PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, G.R. No. 180945
AS THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF
OPAL PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS
(SPV-AMC), INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
Carpio, J., Chairperson,
- versus - Brion,
Del Castillo,
Abad, and
Perez, JJ.
MERCEDES
CORPUZ, REPRESENTED
BY
HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT Promulgated:
VALENTINA
CORPUZ,
Respondent. February
12, 2010
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the need for a mortgagee-bank,
faced with suspicious layers of transfers involving a property presented for
mortgage, to exercise proper diligence in ascertaining the bona fide status of those transfers.
The Facts and the Case
On October 4, 1974 respondent Mercedes
Corpuz delivered her owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
32815 to Dagupan City Rural Bank as security against any liability she might incur
as its cashier. She later left her job
and went to the
On October 24, 1994 the rural bank
where she worked cancelled its lien on Corpuz’s title, she having incurred no
liability to her employer. Without Corpuz’s knowledge and consent, however,
Natividad Alano, the rural bank’s manager, turned over Corpuz’s title to Julita
Camacho and Amparo Callejo.
Conniving with someone from the
assessor’s office, Alano, Camacho, and Callejo prepared a falsified deed of
sale, making it appear that on February 23, 1995 Corpuz sold her land to one
“Mary Bondoc” for P50,000.00. They
caused the registration of the deed of sale, resulting in the cancellation of
TCT 32815 and the issuance of TCT 63262 in Bondoc’s name. About a month later or on March 27, 1995 the trio
executed another fictitious deed of sale with “Mary Bondoc” selling the
property to the spouses Rufo and Teresa Palaganas for only P15,000.00. This sale resulted in the issuance of TCT
63466 in favor of the Palaganases.
Nine days later or on April 5, 1995
the Palaganases executed a deed of sale in favor of spouses Virgilio and Elena
Songcuan for P50,000.00, resulting in the issuance of TCT 63528. Finally, four months later or on August 10,
1995 the Songcuans took out a loan of P1.1 million from petitioner
Philippine National Bank (PNB) and, to secure payment, they executed a real
estate mortgage on their title. Before granting
the loan, the PNB had the title verified and the property inspected.
On November 20, 1995 respondent Corpuz filed, through an attorney-in-fact,
a complaint before the Dagupan Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Mary Bondoc,
the Palaganases, the Songcuans, and petitioner PNB, asking for the annulment of
the layers of deeds of sale covering the land, the cancellation of TCTs 63262,
63466, and 63528, and the reinstatement of TCT 32815 in her name.
On June 29, 1998 the RTC rendered a
decision granting respondent Corpuz’s prayers.
This prompted petitioner PNB to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). On July 31, 2007 the CA affirmed the decision
of the RTC and denied the motion for its reconsideration, prompting PNB to take
recourse to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not petitioner PNB is
a mortgagee in good faith, entitling it to its lien on the title to the property
in dispute.
The Ruling of the Court
Petitioner PNB points out that, since
it did a credit investigation, inspected the property, and verified the clean status
of the title before giving out the loan to the Songcuans, it should be regarded
as a mortgagee in good faith. PNB claims
that the precautions it took constitute sufficient compliance with the due
diligence required of banks when dealing with registered lands.
As a rule, the Court would not expect
a mortgagee to conduct an exhaustive investigation
of the history of the mortgagor’s title before he extends a loan.[1] But petitioner PNB
is not an ordinary mortgagee; it is a bank.[2] Banks are expected to be more cautious
than ordinary individuals in dealing with lands, even registered ones, since
the business of banks is imbued with public interest.[3] It is of judicial notice that the standard
practice for banks before approving a loan is to send a staff to the property offered
as collateral and verify the genuineness of the title to determine the real
owner or owners.[4]
One of the CA’s findings in this case is that in the course of its
verification, petitioner PNB was informed of the previous TCTs covering the subject
property.[5] And the PNB has not categorically contested
this finding. It is evident from the
faces of those titles that the ownership of the land changed from Corpuz to
Bondoc, from Bondoc to the Palaganases, and from the Palaganases to the
Songcuans in less than three months and mortgaged to PNB within four months of
the last transfer.
The above information in turn should have driven the PNB to look at the
deeds of sale involved. It would have
then discovered that the property was sold for ridiculously low prices: Corpuz
supposedly sold it to Bondoc for just P50,000.00; Bondoc to the Palaganases
for just P15,000.00; and the Palaganases to the Songcuans also for just P50,000.00. Yet the PNB gave the property an appraised
value of P781,760.00. Anyone who
deliberately ignores a significant fact that would create suspicion
in an otherwise reasonable person cannot be considered as an innocent mortgagee
for value.[6]
The Court finds no reason to reverse
the CA decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated July 31, 2007 and its resolution dated December 17, 2007 in
CA-G.R. CV 60616.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE P. PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 283, 302 (2000).
[2] Cruz v.
Bancom Finance Corporation (now Union Bank of the
[3] Heirs of Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, 498 Phil. 453, 473 (2005).
[4] Cavite Development Bank v. Spouses Lim, 381 Phil. 355, 368-369 (2000), citing Spouses Tomas v. Philippine National Bank, 187 Phil. 183, 187 (1980).
[5] Rollo, p. 23.
[6] Development
Bank of the