Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81231:gr-196577-2013&catid=1567&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:27:13+00:00

Document:
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE, Respondent.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' Decision2 dated 28 September 20 I 0 and its Resolution3 dated 19 April 2011 in C A-G.R. CV No. 91666. The Court of Appeals (C A) affirmed in toto the Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46, in Civil Case No. R-1331.
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) is a banking institution organized and existing under Philippine laws. Respondent Barbara Sampaga Poblete (Poblete) is the registered owner of a parcel of land, known as Lot No. 29, with an area of 455 square meters, located in Buenavista, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-12026. In October 1997, Poblete obtained a P300,000.00 loan from Kabalikat ng Pamayanan ng Nagnanais Tumulong at Yumaman Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Kapantay). Poblete mortgaged Lot No. 29 to Kapantay to guarantee payment of the loan. Kapantay, in turn, used OCT No. P-12026 as collateral under its Loan Account No. 97-CC-013 with Land Bank-Sablayan Branch.
Based on a Certification issued by Land Bank-Sablayan Branch Department Manager Marcelino Pulayan on 20 August 1999,7 Maniego paid Kapantays Loan Account No. 97-CC-013 for P448,202.08. On 8 June 2000, Maniego applied for a loan of P1,000,000.00 with Land Bank, using OCT No. P 12026 as collateral. Land Bank alleged that as a condition for the approval of the loan, the title of the collateral should first be transferred to Maniego.
On 14 August 2000, pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 August 2000 (Deed dated 11 August 2000),8 the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-20151 in Maniegos name. On 15 August 2000, Maniego and Land Bank executed a Credit Line Agreement and a Real Estate Mortgage over TCT No. T- 20151. On the same day, Land Bank released the P1,000,000.00 loan proceeds to Maniego. Subsequently, Maniego failed to pay the loan with Land Bank. On 4 November 2002, Land Bank filed an Application for Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage stating that Maniegos total indebtedness amounted to P1,154,388.88.
On 2 December 2002, Poblete filed a Complaint for Nullification of the Deed dated 11 August 2000 and TCT No. T-20151, Reconveyance of Title and Damages with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Named defendants were Maniego, Land Bank, the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro and Elsa Z. Aguirre in her capacity as Acting Clerk of Court of RTC San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. In her Complaint, Poblete alleged that despite her demands on Maniego, she did not receive the consideration of P900,000.00 for Lot No. 29. She claimed that without her knowledge, Maniego used the Deed dated 9 November 1998 to acquire OCT No. P-12026 from Kapantay. Upon her verification with the Register of Deeds, the Deed dated 11 August 2000 was used to obtain TCT No. T-20151. Poblete claimed that the Deed dated 11 August 2000 bearing her and her deceased husbands, Primo Poblete, supposed signatures was a forgery as their signatures were forged. As proof of the forgery, Poblete presented the Death Certificate dated 27 April 1996 of her husband and Report No. 294-502 of the Technical Services Department of the National Bureau of Investigation showing that the signatures in the Deed dated 11 August 2000 were forgeries. Accordingly, Poblete also filed a case for estafa through falsification of public document against Maniego and sought injunction of the impending foreclosure proceeding.
On 7 January 2003, Land Bank filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-claim. Land Bank claimed that it is a mortgagee in good faith and it observed due diligence prior to approving the loan by verifying Maniegos title with the Office of the Register of Deeds. Land Bank likewise interposed a cross-claim against Maniego for the payment of the loan, with interest, penalties and other charges. Maniego, on the other hand, separately filed his Answer. Maniego denied the allegations of Poblete and claimed that it was Poblete who forged the Deed dated 11 August 2000. He also alleged that he paid the consideration of the sale to Poblete and even her loans from Kapantay and Land Bank.
The RTC ruled that the sale between Poblete and Maniego was a nullity. The RTC found that the agreed consideration was P900,000.00 and Maniego failed to pay the consideration. Furthermore, the signatures of Poblete and her deceased husband were proven to be forgeries. The RTC also ruled that Land Bank was not a mortgagee in good faith because it failed to exercise the diligence required of banking institutions. The RTC explained that had Land Bank exercised due diligence, it would have known before approving the loan that the sale between Poblete and Maniego had not been consummated. Nevertheless, the RTC granted Land Banks cross-claim against Maniego.
In an Order dated 17 March 2008, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Land Bank for want of merit. Thereafter, Land Bank and Maniego separately challenged the RTCs Decision before the CA.
In a Resolution dated 13 July 2011,12 the Second Division of this Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Maniego. This Resolution became final and executory on 19 January 2012.
On the other hand, Land Bank filed this petition.
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SPECIAL ELEVENTH DIVISION) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT DECLARING TCT NO. T-20151 AS NULL AND VOID. THE COURT OF APPEALS MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW IN NOT FINDING TCT NO. T-20151 REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ANGELITO JOSEPH MANIEGO AS VALID.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SPECIAL ELEVENTH DIVISION) MISCONSTRUED THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW IN NOT FINDING LAND BANK A MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SPECIAL ELEVENTH DIVISION) MISCONSTRUED THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW IN NOT FINDING THE RESPONDENT AND ANGELITO JOSEPH MANIEGO AS IN PARI DELICTO.
The issue on the nullity of Maniegos title had already been foreclosed when this Court denied Maniegos petition for review in the Resolution dated 13 July 2011, which became final and executory on 19 January 2012.22 It is settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.23 This is without prejudice, however, to the right of Maniego to recover from Poblete what he paid to Kapantay for the account of Poblete, otherwise there will be unjust enrichment by Poblete.
Land Bank insists that it is a mortgagee in good faith since it verified Maniegos title, did a credit investigation, and inspected Lot No. 29. The issue of being a mortgagee in good faith is a factual matter, which cannot be raised in this petition.25 However, to settle the issue, we carefully examined the records to determine whether or not Land Bank is a mortgagee in good faith.
Applying the same principles, we do not find Land Bank to be a mortgagee in good faith.
The records do not even show that Land Bank investigated and inspected the property to ascertain its actual occupants. Land Bank merely mentioned that it inspected Lot No. 29 to appraise the value of the property. We take judicial notice of the standard practice of banks, before approving a loan, to send representatives to the premises of the land offered as collateral to investigate its real owners.35 In Prudential Bank v. Kim Hyeun Soon,36 the Court held that the bank failed to exercise due diligence although its representative conducted an ocular inspection, because the representative concentrated only on the appraisal of the property and failed to inquire as to who were the then occupants of the property.
Since Land Bank is not a mortgagee in good faith, it is not entitled to protection. The injunction against the foreclosure proceeding in the present case should be made permanent. Since Lot No. 29 has not been transferred to a third person who is an innocent purchaser for value, ownership of the lot remains with Poblete. This is without prejudice to the right of either party to proceed against Maniego.
On the allegation that Poblete is in pari delicto with Maniego, we find the principle inapplicable. The pari delicto rule provides that "when two parties are equally at fault, the law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them."40 We adopt the factual finding of the RTC and the CA that only Maniego is at fault.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 28 September 2010 Decision and the 19 April 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-Ci.R. CV No. 91666. The injunction against the foreclosure proceeding, issued by the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46, is made permanent. Costs against Land Bank.
* Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1421 dated 20 February 2013.
2 Rollo. pp. 38-49. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Darton Q. Bueser, concurring.
4 ld. at 50-71. Penned by Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan.
"G.R. No. 196807 (Angelito Joseph Maniego v. Barbara Sampaga Poblete). - x x x. On the basis thereof, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated 28 September 2010 and Resolution dated 19 April 2011 of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. CV No. 91666 for late filing, as the petition was filed beyond the fifteen (15) day reglementary period fixed in Section 2, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (a), Rule 56, in view of the denial of the motion for extension to file the petition in the Resolution dated 29 June 2011.
14 In Reyes v. Montemayor, G. R. No. 166516, 3 September 2009, 598 SCRA 61, 74, the Court enumerates the following exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when, in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
15 Montecillo v. Reynes, 434 Phil. 456 (2002), citing Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc., 382 Phil. 510 (2000).
16 Catindig v. Vda. De Meneses, G.R. No. 165851, 2 February 2011, 641 SCRA 350.
18 Montecillo v. Reynes, supra note 15, citing Vda. De Catindig v. Heirs of Roque, 165 Phil. 707 (1976); Mapalo v. Mapalo, 123 Phil. 979 (1966); Ocejo Perez & Co. v. Flores, 40 Phil. 921 (1920).
19 419 Phil. 845 (2001).
20 525 Phil. 381 (2006).
23 Catindig v. Vda. De Meneses, supra note 16, citing Peña v. Government Service Insurance System, 533 Phil. 670 (2006).
25 Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Militar, 504 Phil. 634 (2005), citing Sps. Uy v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 788 (2001).
26 Cavite Development Bank v. Lim, 381 Phil. 355 (2000).
27 Id., citing Philippine National Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 257 Phil. 748 (1989).
28 Philippine National Bank v. Jumamoy, G.R. No. 169901, 3 August 2011, 655 SCRA 54; Philippine National Bank v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 180945, 12 February 2010, 612 SCRA 493; Bank of Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr., G.R. No. 167848, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 713; Erasusta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 527 Phil. 639 (2006); Private Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 512 Phil. 237 (2005); Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, 493 Phil. 752 (2005); Robles v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 635 (2000).
29 Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, 429 Phil. 225 (2002), citing Rural Bank of Compostela v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 521 (1997).
30 United Coconut Planters Bank v. Gillera, G.R. No. 171550, 30 September 2009 (Unsigned Resolution), citing Home Bankers Savings & Trust Co. v. Court of Appeals, 496 Phil. 637 (2005).
31 Leung Yee v. F.L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson, 37 Phil. 644 (1918).
33 CA rollo, p. 133.
34 G.R. No. 167848, 27 April 2007, 522 SCRA 713.
35 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 283 (2000), citing Spouses Tomas v. Philippine National Bank, 187 Phil. 183 (1980).
36 G.R. No. 149481, 24 October 2001 (Unsigned Resolution).
37 CA rollo, p. 77.
39 San Pedro v. Ong, G. R. No. 177598, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 767; Instrade, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil. 791 (2000).
40 Yu Ban Guan v. Ong, supra note 19.
41 Molina v. Court of Appeals. 376 Phil. 44 (1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.