Yap Anton v. Cabulong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 10, 1922, Santiago Fian executed an instrument in favor of Yap Anton, acknowledging a debt of P33,000 and accomplishing a mortgage on ten parcels of land. The document was recorded in the office of the register of titles. Procedural History: Fian failed to make payment as provided in the mortgage. After Fian's death, Yap Anton initiated an action of foreclosure against the estate of the deceased. A judgment of foreclosure was obtained in the Court of First Instance of Leyte. The Petition: The defendant-appellant argued that the instrument was not a true contract of mortgage and thus had no legal force.
Issue(s)
Whether the instrument executed by Santiago Fian in favor of Yap Anton is a valid contract of mortgage. Whether the failure to properly note an exception to the admission of the mortgage in evidence affects its validity.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs are to be paid by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the instrument as a contract of mortgage: The Court found two reasons to reject the argument that the instrument was not a true contract of mortgage. Firstly, the mortgage was offered and admitted in evidence without objection from the opposing party. An exception was only noted on the following day, which did not comply with Section 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring immediate exception. Secondly, Section 194 of the Administrative Code, as amended, governs such instruments. Under this provision, regardless of the validity as to third parties, the instrument is valid "between the parties thereto" even if not registered. The action involved only the parties to the mortgage, and any defect in the description of the real estate did not invalidate it between them. On the procedural issue of exception: The failure to immediately note an exception to the admission of the mortgage in evidence, as required by Section 142 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rendered the exception procedurally infirm. This procedural defect further supported the Court's decision to uphold the validity of the mortgage as between the parties.
Main Doctrine
An instrument, even if defective in the description of real estate, is valid between the parties thereto even if not registered, and an action involving only the parties to the mortgage can proceed.