Gonzalez v. Basa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns the estate of the deceased Amalia Arcega y Alfonso Vda. de Basa. A project of partition was jointly submitted by the administratrix, Pilar Lopez de Basa, the sole heir, Feliciano Basa, Jr., and the creditor and attorney for the estate, Antonio Gonzalez. The project included an inventory of properties and a list of obligations. Notably, clause 3(d) acknowledged a debt of P20,250 owed to Antonio Gonzalez, along with P5,000 for his attorney's fees, totaling P25,250. This total amount was to bear 8% annual interest, and Feliciano Basa, Jr. ceded specific real properties described in clause 2(A) Nos. 1-48 as a mortgage in favor of Antonio Gonzalez to secure this debt. 2. Procedural History: The project of partition, as originally submitted and including the mortgage obligation, was approved by the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 12, 1938. Subsequently, Feliciano Basa, Jr., through his attorney, obtained a certified copy of the project of partition from the clerk of court, but with page 22 (containing the details of the mortgage obligation) and related references omitted, at the express request of his attorney. This mutilated copy, along with owner's duplicate certificates of title, was presented to the register of deeds of Manila for the registration of transfer certificates of title in the name of Feliciano Basa, Jr., free from the mortgage lien. Antonio Gonzalez objected, presenting a complete certified copy and requesting the annotation of his mortgage. The register of deeds refused to annotate the mortgage without the consent of both parties, leading Antonio Gonzalez to submit the matter to the Court of First Instance of Manila in consulta. 3. The Petition: The appellants, Feliciano Basa, Jr. and Pilar Lopez de Basa, opposed the registration of the complete certified copy of the project of partition, arguing they did not owe the P25,250, or that if they signed any such contract, it was without consideration and they were deceived due to their trust in Attorney Gonzalez. They also claimed the mortgage was inserted without their knowledge or consent. The appellee, Antonio Gonzalez, contended that the register of deeds should register the complete certified copy, asserting that the register of deeds has no authority to inquire into the intrinsic validity of a document or to assume the truth of allegations of lack of consideration without judicial intervention. The court's approval of the project of partition, including the mortgage, created a presumption of validity, and neither party could unilaterally alter it. The consulta was filed to determine whether the register of deeds should accept a mutilated or a complete copy for registration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Register of Deeds may refuse to register a complete, court-approved project of partition and instead register a mutilated version at the request of one party, thereby disregarding a mortgage lien. Whether the Register of Deeds has the authority to inquire into the intrinsic validity of a court-approved document or the obligations contained therein.
Ruling
The Court ruled in favor of Antonio Gonzalez, ordering the Register of Deeds to register the complete certified copy of the project of partition. The Court held that the Register of Deeds acted improperly in accepting a mutilated copy and refusing to register the complete document, which included a mortgage lien duly approved by the court. The Court emphasized that disputes regarding the validity of the mortgage must be settled in a separate judicial action.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Register of Deeds erred in accepting a mutilated copy of the project of partition and refusing to register the complete version. The project of partition, having been signed by the parties and approved by the court, is presumed valid and should be registered in its entirety. The Register's duty is to ensure the document's regularity and form, not to allow one party to unilaterally alter or repudiate obligations contained within it without judicial intervention. The appellants cannot invoke the adjudication in their favor while simultaneously repudiating the mortgage obligation to which that adjudication was expressly made subject. On Issue 2: The Register of Deeds exceeded his authority by inquiring into the intrinsic validity of the mortgage obligation and assuming the truth of allegations regarding lack of consideration or deception. The Register's authority is limited to ensuring the document's formal regularity and compliance with legal requirements for registration. The alleged lack of consideration and the circumstances of signing are matters that require a separate judicial action for determination. The Register cannot unilaterally annul or disregard a court-approved obligation based on such claims, as the validity and fulfillment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties, as per Article 1256 of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
The Register of Deeds is mandated to register documents that are regular on their face and have been duly approved by a competent court. The Register cannot refuse registration or unilaterally alter a court-approved document based on allegations of lack of consideration or deception by one of the parties. Such disputes concerning the intrinsic validity of the obligation must be resolved through a separate judicial action, as the Register of Deeds lacks the authority to adjudicate these matters.