Zulueta v. Paredes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria R. Zulueta (petitioner) executed two mortgage deeds in favor of Dionisio Ynza, one for P43,500 (lot No. 269-C) and another for P40,000 (lot No. 269-B). The mortgagee's heirs, respondents Julia and Jose Ynza, initiated foreclosure proceedings (civil case No. 9642) after the debts became due and remained unpaid. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment, finding petitioner indebted on the first mortgage in the sum of P7,750 with interest, and on the second mortgage in the sum of P40,000 with interest. Petitioner appealed the ruling on the second cause of action, which was pending before the Supreme Court. The respondents Ynza did not appeal. The Petition: Petitioner deposited P9,932.91 to satisfy the judgment on the first cause of action and moved for the cancellation of the mortgage on lot No. 269-C. The respondent judge initially granted the motion but later reconsidered and set aside the order, denying petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the judge to order the cancellation of the mortgage.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge may be compelled by mandamus to order the cancellation of the mortgage on lot No. 269-C. Whether the cancellation of the first mortgage is premature due to the pending appeal on the second mortgage.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent judge is ordered to direct the register of deeds of the Province of Iloilo to cancel the notation of the mortgage on lot No. 269-C of the cadastre of Iloilo appearing on transfer certificate of title No. 9469.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of mandamus to compel cancellation of mortgage: The Court held that the judgment rendered as to the first cause of action, which involved the first mortgage, had become final and executory. The petitioner, having chosen to pay the amount of the judgment within the period fixed, had a right to ask for the release of the mortgaged property. The execution of a final judgment is a ministerial act, and a judge who refuses to issue it without just cause may be compelled to do so through mandamus proceedings. The Court cited Section 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure and several cases, including Bonaplata vs. Ambler and McMicking, Findlay & Co. vs. Ambler, and Hidalgo vs. Crossfield and De la Peña, to support the principle that mandamus lies to compel the performance of ministerial duties. On the alleged prematurity of cancellation due to pending appeal: The Court found the argument that the cancellation was premature unconvincing. The respondents Ynza contended that any payment found to have been made on the second mortgage during the pending appeal should be deducted from the amount applied to the first mortgage. However, the Court noted that the trial court had already determined that the petitioner made only one payment of P39,200 from the insurance policy, which was applied to the interest on both mortgages and the capital of the first mortgage. This finding constituted res judicata by consent of the parties and could not be relitigated. Therefore, the payment made by the petitioner for the first mortgage was definitive, and the cancellation was not premature.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus may issue to compel a judge to perform a ministerial act, such as ordering the cancellation of a mortgage notation on a title upon full payment of the judgment debt, as the execution of a final judgment is a ministerial duty.