BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Our client, Angelina Hernando is an 82-year old widow who lives in Bulakan, Bulacan.
She mortgaged a lot in Balubad, Bulakan, Bulacan, registered under her name on August 24,
2009 to Crisipin Luceniada, through the assistance of her daughter-in-law, Erlinda Hernando.
Angelina gave posessionof the said title to Crispin during this transaction. However, the
mortgage was never registered and notarized. Angelina was not able to pay on the date stipulated
on the mortgage. Angelina thought that the land becomes the property of Crispin automatically
as a result. She allowed the Crispin continued possession of the lot.

In 2018, Crisalyn Luceniada Cahalhal, daugther of Cripsin Luceniada, went to the

residence of Angelina asking for help in mortgaging the property again, which is in Crisalyn and
Crispin’s possession. Crisalyn asked Angelina for her ID and to sign some documents, because
she is unable to mortgage the property again due to the fact that the land title is still in
Angelina’s name. Crisalyn was eventually able to convince Angelina to accede to her request
and signed the mortgage documents. After some time, Angelina was visited by Aurea Lugtu, the
person to whom the lot was mortgaged once again. Aurea sought satisfaction of the outstanding
balance unpaid on the mortgage from Angelina. Aura said she is claiming it from Angelina
because she was the one who signed the mortgage documents. When Angelina declined, a
baranggay hearing ensued. In the baranggay hearing, Crisalyn, Aurea and Anglina were parties.
During the said hearing at some point, Crisalyn admitted that she was actually the one who is
indebted to Aurea and not Angelina. Everything went well, during the baranggay hearing.
However after a few days, Angelina received a copy of complaint from the Prosecutor’s office
accusing her of Estafa. Aside from money owed, the complaint states that she submitted to Aurea
a fake land title

ACTION DONE and STATUS of the CASE

Team Legister has drafted a counter-affidavit for Angelina, with the guidance of our
Legal Aid Professor. The client was already able to submit it with the Provincial Prosecutor’s
office on May 6, 2019. Upon submission, they were advised to wait for the resolution of the
Prosecutor’s office. They were further advised that there may be an update on the case by June
20, 2019.

Additional Note: The client expressed their intention to file a separate case against Aurea Lugtu,
Crispin Luceniada and Crisalyn Luceniada Cahalhal because of what transpired. Team Legister
advised that there is indeed invalid constitution of mortgage on the second mortgage when
Crispin Luceniada mortgaged the lot the second time around to Aura Lugtu. Crispin Luceniada
did not become the former owner of the lot by virtue of the first mortgage. There was a process
that was not followed. However, when the lot was mortgaged for the second time, Angelina was
technically the one who mortgaged the property since she was the one who signed the
documents, but in that Crysalyn was the one who received the proceeds. Since a case against
Crispin and Crysalin wouldn’t seem to prosper, Team Legister then advised the client, together
with her family members with her at that time, to inquire with the BIR, SEC and BSP whether or
not Aurea has a license to engage in a mortgage or lending business. If she is not licensed to do
so, the feasible case we can file against her would be engaging in mortgage business without a
license. Team Legister was to do research on the specific provision of applicable law or rule that
applies depending on the information the client is able to obtain about Aurea being licensed.
Team Legister has not yet received updates from the client as of yet.