AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF HINIGARAN, MOVANT AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTANISLAO YULO YUSAY, ET AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, Hon. Jose S. de la Cruz, presiding, directing the
Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental to register a mortgage executed
by Rafaela Yulo in favor of the movant covering Lot No. 855, Pontevedra
Cadastre, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4979.

The records disclose that on July 20, 1952, Rafaela Yulo executed in
favor of the movant a mortgage for P33,626.29, due from her, her
mother, sisters, brothers, and others, which amount she assumed to pay
to the movant. A motion was presented to the court by the movant
demanding the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title
that fie may annotate said mortgage at the back of the certificate.
Estanislao Yusay, a part owner of the lot, opposed the petition on the
ground that he is owner of a part of the property in question; that the
granting of the motion would operate to his prejudice, as he has not
participated in the mortgage cited in the motion; that Rafaela Yulo is
dead; that the motion is not verified and movant’s rights have lapsed
by prescription. Finally it is argued that his opposition raises a
controversial matter which the court has no jurisdiction to pass upon.
Margarita, Maria, Elena and Pilar, all surnamed Yulo, joined the
oppositor Estanislao Yusay, raising the same objections interposed by
Yusay.

The existence of the mortgage is not disputed, and neither is the
fact that the mortgagor Rafaela Yulo is part owner of Lot No. 855 of
the Cadastral Survey of Pontevedra. The oppositors do not dispute that
she is such a part owner, and their main objection to the petition is
that as part owners of the property, the annotation of the mortgage on
the common title will affect their rights.

The court held that even if the ownership of the deceased Rafaela
Yulo over the portion of the lot in question and the validity of the
mortgage are disputed, such invalidity of the mortgage is no proof of
the non-existence of the mortgage nor a ground for objecting to its
registration, citing the case of Register, of Deeds of Manila vs. Maxima Tinoco Vda. de Cruz, et al., 95 Phil., 818; 53 Off. Gaz., 2804.

In his Brief before, this Court, counsel for appellants argue that
the mortgage sought to be registered was not recorded before the
closing of the intestate proceedings of the deceased mortgagor, but was
so recorded only four months after the termination of said proceedings,
so that the claim of movant has been reduced to the character of a mere
money claim, not a mortgage, hence the mortgage may not be registered.
In the first place, as the judge below correctly ruled, the proceeding
to register the mortgage does not purport to determine the supposed
invalidity of the mortgage or its effect. Registration is a mere
ministerial act by which a deed, contract or instrument is sought to be
inscribed in the records of the Office of the Register of Deeds and
annotated at the back of the certificate of title covering the land
subject of the deed, contract or instrument.

“The registration of a lease or mortgage, or the
entry of a memorial of a lease or mortgage on the register, is not a
declaration by the state that such an instrument is a valid and
subsisting interest in land; it is merely a declaration that the record
of the title appears to be burdened with the lease or mortgage
described, according to the priority set forth in the certificate.

“The
mere fact that a lease or mortgage was registered does not stop any
party to it from setting up that it now has no force or effect.”
[Niblack, pp. 134-135, quoted in Francisco Land Registration Act, 1950
ed., p. 348.)

The court below, in ordering the registration and annotation of the
mortgage, did not pass on its invalidity or effect. As the mortgage is
admittedly an act of the registered owner, all that the judge below did
and could do, as a registration court, is to order its registration and
annotation on the certificate of title covering the land mortgaged. By
said order the court did not pass upon the effect or validity of the
mortgage—these can only be determined in an ordinary case before the
courts, not before a court acting merely as a registration court, which
did not have the jurisdiction to pass upon, the alleged effect or
invalidity.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against oppositors-appeliants. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.