sale to Poblete.
 The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of Poblete. The RTC denied the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Land Bank for want of merit.
Land Bank and Maniego separately challenged such Decision before the CA wherein it
affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC.
Land Bank and Maniego filed their Motions for Reconsideration but the CA denied both
motions. In a Resolution, the Second Division of this Court denied the Petition for Review on
Certiorari filed by Maniego. This Resolution became final and executory on 19 January 2012. On
the other hand, Land Bank filed this petition.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the finding of the trial court declaring TCT No.
T-20151 as null and void.

2. Whether or not the CA misconstrued the evidence and the law in not finding Land Bank a
mortgagee in good faith. (NO)

RULING

In this case, both the RTC and CA found that the signatures were forged by Maniego and
that he did not pay the consideration for the sale. Since the issue on the genuineness of the Deed
is a question of fact, the Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh the evidence again.

1. It is a well-entrenched rule that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no

title. Moreover, where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in
fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration. Since
the Deed dated 11 August 2000 is void, the corresponding TCT No. T-20151 issued
pursuant to the same deed is likewise void.

The issue on the nullity of Maniego’s title had already been foreclosed when his petition
was denied which already became final and executory. This is without prejudice, however, to the
right of Maniego to recover from Poblete what he paid to Kapantay for his account, otherwise
there will be unjust enrichment by Poblete.

Since TCT No. T-20151 has been declared void by final judgment, the Real Estate
Mortgage constituted over it is also void. In a real estate mortgage contract, it is essential that the
mortgagor be the absolute owner of the property to be mortgaged; otherwise, the mortgage is void.

2. There is indeed a situation where, despite that the mortgagor is not the owner of the
mortgaged property, his title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure
sale arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public policy. This is the doctrine of
"the mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that buyers or mortgagees dealing with
property covered by a Certificate of Title are not required to go beyond the face of the title.
However, it has been consistently held that this rule does not apply to banks, which are
 required to observe a higher standard of diligence. Applying said principles, petitioner
Land Bank is not a mortgagee in good faith.

Based on the evidence, Land Bank processed Maniego’s loan application upon his
presentation of OCT No. P-12026, which was still under the name of Poblete.

The records do not show that Land Bank investigated and inspected the property to
ascertain its actual occupants, only mentioning that it inspected Lot No. 29 to appraise the value
of the property. The standard practice of banks before approving a loan is to send representatives
to the premises of the land offered as collateral to investigate its real owners.

Because of Land Bank’s haste in granting the loan, it appears that Maniego’s loan was
already completely processed while the collateral was still in the name of Poblete. Where the
mortgagee acted with haste in granting the loan and did not ascertain the ownership of the land
being mortgaged, as well as the authority of the supposed agent executing the mortgage, it cannot
be considered an innocent mortgagee.

Since Land Bank is not a mortgagee in good faith, it is not entitled to protection. Since Lot
No. 29 has not been transferred to a third person who is an innocent purchaser for value, ownership
of the lot remains with Poblete. This is without prejudice to the right of either party to proceed
against Maniego.

Petition is denied and the Decision and Resolution of the CA is affirmed. The injunction against
the foreclosure proceeding is made permanent.