Hans Case Digest Repo
Hans Case Digest Repo — Study Smart, Pass the Bar
Home/Property/Chapter II — Ownership/Robles v. Court of Appeals

Robles v. Court of Appeals

c. Quieting of Title — Action to quiet title: requisites
Subject Home
16px
←Previous: Calacala v. RepublicPrevious case
Primary source ↗Next: Pingol v. Court of AppealsNext case→

On this page

  • Gist
  • Facts
  • Issue
  • Ruling
  • Ratio
  • Doctrine
  • Provisions
Primary source ↗

Title

Robles v. Court of Appeals

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 123509 March 14, 2000

Heirs who had held family land since 1916 sued to nullify a mortgage their half-brother had executed over the whole of it, and the free patent later issued to the buyers from the foreclosing bank. The Court of Appeals held they had lost the land to their half-brother by prescription; the Supreme Court reversed. Their long possession had already converted the land into private property, the half-brother could mortgage only his own ideal share, and a free patent over private land is void from the start.

Core Doctrine

To prosper in an action to quiet title under Articles 476 and 477, the plaintiff must satisfy two indispensable requisites: legal or equitable title to or interest in the property, and a cloud shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity. The 'title' required is not limited to a Torrens certificate — ownership acquired ipso jure through long possession of public land will do.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 123509)

Case DigestChapter II — Ownership

Robles v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 123509 · March 14, 2000 · Supreme Court

c. Quieting of Title — Action to quiet title: requisites

Gist

Heirs who had held family land since 1916 sued to nullify a mortgage their half-brother had executed over the whole of it, and the free patent later issued to the buyers from the foreclosing bank. The Court of Appeals held they had lost the land to their half-brother by prescription; the Supreme Court reversed. Their long possession had already converted the land into private property, the half-brother could mortgage only his own ideal share, and a free patent over private land is void from the start.

Core Doctrine

To prosper in an action to quiet title under Articles 476 and 477, the plaintiff must satisfy two indispensable requisites: legal or equitable title to or interest in the property, and a cloud shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity. The 'title' required is not limited to a Torrens certificate — ownership acquired ipso jure through long possession of public land will do.

Facts

  • Since 1916, Leon Robles occupied and possessed a 9,985-square-metre parcel in Lagundi, Morong, Rizal in the concept of owner; on his death his son Silvino Robles inherited it and occupied it until his own death in 1942. (This unbroken possession from 1916 is what converted the land from public to private by operation of law, long before any patent — and it is the "title" the first requisite of the remedy demands.)
  • After Silvino's death his children — petitioners Lucio, Emeteria, Aludia and Emilio — and their half-brother Hilario Robles agreed informally that Lucio would cultivate the land and Hilario would pay the taxes. That division of labour is why the petitioners never questioned the tax declarations, and why the Court refused to treat those declarations as a repudiation of the co-ownership.
  • Unknown to the petitioners, in 1962 the property was declared for taxation in the name of Exequiel Ballena, Hilario's father-in-law; on November 7, 1966 Ballena executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of Hilario and his wife Andrea.
  • On November 24, 1966, Hilario mortgaged the entire property to the Rural Bank of Cardona, Inc. to secure a ₱2,000.00 loan. (He was a co-owner of an undivided share only, which is why the mortgage could bind no more than his own ideal part.)
  • On Hilario's default the bank foreclosed and was the highest bidder. In September 1987 the petitioners discovered the mortgage and foreclosure but could not redeem.
  • The bank sold the land to the Spouses Virgilio and Ruth Santos, who took physical possession on May 10, 1988 and obtained Free Patent No. IV-1-010021.
  • On March 14, 1988 the petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title. The trial court ruled for them, declaring the mortgage and free patent null and void; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the petitioners had lost their title by prescription to Hilario; the Supreme Court decided the petition on March 14, 2000.

Issue

Whether the petitioners satisfied the two-fold requisites for an action to quiet title under Articles 476§ and 477§.
Secondary issues. 1. Whether a mortgage executed by a co-owner over the entire property is valid against the other co-owners. 2. Whether a free patent issued over land that has already become private by operation of law is valid.

Ruling

Main issue. YES. On the first requisite, the petitioners' "open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public lands for … 30 years … creates the legal fiction whereby the land … ipso jure … ceases to be public land and becomes private property." The land having become private before the patent issued, they held "the requisite title essential to their suit." On the second, both clouds were shown invalid: the mortgage, because Article 2085§ requires the mortgagor to be the "absolute owner" and a co-owner may encumber only his ideal part under Article 493§; and the free patent, because the Bureau of Lands "had no jurisdiction to dispose of land that had already transitioned into private ownership."
Secondary issues. (1) NO. A co-owner can mortgage only his ideal share; the mortgage of the whole is void as to the other co-owners. (2) NO. A free patent issued over private land is null and void ab initio.
The Court also rejected the Court of Appeals' finding of prescription: a co-owner cannot acquire the shares of the others without "clear and evident repudiation," and Hilario's tax declarations and the mortgage were not unequivocal acts of repudiation made known to the petitioners. And it held the bank a mortgagee in bad faith, since "the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks," the more so with unregistered property.
The petition was GRANTED, the assailed decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and — except as modified by the last paragraph of the decision — the trial court's decision REINSTATED, with no costs.
"An action to quiet title is a common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property."

Ratio

  • The Court applied the strict requirements for quieting of title found in Articles 476§ and 477§.
  • First requisite — title. Under Article 477§ a plaintiff must have "legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property." The petitioners' long possession created "the legal fiction whereby the land … ipso jure … ceases to be public land and becomes private property," so they held the requisite title.
  • Second requisite — invalidity of the cloud. Under Article 476§ the instrument must be shown to be "in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable."
  • The mortgage was invalid as to the petitioners' shares because Hilario was not the "absolute owner" required by Article 2085§, and a co-owner can alienate or mortgage only his ideal part under Article 493§.
  • The patent was void ab initio because the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction to dispose of land that had already passed into private ownership.
  • Repudiation and prescription. A co-owner cannot acquire the shares of the others without "clear and evident repudiation"; Hilario's tax declarations and the mortgage did not constitute unequivocal acts of repudiation made known to the petitioners.
  • The bank's duty of diligence. The bank was a mortgagee in bad faith because "the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks," especially when dealing with unregistered property.

Doctrine

  1. Definition of the action: "An action to quiet title is a common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property."
  2. The two-fold requisite test (Arts. 476§–477§): legal or equitable title in the plaintiff, and a cloud shown in fact to be invalid or inoperative despite its apparent validity.
  3. Ipso jure conversion of land: possession of public land of the character and duration prescribed by statute is the equivalent of an express grant from the State, and registration thereafter merely recognises a title already vested.
  4. A co-owner encumbers only his ideal share (Art. 493§); the mortgage of the whole is inoperative as to the others, and Article 2085§ requires the mortgagor to be the absolute owner.
  5. Repudiation must be clear and evident before a co-owner's possession can ripen against his co-owners.
  6. Banks are held to a higher standard of diligence than ordinary purchasers, and cannot rely solely on a certificate of title.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT.
This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision which reversed a trial court's ruling in an action for quieting of title. The petitioners, heirs of Silvino Robles, sought to nullify a real estate mortgage executed by their half-brother over their inherited land and the subsequent free patent issued to third-party purchasers. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the trial court's decision (with modifications), holding that the petitioners successfully proved their title to the property. The single central doctrine relevant to the requested topic is that to prosper in an action to quiet title under Articles 476§ and 477 of the Civil Code§, the plaintiff must satisfy two indispensable requisites: (1) the plaintiff must have a legal or an equitable title to, or an interest in, the real property; and (2) the deed, claim, or proceeding beclouding the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

  • Since 1916, Leon Robles occupied and possessed the subject 9,985-square-metre parcel of land in Lagundi, Morong, Rizal, in the concept of owner.
  • Upon Leon's death, his son Silvino Robles inherited the property and occupied it until his death in 1942.
  • Following Silvino's death, his children (petitioners Lucio, Emeteria, Aludia and Emilio) and their half-brother Hilario Robles entered into an informal agreement where Lucio would cultivate the land and Hilario would pay the taxes.
  • Unknown to the petitioners, in 1962 the property was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Exequiel Ballena, Hilario's father-in-law.
  • On November 7, 1966, Ballena executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of Hilario and his wife, Andrea.
  • On November 24, 1966, Hilario mortgaged the entire property to the Rural Bank of Cardona, Inc. to secure a ₱2,000.00 loan.
  • Upon Hilario's failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and emerged as the highest bidder.
  • In September 1987, the petitioners discovered the mortgage and foreclosure but were unsuccessful in redeeming the property.
  • The bank subsequently sold the land to the Spouses Virgilio and Ruth Santos, who took physical possession on May 10, 1988, and obtained Free Patent No. IV-1-010021 in their names.
  • On March 14, 1988, the petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title. The trial court ruled in favour of the petitioners, declaring the mortgage and free patent null and void.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, holding that petitioners lost their title by prescription to Hilario. The petitioners then sought recourse before the Supreme Court.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioners (Heirs of Silvino Robles)

Petitioners argued that they were the lawful co-owners of the land by inheritance and that their possession since 1942 was open, continuous and in the concept of owner. They contended that Hilario's mortgage was void as to their shares because they never consented to it. They further asserted that the bank was in bad faith for failing to verify the title of unregistered land, and that the free patent was void because the land had already become private property through their decades of possession.

B. Respondents (Spouses Santos, et al.)

Respondent Spouses Santos argued that they were purchasers for value and in good faith who relied on the bank's title. They maintained that the petitioners lost their right to the property due to prescription and laches after Hilario repudiated the co-ownership by declaring the land in his name and mortgaging it. They also challenged the petitioners' personality to sue, arguing that only the Government can file an action to nullify a free patent.

C. Common Ground

The parties did not dispute the historical occupancy of the land by Leon and Silvino Robles, as evidenced by various tax declarations.

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether the petitioners satisfied the two-fold requisites for an action to quiet title under Articles 476§ and 477 of the Civil Code§.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

  1. Whether a mortgage executed by a co-owner over the entire property is valid against the other co-owners.
  2. Whether a free patent issued over land that has already become private by operation of law is valid.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

YES. Petitioners proved legal and equitable title through inheritance and possession, and showed that the mortgage and patent were invalid.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

  1. NO. A co-owner can only mortgage his ideal share; the mortgage of the whole is void as to the other co-owners.
  2. NO. A free patent issued over private land is null and void ab initio.
FALLO. "WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Except as modified by the last paragraph of this Decision, the trial court's Decision is REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

  • The Court applied the strict requirements for quieting of title found in Articles 476§ and 477§.
  • Satisfaction of Requisite 1 (title). Under Article 477§, a plaintiff must have "legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property." The Court found that petitioners' "open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public lands for … 30 years … creates the legal fiction whereby the land … ipso jure … ceases to be public land and becomes private property." Since the land became private property by operation of law before the patent was issued, petitioners held "the requisite title essential to their suit."
  • Satisfaction of Requisite 2 (invalidity of the cloud). Under Article 476§, the instrument casting the cloud must be shown to be "in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable."
    • The mortgage was invalid as to petitioners' shares because Hilario was not the "absolute owner" required by Article 2085§. A co-owner can only alienate or mortgage his ideal part under Article 493§.
    • The patent was void ab initio because the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction to dispose of land that had already transitioned into private ownership.
  • Repudiation and prescription. The Court rejected the CA's finding of prescription, ruling that a co-owner cannot acquire the shares of others without "clear and evident repudiation." Hilario's tax declarations and the mortgage did not constitute unequivocal acts of repudiation made known to the petitioners.
  • The bank's duty of diligence. The Court held the bank was a mortgagee in bad faith because "the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks," especially when dealing with unregistered property.

B. Doctrines/Rules

  1. Definition of Action to Quiet Title: "An action to quiet title is a common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the title to real property."
  2. The Two-Fold Requisite Test: "For an action to quiet title to prosper, two (2) indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy."
  3. Ipso Jure Conversion of Land: Possession of public land of the character and duration prescribed by statute is the equivalent of an express grant from the State, and registration thereafter merely recognises a title already vested.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

  • Possession not required. "The plaintiff … need not be in possession of said property" to bring the action.
  • Laches. The Court noted laches did not apply, as petitioners reasonably believed their brother was paying taxes while they continued to cultivate and harvest from the land.

D. Topic Integration

  • This case is DIRECTLY illustrative of the "requisites" for an action to quiet title. It demonstrates that the title required by Article 477§ is not limited to a Torrens certificate but includes ownership acquired ipso jure through long-term possession of public land.
  • It also provides a clear application of the second requisite by showing how unauthorised mortgages and void patents constitute clouds that are valid on their face — because of tax declarations or administrative issuance — but legally inoperative.
  • Read with Calacala v. Republic, the two cases bracket the first requisite from both sides: the Robles heirs had no paper and plenty of title; the Calacala heirs had paper and none.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD. (A unanimous Third Division ruling; Melo, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concurred.)

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 477, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title II (Ownership), Chapter 3 (Quieting of Title (N))

The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.

Why it is cited here

The requisite the petitioners satisfied without holding a single certificate of title, and that is the point of the case.

The plaintiff must have "legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property." Nothing in the article says registered title. The Robles heirs had none — what they had was possession running from 1916.

That was enough, because open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the statutory period "creates the legal fiction whereby the land … ipso jure … ceases to be public land and becomes private property." The land had converted before the free patent issued, so the petitioners held "the requisite title essential to their suit."

Set this beside Calacala v. Republic, where the plaintiffs had a certificate still bearing their parents' names and no title at all, and the lesson inverts neatly: paper is neither necessary nor sufficient. What Article 477 asks is whether the plaintiff owns something, by whatever route.

And note the second sentence again — "He need not be in possession of said property." Possession helped the petitioners prove ownership here; it is not itself the qualification.

Civil Code

Article 476, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title II (Ownership), Chapter 3 (Quieting of Title (N))

Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

Why it is cited here

The second requisite, and this page is a good catalogue of what a cloud looks like in practice.

The instrument must be "apparently valid or effective but … in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable." Two separate clouds were dissolved here, each illustrating the formula:

- The mortgage. It looked perfectly regular — a notarised deed of sale into Hilario's name, tax declarations to match, a bank that accepted it. It was nonetheless void as to the petitioners' shares, because Hilario was not the "absolute owner" Article 2085 requires and a co-owner may encumber only his ideal part. - The free patent. Issued by the Bureau of Lands with every appearance of regularity, and void ab initio all the same: the Bureau had no jurisdiction to dispose of land that had already passed into private ownership.

Both are exactly the article's shape — an instrument whose face is unimpeachable and whose substance is empty. That combination is what makes a cloud dangerous enough to need a judgment removing it, and it is why the petitioners could not simply ignore the patent.

Civil Code

Article 493, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title III (Co-Ownership)

Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the 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. (399)

Why it is cited here

Why the mortgage failed, and the article that governs every disposition by one co-owner acting alone.

A co-owner "shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it" — but "the effect of the alienation or the 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."

So Hilario's mortgage of the entire property was not void outright. It was valid as to his own ideal share and inoperative as to his half-siblings' — the encumbrance simply does not reach what was never his to give.

The article also frames the prescription question the Court of Appeals got wrong. A co-owner possesses for the co-ownership, so his possession is not adverse and never ripens against the others until he repudiates it — clearly, unequivocally, and with notice to them. Hilario's tax declarations and even the mortgage itself were held not to be "clear and evident repudiation."

Civil Code

Article 2085, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title XVI (Pledge, Mortgage and Antichresis), Chapter 1 (Provisions Common to Pledge and Mortgage)

The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:

(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;

(2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged;

(3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.

Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. (1857)

Why it is cited here

The requirement Hilario could not meet, and it is the source of the mortgage's defect.

Among the essential requisites of a mortgage: "That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged," and "that the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose."

Absolute owner is the phrase that decided it. Hilario was a co-owner, and a co-owner is the absolute owner only of his own ideal share. Everything beyond that he had no power to encumber.

The article is also why the bank lost. It is the mortgagee's business to confirm that the mortgagor really is the absolute owner, and the Court held the bank in bad faith for not doing so: "the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks" — least of all where the land is unregistered and there is no certificate to rely on in the first place.

Study digest — refer to the full text of the decision for accuracy. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_123509_2000.html

Cited laws & provisions

Article 477, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title II (Ownership), Chapter 3 (Quieting of Title (N))

The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.

Why it is cited here

The requisite the petitioners satisfied without holding a single certificate of title, and that is the point of the case.

The plaintiff must have "legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property." Nothing in the article says registered title. The Robles heirs had none — what they had was possession running from 1916.

That was enough, because open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for the statutory period "creates the legal fiction whereby the land … ipso jure … ceases to be public land and becomes private property." The land had converted before the free patent issued, so the petitioners held "the requisite title essential to their suit."

Set this beside Calacala v. Republic, where the plaintiffs had a certificate still bearing their parents' names and no title at all, and the lesson inverts neatly: paper is neither necessary nor sufficient. What Article 477 asks is whether the plaintiff owns something, by whatever route.

And note the second sentence again — "He need not be in possession of said property." Possession helped the petitioners prove ownership here; it is not itself the qualification.

Full entry below ↓

Article 476, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title II (Ownership), Chapter 3 (Quieting of Title (N))

Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

Why it is cited here

The second requisite, and this page is a good catalogue of what a cloud looks like in practice.

The instrument must be "apparently valid or effective but … in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable." Two separate clouds were dissolved here, each illustrating the formula:

- The mortgage. It looked perfectly regular — a notarised deed of sale into Hilario's name, tax declarations to match, a bank that accepted it. It was nonetheless void as to the petitioners' shares, because Hilario was not the "absolute owner" Article 2085 requires and a co-owner may encumber only his ideal part. - The free patent. Issued by the Bureau of Lands with every appearance of regularity, and void ab initio all the same: the Bureau had no jurisdiction to dispose of land that had already passed into private ownership.

Both are exactly the article's shape — an instrument whose face is unimpeachable and whose substance is empty. That combination is what makes a cloud dangerous enough to need a judgment removing it, and it is why the petitioners could not simply ignore the patent.

Full entry below ↓

Article 493, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title III (Co-Ownership)

Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the 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. (399)

Why it is cited here

Why the mortgage failed, and the article that governs every disposition by one co-owner acting alone.

A co-owner "shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it" — but "the effect of the alienation or the 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."

So Hilario's mortgage of the entire property was not void outright. It was valid as to his own ideal share and inoperative as to his half-siblings' — the encumbrance simply does not reach what was never his to give.

The article also frames the prescription question the Court of Appeals got wrong. A co-owner possesses for the co-ownership, so his possession is not adverse and never ripens against the others until he repudiates it — clearly, unequivocally, and with notice to them. Hilario's tax declarations and even the mortgage itself were held not to be "clear and evident repudiation."

Full entry below ↓

Article 2085, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title XVI (Pledge, Mortgage and Antichresis), Chapter 1 (Provisions Common to Pledge and Mortgage)

The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:

(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;

(2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged;

(3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.

Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. (1857)

Why it is cited here

The requirement Hilario could not meet, and it is the source of the mortgage's defect.

Among the essential requisites of a mortgage: "That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged," and "that the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose."

Absolute owner is the phrase that decided it. Hilario was a co-owner, and a co-owner is the absolute owner only of his own ideal share. Everything beyond that he had no power to encumber.

The article is also why the bank lost. It is the mortgagee's business to confirm that the mortgagor really is the absolute owner, and the Court held the bank in bad faith for not doing so: "the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks" — least of all where the land is unregistered and there is no certificate to rely on in the first place.

Full entry below ↓