IN THE MATTER OF THE CANCELLATION OF ENCUMBRANCE ON THE NEWLY ISSUED TCT NO. 267511 AND TCT NO. 267512 OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS, MANILA
LANTION, J.A.C., J.:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Register of Deeds of Manila is hereby ordered, upon payment of the prescribed fees, to cancel Entry No. 4471/V-188?T-253545 and Entry No. 4471/V-188/T-253546 from Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 267511 and 267512, provided that no document or transaction registered or pending registration in his office shall be adversely affected thereby.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the petitioners, Philippine Savings Bank, and their counsel for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.”[3]
THE FACTS
(As culled from the Records)
On 28 April 2003, a certain Lolita Capistrano contracted a loan from Respondent-Appellant Philippine Savings Bank (Appellant Bank) in the amount of P1,200,000.00. The loan was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage[4] over two (2) parcels of land (subject properties) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 253545 and 253546, registered under the name of Lolita Capistrano.[5] The said Real Estate Mortgage was annotated as an encumbrance over the said TCTs.
On 28 May 2003, Petitioners-Appellees Heirs of Julito B. Patiño (Appellees) filed a Complaint[6] against Lolita Capistrano for quieting of title and nullification of TCT Nos. 253545 and 253546 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 39. The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 03106720. In their Complaint, Appellees alleged that Lolita Capistrano acquired the subject properties through a “fake and spurious Deed of Donation” allegedly executed by their mother, Julito Patiño.[7]
On 5 January 2005, the RTC of Manila, Branch 39 rendered a Decision[8] in favor of the Appellees, reconveying to them the subject properties. On the basis that Lolita Capistrano acquired the subject properties through a fake and spurious Deed of Donation, the RTC of Manila, Branch 39 ordered for the nullification of TCT Nos. 253545 and 253546, and for the issuance of new titles (TCT Nos. 267511 and 267512) in Appellees’ names.”[9] However, the real mortgage encumbrance annotated at the back of the old titles (TCT Nos. 253545 and 253546) was carried over to the new titles (TCT Nos. 267511 and 267512) issued to the Appellees.
On 18 July 2005, Appellees filed a Petition[10] before the RTC of Manila, Branch 4 (court a quo), to cancel the real mortgage encumbrance annotated in their new titles (TCT Nos. 267511 and 267512), arguing that:
“8. Inasmuch as the Heirs of Julito B. Patiño (Appellees herein), the owner of the lots covered by TCT No. 267511 and TCT No. 267512, did not have any participation or knowledge nor give their consent on the Mortgage, it is only but proper that the ENCUMBRANCE annotated on the said titles be canceled.”
After Appellees had complied with the jurisdictional requirements of publication of their Petition, the case was set for initial hearing on 10 August 2005.[11] Appellant Bank received a copy of the said Notice on 29 July 2005[12], however, it failed to appear at the hearing. Thus, Appellees were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte.
On 8 September 2005, Appellant Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration[13] of the court a quo’s 10 August 2005 Order which allowed Appellees to present their evidence ex parte. On the ground of substantial justice, the court a quo granted Appellant Bank’s Motion and allowed it to present its evidence on 16 July 2008.[14] However, Appellant Bank again failed to appear on the said date. Thus, the court a quo considered Appellant Bank to have waived its right to present evidence.[15]
Appellant Bank again filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] of the court a quo’s 16 July 2008 Order, praying that it be given another chance to present its evidence. On 4 November 2008, the court a quo granted Appellant Bank’s second Motion for Reconsideration, setting the reception of its evidence on 26 November 2008.[17] However, Appellant Bank still failed to attend the same. Hence, the court a quo in its Order[18] dated 16 July 2009, declared that Appellant Bank had waived its right to present evidence and submitted Appellees’ Petition for Cancellation of Encumbrance for resolution.
Appellant Bank filed another Motion for Reconsideration[19] of the court a quo’s 16 July 2009 Order asking that it be given another opportunity to present evidence, but the same was denied on 5 October 2009.[20] Thereafter, Appellant Bank filed a Petition for Certiorari before this Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 112495, to set aside the 5 October 2009 Order of the court a quo. Finding the same to be without merit, the Petition for Certiorari was dismissed by this Court on 23 August 2011.[21]
After this Court resolved Appellant Bank’s Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 112495, the court a quo proceeded with the resolution of the Petition for Cancellation of Encumbrance filed by the Appellees. On the basis of the Decision rendered by the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720 (Decision nullifying the old titles used in mortgaging the subject properties to Appellant Bank, and which ordered for the issuance of new titles under Appellees’ name) the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision in favor of the Appellees, canceling the mortgage encumbrance annotated to the new titles (TCT Nos. 267511 and 267512) issued to the Appellees, ratiocinating that:
“After taking into account all the foregoing facts and circumstances, the court finds the allegations of the petitioners (hereinafter Appellees) in support of the herein petition to be credible of belief. The petitioner has shown that the annotated encumbrance is no longer feasible nor applicable. The inaction of Philippine Savings Bank together with the evidence presented is sufficient cause to free the subject property from the imposed burden.
Indeed there is no dispute that in such a case the encumbrance will no longer serve the purpose to which it was annotated and as such is deemed “functus officio”.[22]
Thus, the present Appeal.
I S S U E
I
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ANNOTATED ON TCT NOS. 267551 AND TCT NO. 267512 IN FAVOR OF PSBANK BE CANCELED AND REMOVED.
RULING
Appellant Bank contends as void the Decision of the court a quo, for being based on the Decision rendered by RTC-Manila, Branch 39 in Civil Case No. 03106720. Appellant Bank argues that as a mortgagee of the subject properties, it was an indispensable party in Civil Case No. 03106720; that since the proceedings in Civil Case No. 03106720 were concluded without its knowledge and participation, the ruling therein (nullifying the old titles used in mortgaging the subject properties to Appellant Bank, and which ordered for the issuance of new titles under Appellees’ name) should be considered null and void.
The argument is untenable.
In this case, the judgment that Appellant Bank, in essence, assails is the Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 39 in Civil Case No. 03106720. Aside from the fact that the said Decision of the the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720 is not the subject matter of the present appeal, such judgment of the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720 had already attained its finality. Under the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.[23] Nothing is more settled in law than that when a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.[24]
Here, the Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720 which Appellant argues to be null and void is not only executory, but was actually already executed. In fact, as a consequence of the said Decision’s execution, the old titles registered under the name of Lolita Capistrano were already nullified and new titles were issued in the name of the Appellees by virtue of the finality of said Decision. Moreover, the records are bereft of any showing that a timely petition for annulment of judgment was perfected by Appellant Bank to challenge the Decision in Civil Case No. 03106720. Such being the case, the the Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720 stands. Conformably with the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment, the Decision of RTC-Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720, is already beyond the power of this Court to review, alter or modify. Thus, We cannot entertain Appellant Bank’s argument that the Decision of the court a quo (canceling the subject mortgage encumbrance) is erroneous for being based on the alleged null and void Decision of RTC-Manila, Branch 39 in Civil Case No. 03106720.
Moreover, this Court finds no merit in Appellant Bank’s argument that it was not given the opportunity to present evidence to prove that it was a mortgagee in good faith and that the mortgage encumbrance in the subject TCTs was actually valid and existing.
The records disclose that Appellant bank was given by the court a quo several opportunities, on 10 August 2005, 16 July 2008 and 26 November 2008, to present evidence to prove that it is in fact a mortgagee in good faith and that the subject mortgage encumbrance was actually valid and existing. However, Appellant Bank failed to attend any of the said hearings for the reception of its evidence. Without any evidence to support its claim, Appellant Bank’s statements are, at best, self-serving.[25] Thus, We find no fault on the part of the court a quo in giving scant consideration to Appellant Bank’s allegation that it is a mortgagee in good faith and that the subject mortgage encumbrance was actually valid and existing.
WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 25 March 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 4,[26] in LRC CAD. REC No. 278, STANDS.
SO ORDERED.
De Leon, M.M., Chairperson and Antonio-Valenzuela, N.G., JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 461-465.
[2] Judge Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa, presiding.
[3] Records, p. 48.
[4] Records, pp. 9-11.
[5] See annotated encumbrance, Records, back of pp. 36-37.
[6] Records, pp. 9-15.
[7] Records, p. 11.
[8] See posted Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, in Civil Case No. 03106720; Records, pp. 27-28.
[9] Records, pp. 36-37.
[10] Records, pp. 1-6.
[11] Records, p. 49.
[12] Records, p. 48.
[13] See Appellant Bank’s Manifestation, Opposition, with Motion for Consideration (to the Order dated August 10, 2005), Records, pp. 62-63.
[14] See Order dated 4 March 2008, Records, pp. 85-87.
[15] Records, p. 100.
[16] Records, pp. 102-105.
[17] Records, pp. 108-110.
[18] Records, p. 119.
[19] Records, pp. 120-123.
[20] Records, pp. 128-129.
[21] Records, pp. 148-154.
[22] Rollo, p. 48.
[23] Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. vs. Pioneer Insurance And Surety Corporation, G.R. Nos. 180880-81, September 18, 2012;
[24] Mauleon vs. Porter, G.R. No. 203288, July 18, 2014.
[25] Rhonda Ave S. Vivares and Sps. Margarita and David Suzara, Petitioners, vs. St. Theresa’s College, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero, and John Does, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014.
[26] Judge Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa, presiding.