Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs SPOUSES BERNARD and CRESENCIA

MARANON

(G.R. No. 189316, June 1, 2013)

FACTS:

Spouses Montealegre applied a loan to PNB as a security for the loan,
they mortgaged a parcel of land situated at Cuadra-Smith Streets,
Downtown, Bacolod erected with a building leased by various
tenants.

When Spouses Montealegre failed to pay the loan, PNB initiated
foreclosure proceedings on the mortgaged properties, including the
subject lot and sold in the auction, the bank emerged as the highest
bidder.

Spouses Marañon filed before the RTC a complaint for Annulment of
Title, Re-conveyance and Damages against Spouses Montealegre
and PNB. The former alleged that they are the true registered owners
of the subject lot and Montealegre falsified Deed of Sale bearing their
forged signatures to effect the transfer of title to the property in her
name.

PNB contended that it is a mortgagee in good faith and for value and
that its mortgage lien on the property was registered thus valid and
binding against the whole world.

The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Marañon on the ground that the
deed of sale was falsified and forged the signature of the true owner
of the subject land. Hence, the sale is null and void as such it did not
transfer any right or title in law. The case was not elevated for an
appeal of the decision.

Thereafter, Spouses Marañon filed for the Withdrawal of Deposited
Rentals before RTC for having been adjudged as the real owner of the
subject lot. The RTC granted the motion. However, PNB move for
reconsideration alleging that with the expiration of the redemption
period, PNB is now the owner of the subject lot hence, entitled to its

. Hence. there is no juridical tie created by a valid mortgage contract that binds PNB to the subject lot because the mortgagors Montealegre were not the true owners which the rule that improvements shall follow the principal in a mortgage under Article 2127 of the Civil Code does not apply under the premises. the rightful recipient of the disputed rent should be the owner of the lot at the time the rent accrued. Thus. the Court explained that Article 2127 is predicated on the presumption that the ownership of accessions and accessories also belongs to the mortgagor as the owner of the principal. In Castro. ISSUE: Whether or not PNB is entitled to the fruits of the foreclosed mortgaged property of Spouses Maranon? RULING: NO. In this case. Jr. CA. The Court ruled Spouses Maranon has the right to the rents on the foreclosed property because the rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession. this Petition. v. It is beyond question that spouses Maranon never lost ownership over the subject lot. and that technically. PNB’s claim for the rents paid by the tenants has no basis.fruits but the motion was denied by the trial court and the judgement was affirmed in the Court of Appeals. PNB’s lien as a mortgagee in good faith pertains to the subject lot alone and not on the erected building which was not foreclosed and still remained to be a property of Maranon.