PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, petitioner, vs. HON.
The spouses
GREGORIO T. LANTIN, Presiding Judge, Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch VII, and CANDIDO RAMOS,
respondents. G.R. No. L-33929. September
2, 1983
DOCTRINE:
In the case at bar, although the lower court found
that there were no known creditors other than the plaintif
and the defendant herein, this cannot be conclusive. It will
not bar other creditors in the event they show up and
present their claims against the petitioner bank, claiming
that they also have preferred liens against the property
involved. Consequently, Transfer Certificate of Title No.
101864 issued in favor of the bank which is supposed to be
indefeasible would remain constantly unstable and
questionable. Such could not have been the intention of
Article 2243 of the Civil Code although it considers claims
and credits under Article 2242 as statutory liens. Neither
does the De Barretto case sanction such instability.
Since the action filed by the private respondent is not
one which can be considered as equivalent general
liquidation having the same import as an insolvency or
settlement of the decedents estate proceeding, the well
established principle must be applied that a purchaser in
good faith and for value takes registered land free from liens
and encumbrances other than statutory liens and those
recorded in the Certificate of Title. It is an admitted fact that
at the time the deeds of real estate mortgage in favor of the
petitioner bank were constituted, the transfer certificate of
title of the spouses Tabligan was free from any recorded
alien and encumbrances, so that the only registered liens in
the title were deeds in favor of the petitioner.
FACTS:
A duplex-apartment house was built by private
respondent Candido Ramos for the spouses Filomeno and
HABAWEL-VEGA
Soccoro Tabligan at a total cost of P32,927.00.
paid Ramos P7,139.00 only. Hence, Ramos used his own
money to P25,788.50 to finish the construction of the
duplex-apartment.
On December 16, 1966, February 1, 1967, and
February 28, 1867, The spouses Tabligan obtained three
loans from petitioner PSB, in the amount of P35,000 for the
purpose of constructing the duplex-apartment. To secure
payment of the loans, they executed three promissory notes
and three deeds of real estate mortgage over the property
subject matter of this litigation. The deed of real estate
mortgage was registered by petitioner on December 19,
1966, February 2, 1967, and March 1, 1967, respectively,
with the Register of Deeds of Manila. At the time of
registration of the mortgages, TCT No. 86195 was free from
all liens and encumbrances. The bank foreclosed the
mortgages, and at the public auction held on July 23, 1969,
was the highest bidder. On August 5, 1969 the petitioner
bank registered the certificate of sale in its name. Later on,
the bank consolidated its ownership and TCT No. 101864
was issued by the RD of Manila in the name of the Bank.
Private respondent filed an action against the
spouses to collect the unpaid cost of the house, the case
was docketed as Civil case no69228. Ramos succeeded in
obtaining a writ of preliminary attachment. Consequently, a
notice of adverse claim was annotated at the back of TCT
No. 86195. A decision was rendered in favour of Ramos. A
writ of execution was accordingly issued but was returned
unsatisfied. As the spouses did not have any property to
satisfy the judgment in favour of Ramos, he wrote the
petitioner bank for the delivery to him of his pro-rata share
in the value of the duplex-apartment in accordance with CC
Art no 2242, but the bank refused, prompting Ramos to file
the instant case.
ISSUE:
Whether Ramos is entitled to claim a pro-rata share
in the value of the property in question?
RULING:
Bank: relying on De Barretto vs Villanueva, it is not
the proceeding contemplated, there must be an insolvency
proceeding other than liquidation proceedings. The
architects lien did not acquire the character of a statutory
lien equal to PSBs registered mortgage.
Ramos: the proceedings in the trial court can qualify
as a general liquidation of the estate of the spouses Tabligan
because the only existing property of the spouses is the
duplex apartment.
The proceedings in the court below do not partake in
the nature of insolvency proceedings or settlement of a
decedents estate. The action filed by Ramos was only to
collect the unpaid cost of the construction of the duplex
apartment.
Insolvency proceedings and settlement of a
decedents estat are both proceedings in rem which are
binding against the whole world regardless of whether or not
persons having interest were notified or not, they are
equally bound.
HABAWEL-VEGA
The fact that the lower court found that there were
no known creditors other than Ramos and PSB is not
conclusive, it will not bar other creditors in the event they
show up and present their claims against PSB claiming that
they also have preferred liend against the property involved.
The TCT which was issued in favour of the bank is supposed
to be indefeasible would remain constantly unstable and
questionable.
The bank could not have known of any contractors
lien because, as far as it was concerned, it financed the
entire construction even if the stated purpose of the loans
was only to complete the construction.
Since the action filed by the private respondent is not
one which can be considered as equivalent general
liquidation having the same import as an insolvency or
settlement of the decedents estate proceeding, the well
established principle must be applied that a purchaser in
good faith and for value takes registered land free from liens
and encumbrances other than statutory liens and those
recorded in the Certificate of Title.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII is, hereby,
reversed and set aside. The complaint and the counterclaim
are dismissed.
SO ORDERED.