ANGELITA TUMBAGA, HEREIN ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, CRISPIN TUMBAGA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEFINA SAJONAS, ORLANDO CORPUZ, BASILIO DY, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY…

Tumbaga versus Sajonas

The Case

This is a civil action brought by Angelita Tumbaga, assisted by her husband Crispin Tumbaga, against Josefina Sajonas, Orlando Corpuz, Basilio Dy, and the Register of Deeds of Baguio City. The plaintiff sought the annulment of a real estate mortgage constituted over registered land, and the case turns on whether the person who took that mortgage can be considered a mortgagee in good faith. The decision matters to a reviewee because it shows the Supreme Court refusing to reopen, on a motion for reconsideration, questions it had already settled — the good faith of a mortgagee and the inapplicability of the warranty against hidden defects to an annulled mortgage.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Baguio City, in Civil Case No. 6932-R. In a Decision dated October 15, 2012, the trial court declared the Real Estate Mortgage dated November 3, 2008 null and void, and directed the defendant-appellant to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10732 to the authorized representatives of the Heirs of the Spouses Sajonas.

The defendant-appellant elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. On September 18, 2014, the Court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision. On October 30, 2014, the defendant-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, questioning the Court's assessment that he is not a mortgagee in good faith, and invoking his right on warranties against hidden defects in relation to the annulled mortgage. The plaintiff-appellee filed her Comment on January 28, 2015, arguing that the policy on warranties against hidden defects does not apply. The Court then resolved the Motion for Reconsideration in the assailed resolution.

Facts

The plaintiff, Angelita Tumbaga, assisted by her husband, brought suit to annul a Real Estate Mortgage dated November 3, 2008. The mortgage covered registered land evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10732. The defendants named in the action were Josefina Sajonas, Orlando Corpuz, Basilio Dy, and the Register of Deeds of Baguio City.

The trial court, after proceedings, found the mortgage null and void. It also ordered the defendant-appellant to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of the title to the authorized representatives of the Heirs of the Spouses Sajonas.

The defendant-appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court. He then moved for reconsideration, insisting that he had acted as a mortgagee in good faith and raising, for the first time in that posture, the warranty against hidden defects. The Court found that these matters had already been considered and ruled upon.

Issues

• Whether or not the defendant-appellant was a mortgagee in good faith, a question already passed upon in the Court's earlier decision.
• Whether or not the defendant-appellant may invoke the warranty against hidden defects in relation to the annulled mortgage.
• Whether or not the Motion for Reconsideration raised a new and substantial issue warranting reconsideration of the Court's decision.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in full. It refers only to the policy on warranties against hidden defects, which the defendant-appellant invoked and which the plaintiff-appellee argued does not apply. Because the decision text supplies no verbatim statutory language, no provision is quoted here; the reader should consult the Civil Code provisions on the warranty against hidden defects in the original source.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the defendant-appellant's claim that he is not a mortgagee in good faith had already been considered and ruled upon in its assailed decision. The Motion for Reconsideration merely reargued a matter already settled.

On the second issue, the Court likewise treated the invocation of warranties against hidden defects as a matter already passed upon. The plaintiff-appellee's position that the policy does not apply was noted, and the Court found no reason to disturb its earlier ruling.

On the third issue, the Court held that the defendant-appellant failed to present a new and substantial issue. As the Court put it:

A careful analysis of the motion reveals that defendant-appellant failed to present a new and substantial issue as the matters alleged therein had already been considered and ruled upon by this Court in its assailed decision.

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration must raise a new and substantial issue; matters already considered and ruled upon in the decision will not be reopened. A party who merely reargues the good faith of a mortgagee, or who invokes the warranty against hidden defects against an annulled mortgage, presents no new issue. The doctrine reinforces the finality of the Court's rulings and the rule that a motion for reconsideration is not a second appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the defendant-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit, leaving standing its earlier decision affirming the trial court's annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and its directive to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of the title to the authorized representatives of the Heirs of the Spouses Sajonas.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a motion for reconsideration which raises no new and substantial issue, but only repeats matters already ruled upon, must be denied for lack of merit. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of a valid motion for reconsideration and the finality of judgments.