058VICENTE C. REYES APPLICANT-APPELLEE

VS.FRANCISCO SIERRA, EMILIO SIERRA, ALEJANDRA SIERRA, FELIMON SIERRA, AURELIO SIERRA, CONSTANCIO SIERRA, CIRILO SIERRA AND ANTONIA SANTOS OPPOSITORS-APPLICANTS

G.R. NO. L-28658 OCTOBER 18, 1979DE CASTRO, J.SV:Facts: Reyes wanted to register property in antipolo claiming it was inherited from his father. It turns out that his father got the land from Beltran through a mortgage contract.

HELD: Reyes can’t register it under his name. Contract between father of Reyes and Beltran was that of a mortgage and not a sale hence ownership didn’t pass to him.

1. Vicente Reyes filed an application for registration of his title to a parcel of land in Antipolo before the Bureau of Lands. He declared that he inherited the land from his father and that the other heirs have executed a quit claim in favor of Vicente.

2. An opposition was filed by the director of lands, Francisco Sierra and Emilio Sierra. Later a motion to set aside an interlocutory default was filed by the rest of the sierras, said Sierras were added as oppositors to the registration

3. Lower court decided in favor of Reyes, declared him the rightful owner of the land. 4. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE/S:1. WON the contract between the father of Reyes and Basilia Beltran a mortgage or a sale.

1. Mortgage- The land was originally owned by Basilia Beltran’s parents, from whom she inherited the property. She borrowed

money from Vicente Reyes, Sr. the amount of P100.00 and secured the loan with the piece of land. - Since then, the older Reyes began paying the realty taxes up to the time of his death after which his children

continued to pay the taxes. - Beltran died before the loan was paid.- In registering the property, Vicente jr. relied on his belief that the property belonged to his father who bought the

same from Beltran and that there is a document to prove sale (contract of mortgage between Beltran and Reyes sr.)

- Court held that the contract was a mortgage contract. The intention of the parties at the time was the lending of money with security.

The use of the word debt(“utang” )1 helps to point out that the transaction was intended to be a loan with mortgage

Intention of the parties must govern and not the form of the transaction. Macapinlac v. Gutierrez Rapide; if the instrument is in its essence a mortgage, the parties cannot by any

stipulations, however express and positive, render it anything but a mortgage or deprive it of the essential attributes belonging to a mortgage in equality

- Failure of mortgagor to redeem the property does not automatically vest ownership of the property to the mortgagee. This violates Art. 2088 of the Civil code (the creditor cannot appropriate the thigns given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose by them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.

Otherwise it would amount to a pactum commissorium which is against good morals and public policy- The property hasn’t been acquired through prescription either since Reyes didn’t possess it as owner, Reyes did

not have adverse nor continuous possession. - Mortgage does not constitute just title on the part of the mortgagee, since ownership is retained by mortgagor.

Payment of realty taxes does not amount to adverse possession or title. Mere failure of the owner (mortgagor) to pay taxes doesn’t amount to abandonment.

- Doctrine of “once a mortgage always a mortgage” has been firmly established whatever be its form.

Held: decision appealed from is set aside and another one be entered ordering the registration of the title of the land in the name of oppositor appellants.

1 Kaming mag-kakapatid may sapat na gulang na nakalagda Sa kasulatan ito, bilang katibayan nang pag papahintulot sa aming Ina na si Bacilia Beltran na ipananagutan kay G. Vicente Reyes sa inutang ha halagang isang daan piso (P100.00) na walang anopamang pakinabang; ang isang lagay na lupa sa kallehon Sukay, Antipolo, Rizal

Digest by: Justin Benedict A. Moreto