Mota v. Concepcion

G.R. No. 34581 · 1932-03-31 · J. VILLAMOR, J.: · Primary: Commercial; Secondary: Civil
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Lazaro Mota and Salvador Serra entered into a partnership to construct a railway. Serra transferred his half interest to Venancio Concepcion and P.C. Whitaker in connection with the sale of the Palma central. Subsequently, Mota sold his half interest to Concepcion and Whitaker, who mortgaged the entire railway to Mota to secure the unpaid balance. The plaintiffs, representing the Estate of Lazaro Mota, sought to recover the unpaid balance and foreclose the mortgage. Salvador Serra intervened, praying for the rescission of his conveyance of a half interest in the railway or damages, and an accounting of the railway's returns. Procedural History: The trial court rendered judgment against Concepcion and Whitaker for the unpaid balance, declared the mortgage null and void, and dismissed the claim for damages. Regarding Serra's intervention, the court rescinded the conveyance of his half interest and awarded him P150,000, but denied his petition for an accounting. The Petition: The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision, specifically questioning the nullification of the mortgage and the award to Serra.

Issue(s)

Whether the mortgage upon unregistered real property is null and void. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from the defendants. Whether Salvador Serra's intervention, seeking rescission of his conveyance and an accounting, is tenable.

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the indebtedness of Concepcion and Whitaker to the plaintiffs and the dismissal of the damages claim. However, it reversed the decision concerning Serra's intervention, absolving the plaintiffs and defendants from Serra's cross-complaint. The Court ordered the railway to be sold for the payment of the debt if not paid within ninety days.

Ratio Decidendi

On the validity of the mortgage: The Court held that the trial court erred in declaring the mortgage null and void. While the contract might have lacked some data required by law, its actual recording in the registry of deeds by the registrar rendered it valid between the contracting parties. The Court cited that even without recording, the mortgage would be valid between the parties, and the rule regarding unregistered real property mortgages being void under the Spanish Mortgage Law has been modified by Section 194 of the Administrative Code, which recognizes the validity of such contracts between the parties. On the claim for damages: The Court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover damages from the defendants. The damages claimed were found to be speculative in nature and, more importantly, had not been sufficiently proved by the plaintiffs. The evidence presented did not establish the alleged negligence of the defendants in maintaining the railway in proper condition. On Salvador Serra's intervention: The Court found Serra's contention wholly untenable on its merits. It held that Serra's right to rescission had lapsed. The transfer of his half interest in the railway was an actual sale, not a mere assignment as he pretended. Furthermore, Serra had previously foreclosed a mortgage on the Palma plantation, which was given to secure the unpaid portion of the selling price of the plantation and railway. By demanding the fulfillment of the contract in another action (foreclosure), his right to rescission was extinguished. Even if he could have exercised rescission against his vendees, he could not do so against the Estate of Mota, which was a third party and an innocent creditor for value. Therefore, his claim for damages instead of the return of the railway was unfounded, and the judgment granting him P150,000 was erroneous.

Main Doctrine

A mortgage upon unregistered real property, although it may not contain all the data required by law, is valid between the contracting parties if it is recorded in the registry of deeds. The right to rescission of a contract is extinguished if the party entitled to rescission has demanded fulfillment of the contract in another action.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →