Ledesma v. Register of Deeds
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A mortgage deed was executed by Julio Ledesma in favor of Jose Ledesma to secure a loan of P225,000, with interest at 12% per annum. The mortgage covered two Torrens registered haciendas, comprising a total of six parcels of land. Procedural History: The mortgage deed was presented for registration to the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros. The Register of Deeds was of the opinion that the registration fee, fixed at P70 under Act No. 2866 for a mortgage of that amount, should be paid for each of the six parcels of land described in the mortgage. The mortgagee, Jose Ledesma, contended that only one fee of P70 was due for all six parcels. The Appeal: Due to this divergence in views, the matter was brought in consulta to the Judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower court ruled that before registration, the value of each property must be determined, and separate fees, based on the value of each property, should be charged according to the schedule in Act No. 2866. Jose Ledesma appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the registration fee for a mortgage covering multiple parcels of Torrens registered land should be assessed per parcel or as a single fee based on the total mortgage value. Whether a mortgage on multiple parcels of land constitutes one 'right' or multiple 'rights' for the purpose of calculating registration fees under Act No. 2866.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of First Instance. It held that for the purpose of taxing fees, an ordinary mortgage on Torrens registered property must be regarded as only one 'right' within the meaning of Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act No. 2866. The fee for its recording must be based on the total amount of the debt secured, and only one such fee may be collected for the recording in one province, irrespective of the number of parcels or properties covered by the mortgage. The Register of Deeds was ordered to admit the mortgage to record upon payment of the entry fee of P0.50 and the recording fee of P70.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of registration fees for a mortgage covering multiple parcels: The Court clarified that Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act No. 2866, establishes a schedule of fees primarily as a revenue measure based on the value of the interest involved, rather than the amount of labor required for recording. The phrase 'For each property or right' was interpreted to mean that a mortgage on multiple parcels, when registered within the same province, constitutes a single 'right' for fee assessment purposes. The mortgage is considered one and indivisible, with each parcel responding for the full amount of the debt secured. Therefore, only one fee, calculated based on the total value of the mortgage, is collectible for its registration within a single province. On whether a mortgage on multiple parcels constitutes one 'right' or multiple 'rights': The Court distinguished between 'property' and 'right' as used in the statute. A mortgage is not a 'property' in the sense of ownership but a 'right' held by a creditor. The statute specifies that 'each right worth' a certain amount shall be recorded upon payment of a specific fee. Since the mortgage in question represents a single, undivided right securing a total debt of P225,000, it falls under the category of one 'right' worth that amount, thus warranting only a single registration fee. The argument that multiple parcels entail more work was dismissed as the fee structure is value-based, not labor-based.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of assessing registration fees under Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act No. 2866, an ordinary mortgage on Torrens registered property constitutes a single 'right.' Consequently, only one fee, based on the total amount of the debt secured, is collectible for its recording within a single province, irrespective of the number of parcels or properties covered by the mortgage. This interpretation stems from the indivisible nature of the mortgage and the principle that the fee schedule is primarily a revenue measure based on the value of the interest involved.