FACTS
Private respondent spouses
Diosdado and Lolita Acebo Azarraga owned a house and lot located at Las Pias,
Metro Manila. Lolita obtained a loan from petitioner Teofilo Villarico and as
security, she mortgaged the subject house and lot.
Lolita failed to pay the
loan. Consequently, Teofilo
extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. Being
the highest bidder in the public auction, Teofilo was issued a Sheriffs
Certificate of Sale, which he registered in the Register of Deeds of Rizal. The title over the subject property
was subsequently transferred to Teofilos name.
When the period for
redemption lapsed without the property being redeemed, Teofilo filed an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession. This caused Diosdado
to institute civil case for nullification of real estate mortgage, alleging
that the real estate mortgage extrajudicially foreclosed was simulated because
he did not sign the same. He was
in Malaysia on the date of its alleged execution. He also alleged irregularities in the
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.
The trial court rendered its judgment
declaring the real estate
mortgage null and void.
Aggrieved, petitioner Teofilo
interposed an appeal before the CA which later affirmed the lower court’s
decision.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Teofilo is a
mortgagee-purchaser in good faith for value of the subject property.
RULING
Petitioner Teofilo claims that he is a mortgagee-purchaser in good
faith and for value because before he entered into the contract of mortgage, he
verified first the genuineness of private respondents title. When petitioner learned that the title
was in the name of Diosdado Azarraga, petitioner agreed to contract with Lolita
Azarraga only upon the latters assurance that Diosdado will sign the deed. On the date of signing the deed,
Lolita introduced to him a man who claimed to be Diosdado, and the man signed
the deed. When Lolita failed to
redeem the property after several demands, he caused the foreclosure of the
mortgage. According to petitioner, all
these show that he was a mortgagee-purchaser in good faith and for value who is
not required to look beyond the face of the title covering the property. Additionally, according to petitioner,
it was Diosdados negligence which made possible Lolitas commission of fraud. For Diosdado allowed Lolita to keep
the title over the mortgaged property even though they had long been separated
from each other.
Private respondent Lolita
Azarraga, in her comment, claims that the mortgage deed and the extrajudicial
foreclosure are both null. Being
so, all the documents that emanate from the same, like the Certificate of Sale
on which the trial court based the amount of P210,000
adjudged to be the amount of her loan to petitioner, had no force and effect. According to Lolita, it is not true
that she is indebted to petitioner in the said amount. For she only received P80,000 from petitioner.
Private respondent Diosdado
Azarraga, in his comment, states that the issue raised by petitioner is
factual, hence beyond the competence of this Court in a petition for review. He adds that the petition was filed
only to delay the cancellation of the mortgage deed.
Private respondent Diosdado
Azarragas contention, in our view, is meritorious. Whether petitioner is a
mortgagee-purchaser in good faith and for value is a factual issue. In a petition for review, only
questions of law may be raised. Even
though there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this case is one of
them. The
same principle applies to the claim of Lolita Azarraga concerning the amount of
her loan obligation. Being
factual, we are not inclined to disturb the findings of the trial court,
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Comments
Post a Comment