Case Name: Compañía Azucarera del Toa, Appellant, v. Registrar of San Juan, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1918-11-26
Citations: 26 P.R. 683
Docket Number: No. 386
Parties: Compañía Azucarera del Toa, Appellant, v. Registrar of San Juan, Respondent.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
Compañía Azucarera del Toa, Appellant, v. Registrar of San Juan, Respondent.
Appeal from a Decision of the Registrar of Property Refusing to Record a Deed of Cancelation.
No. 386.
Decided November 26, 1918.
Becord of Title — -Partial Payment — Mortgage.—When there are several creditors secured by a mortgage on the same property and the debtor wishes to make a partial payment, he is not obliged to prorate the payment among the several creditors, but may make it to one of the several creditors as he may elect.
Id. — Id.—When by a mere matter of arithmetic the residuary amount of the debt can be determined, paragraph 5 of article 98 of the Mortgage Law is complied with.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Francisco Soto Gras for the appellant. .
The respondent did not appear.

Opinion:
Me. Justice Wole
delivered the opinion of the court.
A debtor elected to pay in part one of several creditors, all secured by the same property, and when the deed in partial cancellation was presented to the Registrar of San Juan, Section 2nd, he refused to record on the ground that the payment was not prorated between the several creditors in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of American Trading Co. v. Monserrat, 19 P. R. R. 929, and Ortiz v. Registrar of Guayama, 22 P. R. R. 316.
These cases only decide that when the thing secured is sold the proceeds of the sale must be divided among the respective creditors in proportion to their claims. They are decisions affecting the disposition of the proceeds arising from the sale of the property secured. There is nothing in these decisions that prevents a debtor from paying a particular creditor. The security of other creditors is surely not di minished. If anything it is enhanced. Hence the registrar was in error.
The record was also refused on the ground that the amount of the mortgage debt remaining was not stated. Appellant is right in maintaining that paragraph 5 of article 98 of the Mortgage Law does not require the statement of the residuary amount of the debt, but only that such "amount should be stated in the record. A mere matter of arithmetic by way of substraction. Cerium est quod certum reddi potest.
The note of the registrar must be
Reversed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.