TEOTIMO RIVERA, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. TIMOTEO PEÑA, REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TARLAC, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac denying a
petition of appellant Teotimo Rivera in Land Registration Cases Nos.
766 and 1919, G. L. R. O. Records Nos. 25456 and 51769.

It
was alleged in said petition, filed on September 3, 1956, that Timoteo
Peña was the registered owner of Lot No. 2 Plan-Psu-29116, and Lot No.
2, Plan-Psu-102330, of the barrios of Pacalcal and Anupul,
respectively, municipality of Bamban, province of Tarlac, and covered
by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 23014 and 23015, respectively,
of said province; that on February 22, 1955, Timoteo Peña executed in
favor of petitioner Rivera a contract of lease over said two (2)
parcels of land, for the period from September 14, 1956 to September
15, 1960, as evidenced by a public document in the Pampango dialect,
copy of which is attached to the petition as Annex A, together with its
English translation, likewise attached to said petition as Annex A-1;
that said contract (Annex A) is merely a renewal of a previous contract
of lease over the same parcels of land, between the same parties; that
the owner’s duplicates of the aforementioned transfer certificates of
title are in the possession of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation,
to whom said lands were mortgaged by Timoteo Peña on October 26, 1955,
to guarantee the payment of a P25,000.00 loan, which mortgage is duly
annotated on the aforementioned transfer certificates of title; and
that, in order to protect his rights over the parcels of land
aforementioned, petitioner Rivera desires to have said rights
registered in the office of the register of deeds of Tarlac and
annotated in the certificates of title above refered to, for which
reason he prayed that the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation be ordered
to surrender to said register of deeds the owner’s duplicates of the
aforementioned transfer certificates of title and that said register of
deeds be directed to register the original of said Annex A, and to make
the corresponding annotations in said transfer certificates of title,
upon presentation of said original of Annex A and payment of the
corresponding fees.

The Rehabilitation Finance Corporation
objected to said petition upon the ground that, pursuant to the deed of
mortgage executed in its favor by Timoteo Peña, the lands above
referred to shall not be encumbered in any manner without the written
consent of the mortgagee; that the consent of the corporation to the
contract of lease evidenced by Annex A had never been sought; that the
corporation had granted the loan guaranteed by said mortgage for the
development of the property in question, to be undertaken by the
mortgagor; and that, as a matter of policy, the corporation does not
allow, therefore, the leasing of mortgaged property.

After
due hearing, the lower court issued the order appealed from, dated
September 11, 1956, denying appellant’s petition, upon the ground that
the deed of lease sought to be registered is in the Pampango dialect
and that it does not bear the correct number of the title covering the
leased property. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of said order,
alleging, inter alia, that his leasehold rights should be
registered, at least, as an adverse claim, under section 110 of Act No.
496. This motion was denied by an order dated October 3, 1956. Hence
this appeal by the petitioner, who maintains that the lower court erred
in denying the registration of the deed of lease in question upon the
grounds stated in the order of September 11, 1956, and as well as in
not directing the registration of his leasehold rights as an adverse
claim under said section 110.

It appears however, that one
of the conditions of the contract executed by Timoteo Peña in favor of
the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation is that the property thus
mortgaged thereto shall not be encumbered in any manner whatsoever
without the written consent of the mortgagee; that such consent has
never been sought; that had it been requested, the consent would have
been denied or refused, as a matter of policy, by the mortgagee, the
loan guaranteed by said mortgage having been granted for the
development of the mortgaged property, which should, therefore, be
cultivated by the mortgagor himself. Appellant assails the propriety of
entertaining the opposition of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation,
upon the ground that the deed of mortgage in favor of the latter has
not been introduced in evidence. This argument overlooks the fact that
appellant’s petition has been filed in the very records for the
registration of the parcels of land in question; that, having been duly
registered, said deed of mortgage is part of said records; and that
appellant has not denied, and has impliedly admitted the truth of the
allegations made in said opposition of the Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation.

Inasmuch as appellant’s rights were derived
from Timoteo Peña and is bound, therefore, by his commitments in favor
of said corporation, it is clear that appellant has no valid adverse
claim which may be ordered registered and that, accordingly, the lower
court has not erred in denying his petition, regardless of the language
or dialect in which the deed of lease in question is written and of the
inaccuracy of the number therein given of one of the transfer
certificates of title involved in this incident.

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, Acting, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon JJ., concur.