The Supreme Court ruled that a real estate mortgage (REM) is valid between the parties involved, even if it wasn’t properly registered or notarized, as long as the essential requirements for a valid contract are met. This means that if you sign a mortgage agreement, you’re bound by it, regardless of whether it’s officially recorded. The decision underscores the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations, emphasizing that failure to comply with formal requirements does not invalidate the agreement between the parties.

Signed in Tuguegarao, Enforced in Court: Validating Mortgages Despite Notarial Hiccups

Spouses Efren and Lolita Soriano, engaged in selling Coca-Cola products, were asked to provide security for their business continuation. They handed over land titles and signed a document, assured it was a mere formality. Later, intending to cease operations, they requested the return of their titles, which was denied. They discovered their land had been mortgaged to Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (petitioner) and foreclosed. The spouses claimed they never signed a mortgage document nor were they notified of the foreclosure, leading them to file a complaint for annulment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially sided with the spouses, nullifying the mortgage and foreclosure. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, citing the failure to comply with the required form for real estate mortgages under Presidential Decree No. 1529.

The Supreme Court (SC) reversed the CA’s decision, focusing on the core legal principle: the validity of a mortgage between parties, even if unregistered or defectively notarized. The Civil Code stipulates the requisites for valid contracts of pledge and mortgage: constituted to secure a principal obligation, the pledgor/mortgagor is the absolute owner, and the pledgor/mortgagor has free disposal of the property. Moreover, Article 2125 explicitly states:

Article 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it appears be recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties.

Building on this principle, the SC emphasized that registration is not essential for the validity of a mortgage between the parties. Quoting Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines, v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, the Court reiterated that “with or without the registration of the REMs, as between the parties thereto, the same is valid and [the mortgagor] is bound thereby.” This stance echoes the ruling in Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc., v. Ruth R. Diocares, et al., which asserted that the failure to record an instrument does not bar foreclosure between the parties.

The CA’s reliance on Spouses Adelina S. Cuyco and Feliciano U Cuyco, v. Spouses Renaoa Cuyco and Filipina Cuyco, was deemed misplaced. The Court clarified that its pronouncements related to whether the subject realty was bound by additional loans, not the fundamental validity of the REM itself. Therefore, the SC firmly established that the absence of proper registration does not negate the mortgage’s binding effect on the involved parties.

Furthermore, while the REM deed was registered, the petitioner failed to fully comply with Section 112 of P.D. 1529, which requires public instruments to be signed by the executing parties in the presence of at least two witnesses and acknowledged before a notary public. The respondents argued that the REM agreement was not a public document because it was notarized by a Clerk of Court of the RTC of Ilagan who is not allowed by law to notarize private documents not related to their functions as clerk of court.

Jurisprudence supports the argument that clerks of court acting as notaries public ex officio cannot notarize documents unrelated to their official functions. However, the SC clarified that defective notarization only reduces a public document to a private one. While Article 1358 of the New Civil Code requires contracts transmitting real rights over immovable property to be in a public document, failure to observe this form doesn’t invalidate the transaction. Therefore, the validity of the REM agreement depends on proof of due execution and authenticity, as per Section 20, Rule 132.

The respondents claimed forgery, stating they signed the REM deed in Tuguegarao, not Isabela, and were assured it wouldn’t be notarized. However, the SC noted their admission of signing the REM deed, despite the discrepancy in location. Drawing from Gloria and Teresita Tan Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines Urdaneta, Pangasinan Branch and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan, the Court highlighted that admitting one’s signature negates a claim of forgery.

In Lamberto Songco, v. George C. Sellner, the Court provided guidance on denying the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, noting that a plea of fraudulent representation is an admission of both the genuineness and due execution of the document. Given that the respondents’ arguments centered on alleged fraud by the petitioner, the SC concluded that the respondents had impliedly admitted the due execution and genuineness of the REM deed. Therefore, the respondents essentially sought the annulment of the REM on the ground of fraud.

Under Article 1344 of the Civil Code, fraud, as grounds for annulment, must be serious and not employed by both parties. Echoing the ruling in PDCP, the Court stated that even if the petitioner misrepresented the registration of the REM, the respondents couldn’t disown the executed REM, as they were already bound by it. The SC concluded that preponderance of evidence favored the petitioner, as the respondents admitted signing the REM deed and surrendering the titles. The courts a quo erred in requiring registration and compliance with the prescribed form for the REM’s validity. Consequently, the foreclosure proceedings, which were nullified merely as a consequence of the REM’s nullification, were also deemed valid.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a real estate mortgage (REM) is valid between the parties if it is not properly registered or notarized. The court determined that such a REM is indeed binding between the parties as long as the essential requisites for a valid contract are present.
What are the essential requisites for a valid mortgage?	For a mortgage to be valid, it must secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation, the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the property, and the mortgagor must have free disposal of the property. These requirements are outlined in Article 2085 of the Civil Code.
Does the lack of registration invalidate a mortgage?	No, the lack of registration does not invalidate a mortgage between the parties involved. Article 2125 of the Civil Code explicitly states that an unregistered mortgage is still binding between the mortgagor and the mortgagee.
What happens if a document is defectively notarized?	Defective notarization strips the document of its public character, reducing it to a private document. The clear and convincing evidentiary standard is dispensed with, and the validity is tested by preponderance of evidence.
What is required to prove a private document?	To prove a private document, its due execution and authenticity must be established. This can be done by someone who witnessed the document being executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the maker’s signature or handwriting.
What constitutes fraud in the context of contract annulment?	Under Article 1344 of the Civil Code, fraud must be serious and not employed by both parties. Article 1338 specifies that fraud occurs when insidious words or machinations induce a party to enter a contract they otherwise wouldn’t have agreed to.
Is personal notice required in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings?	Unless stipulated by the parties, personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Section 3 of Act No. 3135 requires only the posting of the notice of sale in public places and publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
What was the Supreme Court’s final ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint filed by the respondents. The Court upheld the validity of the real estate mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that a real estate mortgage, even if unregistered or defectively notarized, remains valid and binding between the parties involved, provided the essential requisites for a valid contract are met. This ruling highlights the significance of honoring contractual obligations and clarifies the limited impact of formal defects on the enforceability of mortgage agreements.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Spouses Soriano, G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018