[G.R. No. 110055. August 20, 2001] ASUNCION SAN JUAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS an !

OUNG AUTO SUPPL! CO., respondents. PANGANI"AN, J.# Fa$ts# A lot registered in the name of Petitioner Asuncion San Juan was mortgaged to Private Respondent Young Auto Supply Co., Inc., through petitioner s attorney!in!fact, Rafael Alducente. "pon default in the payment of the principal loan secured #y the mortgage, an e$tra%udicial foreclosure proceeding was instituted #y private respondent #efore the city sheriff of &acolod City. Since private respondent was the sole #idder in the auction sale held on June ', ()*', the corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor. +n Septem#er (,, ()*', the Certificate was registered with the +ffice of the Register of -eeds of &acolod City. After the lapse of the one!year redemption period, a final Certificate of Sale was issued on Septem#er .., ()*/. 0owever, private respondent could not register it, #ecause petitioner refused to surrender her duplicate Certificate of 1itle. 1hus, on 2arch ((, ()**, private respondent filed, #efore the Regional 1rial Court of 3egros +ccidental, a Petition for the registration and the annotation of the final Certificate of Sale. -uring the trial, petitioner manifested that the owner s duplicate Certificate of 1itle to the property, su#%ect of the foreclosure sale, was in her possession. 1he trial court ordered petitioner to deliver to private respondent the owner s duplicate copy #ut petitioner failed to comply. 1hus, the trial court ordered the Register of -eeds of &acolod City to annotate in the original Certificate of 1itle, the 4inal Certificate of Sale in favor of private respondent without the necessity of presenting the owner s copy of the aforementioned transfer certificate of title. Petitioner filed a 2otion for Reconsideration, pummeling for the first time the validity and the regularity of the issuance of the final Certificate of Sale. 5i6ewise, petitioner #elatedly asserted that she had already revo6ed the Special Power of Attorney she had admittedly issued in favor of Rafael Alducente. 0owever, the trial court denied the 2otion. Petitioner appealed to the CA #ut the CA held 7the final Certificate of Sale was properly and regularly issued #y the ex oficio city sheriff of &acolod City.8 -isagreeing with the CA, petitioner elevated the matter to this Court via a petition for review. Issu%# Can courts validly order the Register of -eeds to annotate a final Certificate of Sale in the +riginal Certificate of 1itle and to register such sale, even if the registered owner!mortgagor refuses to surrender the owner s duplicate Certificate of 1itle9 Ru&'ng# 1he Court ruled in the affirmative. 71he annotation of private respondent s final Certificate of Sale in the +riginal Certificate of 1itle, even without the presentation of petitioner s duplicate, was valid. 1o rule otherwise would result in a situation in which a purchaser in a foreclosure sale can never consolidate his or her title to the property even after the lapse of the redemption period, #ecause of the sheer refusal or failure of the former owner to su#mit the latter s duplicate certificate of title. 1he mortgagee!purchaser would then #e at the mercy of the mortgagor, if the latter without any %ust cause withholds such duplicate. Apt is the following pronouncement of the Court in 1oledo!&anaga v. Court of Appeals:

7$$$ Such preposterous contention #orders on the a#surd and has no place in our legal system $ $ $. +therwise, if e$ecution cannot #e had %ust #ecause the losing party will not surrender her titles, the entire proceeding in the courts, not to say the efforts, e$penses and time of the parties, would #e rendered nugatory. It is revolting to conscience to allow petitioners to further avert the satisfaction of their o#ligation #ecause of sheer literal adherence to technicality, or formality of surrender of the duplicate titles.8 4rom the moment the petitioner received the R1C +rder for the registration of the Certificate of Sale last July (;, ()*', she should have e$erted and e$hausted all possi#le %udicial remedies to protect her property rights over the contested land. Yet, it too6 almost three <,= years !! well #eyond the lapse of the redemption period !! and the issuance of the final Certificate of Sale, #efore she protested and attac6ed the validity of the real estate mortgage. 1he right to attac6 the validity of a mortgage may #e lost #y a waiver of defects and o#%ections, such as alleged fraud or misrepresentation. 2ortgagors desiring to attac6 the validity of a mortgage should act with promptness. +therwise, unreasona#le delay may amount to ratification. A duly e$ecuted mortgage is presumed to #e valid until the contrary is shown. 1o the party attac6ing rests the #urden of proving its invalidity due to fraud, duress or illegality. It should #e stressed that, as a general rule, courts will adopt such construction as will sustain rather than defeat the mortgage. 4urthermore, in Gonzales v. Basa, the Court ruled that 7once a mortgage has #een signed in due form, the mortgagee is entitled to its registration as a matter of right. &y e$ecuting the mortgage, the mortgagor is understood to have given his consent to its registration, and he cannot #e permitted to revo6e it unilaterally. 1he validity and fulfillment of contracts cannot #e left to the will of one of the contracting parties.8 Additionally, we find petitioner s protestations #arred #y laches. 5aches has #een defined as 7the failure or neglect, for an unreasona#le and une$plained length of time, to do that which #y e$ercising due diligence could or should have >#een? done earlier@ it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasona#le time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either a#andoned it or declined to assert it.8 2ortgages may #e fraudulent, illegal, or otherwise invalid. 1hrough their acts or omissions, however, mortgagors may #e estopped from denying the effect or from contesting the foreclosure, either #y prolonged neglect to set up any defense against it or #y permission to sell the property on foreclosure. 1he proceedings #efore the lower court and the Register of -eeds of &acolod City were all consistent with the applica#le law and %urisprudence. Petitioner has not satisfactorily shown any reversi#le error on the part of the Court of Appeals.8 ()EREFORE, the Petition is here#y DENIED and the assailed -ecision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.