Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

DBP VS CA, SPS.

MANGUBAT The annulment of the sale will not have an effect on the existence
and demandability of the loan. One who has received money as a
Sps. MANGUBAT bought the property for P25,500 from DBP which loan is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same
the latter acquired from an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. kind and quality.
This was payable within six months. The deed of absolute sale
was executed by DBP in favor of Sps. MANGUBAT. It contained a The fact that the annulment of the sale will also result in the
waiver of the seller's warranty against eviction. invalidity of the mortgage does not have an effect on the validity
and efficacy of the principal obligation, for even an obligation that
Sps. MANGUBAT applied for an industrial tree planting loan with is unsupported by any security of the debtor may also be enforced
DBP. The latter required the former to submit a certification from by means of an ordinary action. Where a mortgage is not
the Bureau of Forest Development that the land is alienable and valid, as where it is executed by one who is not the owner
disposable. However, the land was found out to be classified as of the property, or the consideration of the contract is
timberland, hence not subject to disposition. simulated or false, the principal obligation which it
guarantees is not thereby rendered null and void.
The loan application of Sps. MANGUBAT was nevertheless
eventually approved by DBP in the sum of P140,000 on the WHAT IS LOST IS ONLY THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE THE
understanding that DBP would work for the release of the land by MORTGAGE AS A SPECIAL REMEDY FOR SATISFYING OR
the former Ministry of Natural Resources. To secure payment of SETTLING THE INDEBTEDNESS WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL
the loan, Sps. MANGUBAT executed a REM over the land. OBLIGATION. In case of nullity, the mortgage deed remains as
evidence or proof of a personal obligation of the debtor, and the
When Sps. MANGUBAT asked for the release of the remaining amount due to the creditor may be enforced in an ordinary
amount of the loan, DBP refused to do so since the release of the personal action.
land from the then Ministry of Natural Resources had not been
obtained. THE RETURN BY DBP TO SPS. MANGUBAT OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE, PLUS CORRESPONDING INTEREST
Sps. MANGUBAT filed a complaint against DBP seeking the THEREON, IS INELUCTABLY CALLED FOR.
annulment of the subject deed of absolute sale on the ground Whenever money is paid upon the representation of the receiver
that: that he has either a certain title in property transferred in
1. The land was verified to be timberland and, therefore, is consideration of the payment or a certain authority to receive the
in law an inalienable part of the public domain. money paid, when in fact he has no such title or authority, then,
2. DBP acted fraudulently and in bad faith by although there be no fraud or intentional misrepresentation on his
misrepresenting itself as the absolute owner of the land part, yet there is no consideration for the payment, the money
and in incorporating the waiver of warranty against remains, in equity and good conscience, the property of the payer
eviction in the deed of sale. and may be recovered back by him.

DBP contended among others that:


1. Assuming arguendo that there was a flaw in its title, DBP DBP: CA erred in in ordering the reimbursement of taxes and the
cannot be held liable for anything inasmuch as Sps. cost of the relocation survey, there being no factual or legal basis
MANGUBAT had full knowledge of the extent and nature therefor. Sps. MANGUBAT merely submitted a "list of damages"
of DBP's rights, title and interest over the land. allegedly incurred by them, and not official receipts of expenses
2. The annulment of the sale and the return of the for taxes and said survey. Also, the same list has allegedly not
purchase price to Sps. MANGUBAT would redound to been identified or even presented at any stage of the
their benefit but would result in DBPs prejudice, since it proceedings, since it was vigorously objected to by DBP.
had already released P118,540 to the former while it
would be left without any security for the P140,000 loan The list of damages was presented in the trial court. However, the
same cannot constitute sufficient legal basis for an award of
TC and CA resolved to annul the deed of absolute sale and ordered reimbursement for land taxes and expenses for the relocation
DBP to return the P25,500 purchase price. survey since the list of damages was prepared extrajudicially by
Sps. MANGUBAR by themselves without any supporting receipts
ISSUE: as bases thereof or to substantiate the same.
WON SPS. MANGUBAT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY DBP
THEIR LOAN OBLIGATION DUE UNDER THE MORTGAGE
CONTRACT EXECUTED BETWEEN THEM AND DBP. Yes. CA: Denied the claim of DBP for payment of the loan on the
ground that it failed to present the promissory note. UNTENABLE.
WON DBP SHOULD REIMBURSE SPS. MANGUBAT THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY. Yes The mortgage contract which embodies the terms and conditions
of the loan obligation of Sps. MANGUBAT, as well as the latters
HELD: admission in open court, are more than adequate evidence to
SPS. MANGUBAT SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY DBP THEIR sustain DBPs claim for payment of Sps. MANGUBATs
LOAN OBLIGATION AMOUNTING TO P118,540. indebtedness and for the adjudication of DBP's claim.
The contract of loan executed between the parties is entirely
different and discrete from the deed of sale they entered into.