THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ARSENIO MENDOZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The necessary and pertinent facts for the solution of the only
question, which is one of law, raised by the defendant-appellant Arsenio Mendoza
in the present appeal, are as follows:

After the Court of First Instance of Manila had approved the
bill of exceptions filed by the defendant-appellant Arsenio Mendoza in
perfecting his appeal from the judgment of the said court of December 15, 1926,
in which he was ordered to pay the plaintiff-appellee, the Government of the
Philippine Islands, or the Postal Savings Bank, within ninety days, the sum of
P25,534.32 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from December 11,
1926, until fully paid, with the costs, and in case of the non-compliance
therewith the mortgaged properties were ordered sold at public auction, on March
26, 1927, said defendant-appellant filed a motion praying that the plaintiff be
ordered to amend his complaint to include Ramon M. Villa-Juan as defendant, who
had acquired, by purchase from said defendant-appellant on January 21, 1920, the
properties here in question. It does not appear that said sale was registered in
the registry of deeds. The trial court denied said motion by an order of June 4,
1927, to which the defendant-appellant duly excepted and filed an amended bill of
exceptions.

In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following
alleged error as committed by the trial court, to wit:

“The trial court committed an error in not ordering that the
purchaser of the mortgaged property be included as defendant.”

In support of his contention the defendant-appellant cites
section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

“SEC. 122. Necessary parties.—The court may determine
any controversy between parties before it if it can be done without prejudice to
the rights of others or by preserving their rights for future action; but when a
complete determination of the controversy cannot be had without the presence of
other parties, the court must order them to be brought in, and to that end may
order amended or supplemental pleadings, or a cross complaint, to be filed and
summons therein to be duly issued and served.”

In the first place, the transfer of the mortgaged property by
the defendant-appellant Arsenio Mendoza to Villa-Juan not having been registered
in the registry of deeds nor noted on the certificate of title, has no binding
effect as against the mortgagee, the Government of the Philippine Islands, under
section 50 of Act No. 496 and, consequently, said purchaser is not a necessary
party to the action brought for the foreclosure of said mortgage (27 Cyc., 1572
[II]).

Even if said transfer were registered in the registry of deeds
and noted on the certificate of title, still, the purchaser would not be a
necessary party, the transfer having been made after the judgment was rendered,
for a person who had no interest in the thing in litigation at the time judgment
was rendered cannot be a necessary party. (27 Cyc., 1570 [C] and 1795 [2].)

In the second place, the motion praying for the inclusion of
the purchaser Ramon Villa-Juan as defendant having been presented after the
court had approved the bill of exceptions, said court no longer had jurisdiction
to consider the motion, having lost it by virtue of said approval. (Rustia vs.
Judge of First Instance of Batangas, 44 Phil., 62.)

The notion that a person who has not acquired any interest in
the thing in litigation except after the decision of the controversy cannot be a
party thereto is so elementary, that an appeal taken for the only purpose of
raising the question of whether or not said person is a necessary party is
frivolous and the appellant is liable to the imposition of double costs.

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed,
with double costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and
Romualdez, JJ., concur.