Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Gurbax Singh Pabla and Co vs Hermogenes Reyes

- The respondents appealed to the court on a decision rendered by the RTC demanding them to surrender owners
duplicate of TCTs so that the contract of lease entered into by the petitioners and the land owner be annotated
- John Tan Chin, the owner of the said land entered in to a contact of lease with Gurbax (petitioner) with a
condition that they build a 3-storey building from value of 80k to 90k. And the contract also provides that the
building shall become the exclusive property of the owner but Gurbax (petitioner) were to occupy it for 3 years,
6months from its completion without paying rentals thereto. This contact of lease was registered on July 23,
- But after period, Gurbax (petitioner) continued occupying the same building with a monthly rental of 2k. This
contract of lease was registered on August 10, 1948.
- But at the time the contract was entered into, there was already an existing mortgage in favor of Jose Calvo for a
sum of 100k. This mortgage was cancelled and a new mortgage was executed in favor Reyes (respondent) on
March 8, 1949.
- The first contract of lease was amended by which the period under which Gurbax (petitioner) was to occupy
without rentals was extended to 7years and 4months and this 3
contract was registered on May 20, 1949.
- On May 25, 1949, the Gurbax (petitioners) wanted to annotate the new contract of lease on the title of the
Calvo (respondents) however the Calvos son (respondents) demanded payment of the overdue interest of the
mortgage from the owner of the land, John Tan Chin before they will deliver their title and have it annotated.
- Against this petition Reyes (respondents) filed an opposition alleging that:
1. They had no knowledge whatsoever of the contract of lease, or of its amendments, and that the
execution of the amendment
2. It violated the express provision of the mortgage, to the effect that the owner could not sell, assign,
or encumber the mortgaged premises without the written consent of the mortgages.
Whether or not petitioners have a right to have said deeds registered.
- SC found that the issues raised by Reyes (respondents), were not properly investigated because Reyes
(respondents) did not have the opportunity to present evidence thereon and did not even present copy of their
mortgage at the hearing, and the trial court decided the questions without full and complete investigation.
- SC also held that the purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all persons; it is not
intended by the proceedings for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already registered rights over
the land, subsisting or existing at the time of the registration.
- The rights of parties who have registered their rights, are not put in issue when an instrument is presented for
registration; nor are its effects on other instruments previously registered put in issue by the procedure
of registration
Thus, in so far as it orders the surrender of the certificates of title for the registration of the contracts of lease, is