Barretto v. Mapa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In civil case No. 24803, the Court of First Instance of Manila ordered defendants in the Mayorazgo Tuason case to deliver P133,690.67 to the judicial receiver. Respondent Consuelo Legarda Viuda de Prieto was included in a subsequent writ of execution. Procedural History: Respondent Prieto petitioned for exclusion, asserting she was an intervenor, not a defendant, and that her receipt of revenues from Mariano S. Tuason was based on a deed of cession for a separate debt, not affected by the litis pendens. The trial court excluded Prieto and substituted Tuason as defendant. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the present petition for prohibition. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the trial court's order excluding respondent Prieto from the writ of execution and substituting Tuason.
Issue(s)
Whether the usufructuary right over the revenues of the mayorazgo constitutes a real lien on the properties of the mayorazgo. Whether an implied legal mortgage, if it existed, has been lost due to failure to convert it into a special and public mortgage. Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction in excluding respondent Prieto from the writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The injunction is lifted. The respondent judge did not act without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the usufructuary right and liens: The Court held that the usufructuary right over the revenues of the mayorazgo does not constitute a real lien on the properties themselves. While the revenues are subject to the obligation to pay the fifth part to the beneficiaries, this obligation cannot be enforced against the properties by attachment and sale, as it would violate the founder's prohibition against encumbering the entailed properties. The founder expressly declared the properties to be free from encumbrance, and his will was to preserve them in that condition. The Court distinguished between a lien on revenues and a lien on the properties, finding the former exists but the latter does not. On the loss of implied legal mortgages: The Court ruled that even if a lien or implied legal mortgage existed in favor of the petitioners, they lost their right to it. Under Article 1875 of the Civil Code and Article 348 of the Mortgage Law, implied legal mortgages must be converted into special and public mortgages through the execution and registration of an instrument. Failure to do so renders the implied mortgage inefficacious. The Court noted that these laws did not arbitrarily destroy existing rights but preserved them in improved forms, requiring compliance with certain requisites. On the respondent judge's jurisdiction: The Court found that the respondent judge did not act without jurisdiction. The judge's order excluding respondent Prieto and substituting Tuason was based on the finding that Prieto was not a party defendant and had not assumed the obligation. The judge's determination that no real lien existed on Tuason's participation, and thus Prieto, as a transferee, was not liable for the P133,690.67, was within his power. The exclusion of Prieto from the writ of execution was a proper exercise of judicial discretion based on the facts presented.
Main Doctrine
The usufructuary right over the revenues of a mayorazgo does not constitute a real lien on the properties of the mayorazgo itself, and any implied legal mortgage must be converted into a special and public mortgage through registration to remain valid.