This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is long and well-settled that every person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the face of the title when determining its ownership.[49] A mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor of the property given as security and has no obligation to undertake further investigation in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion.[50] Since their business is imbued with public interest, banks are, concededly, are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals in dealing with lands, even registered ones.[51] Before approving a loan, it has become the practice of banks and other financial institutions to conduct an ocular inspection of the property offered to be mortgaged and verify the genuineness of the title to determine the real owners thereof.[52] The record shows that, despite being confronted with THI's clean titles, Equitable Bank nevertheless caused an ocular inspection of Block 494. Considering the validity of the mortgage THI executed in its favor, however, there is no need to resolve the issue of whether or not Equitable Bank was in good faith in proceeding with the mortgage despite the visible improvements on the property.[53] | |||||
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This notwithstanding, in the fairly recent case of Philippine National Bank v. Lim,[19] the Court reverted to our previous ruling in Far East Bank that a unit buyer has no standing to seek for the complete nullification of the entire mortgage, because he has an actionable interest only over the unit he has bought. Hence, in the said case, the mortgage was nullified only insofar as it affected the unit buyer. | |||||
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On August 15, 2001, the HLURB Arbiter ruled,[5] in favor of EDUPLAN and declared the mortgage executed between JOS Managing Builders and United Overseas Bank as well as the foreclosure proceedings null and void, pointing out that the mortgage was executed without the approval of the HLURB as required under Section 18 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957.[6] The Arbiter held that that since EDUPLAN has paid the full purchase price of the condominium unit, JOS Managing Builders and United Overseas Bank should cause the release from encumbrance of the mother titles to the condominium building project, and issue the corresponding condominium certificate of title in favor of EDUPLAN. Further, JOS Managing Builders should provide EDUPLAN with emergency power facilities and refund it with the monthly telephone carrier charges it has been collecting since September 1999, and permanently cease and desist from further imposing and collecting such fees. Moreover, JOS Managing Builders was directed to pay EDUPLAN damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:Wherefore, the foregoing premises considered and as prayed for, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Complainant and against the Respondents as follows: | |||||
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, I disagree with the conclusion that the HLURB erred in declaring the entire mortgage void. In refusing to declare the entire mortgage void, the ponencia cites Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez,[52] which was reiterated in Philippine National Bank v. Lim.[53] | |||||
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| [W]hile it is within Lim's right to file a complaint before the HLURB to protect her right as a condominium unit buyer, she has no standing to seek for the complete nullification of the subject mortgage. She has an actionable interest only over Unit 48C of Cluster Dominiko of Vista de Loro, no more and no less.[55] | |||||