058 VICENTE C.

REYES APPLICANT-APPELLEE
VS
.FRANCISCO SIERRA
,

E
MILIO
S
IERRA
,

A
LEJANDRA
S
IERRA
,

F
ELIMON
S
IERRA
,

A
URELIO
S
IERRA
,
C
ONSTANCIO
S
IERRA
,

C
IRILO
S
IERRA AND
A
NTONIA
S
ANTOS
OPPOSITORS
-
APPLICANTS
G.R.

N
O
.

L-28658
OCTOBER
18,

1979
DE
C
ASTRO
,

J.SV:
Facts: Reyes wanted to register property in antipolo claiming
it was inherited from his father. It turns out that his
fathergot the land from Beltran through a mortgage contract.

HELD:
Reyes can’t register it under his name. Contract between father of
Reyes and Beltran was that of a mortgage and not a sale hence
ownership didn’t pass to him.

1.

Vicente Reyes filed an application for registration of his title to a

parcel of land in Antipolo before the Bureau of Lands. Hedeclared that
he inherited the land from his father and that the other heirs have
executed a quit claim in favor of Vicente.2.

An opposition was filed by the director of lands, Francisco Sierra and

Emilio Sierra. Later a motion to set aside aninterlocutory default was
filed by the rest of the sierras, said Sierras were added as oppositors
to the registration3.

Lower court decided in favor of Reyes, declared him the rightful owner
of the land.4.

Hence this appeal.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the contract between the father of Reyes and
Basilia Beltran a mortgage or a sale.
1.

Mortgage-

The land was originally owned by Basilia Beltran’s parents, from whom
she inherited the property
. She borrowedmoney from Vicente Reyes, Sr. the amount of P100.00
and secured the loan with the piece of land.-

Since then, the older Reyes began paying the realty taxes up to the
time of his death after which his childrencontinued to pay the taxes.-

Beltran died before the loan was paid.-

In registering the property, Vicente jr. relied on his belief that the
property belonged to his father who bought thesame from Beltran and
that there is a document to prove sale (contract of mortgage between
Beltran and Reyessr.)-

Court held that the contract was a mortgage contract. The intention of
the parties at the time was the lending ofmoney with security.

The use of the word debt(“utang”) helps to point out that the
transaction was intended to be a loan with mortgage

Intention of the parties must govern and not the form of the
transaction.
 Macapinlac v. Gutierrez Rapide;
if the instrument is in its essence a mortgage, the parties cannot
by anystipulations, however express and positive, render it
anything but a mortgage or deprive it of the essentialattributes
belonging to a mortgage in equality-

Failure of mortgagor to redeem the property does not automatically

vest ownership of the property to themortgagee. This violates Art.
2088 of the Civil code (the creditor cannot appropriate the thigns
given by way ofpledge or mortgage, or dispose by them. Any stipulation
to the contrary is null and void.

Otherwise it would amount to a

pactum commissorium
which is against good morals and public policy-

The property hasn’t been acquired through prescription either since

Reyes didn’t possess it as owner, Reyes didnot have adverse
nor continuous possession.-

Mortgage does not constitute just title on the part of the mortgagee,
since ownership is retained by mortgagor.Payment of realty taxes does
not amount to adverse possession or title. Mere failure of the owner
(mortgagor) to
pay taxes doesn’t amount to abandonment.
-

Doctrine of “once a mortgage always a mortgage” has been firmly

established whatever be its form.

Held: decision appealed from is set aside and another one be entered
ordering the registration of the title of the land in the name
ofoppositor appellants.