YAP ANTON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ADELAIDA CABULONG, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED SANTIAGO FIAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On
March 10, 1922, Santiago Fian executed an instrument in favor of Yap
Anton in which the former acknowledged a debt in the amount of P33,000
due the latter, and accomplished a mortgage on ten parcels of land. The
document was recorded in the office of the register of titles. Fian
having failed to make payment as provided in the mortgage, after his
death Yap Anton began an action of foreclosure against the estate of
the deceased, and judgment to this effect was obtained in the Court of
First Instance of Leyte.

On appeal, the sole argument
advanced on behalf of the defendant and appellant is addressed to the
point that the instrument is not a true contract of mortgage, and
consequently can have no legal force. There are two very plain reasons
why this argument can not be accepted. In the first place, the mortgage
was offered in evidence and admitted without the opposing party noting
any exception, and it was only on the following day, to which the case
was adjourned in order to give counsel for the defendant time to
deliberate as to whether or not he desired to present evidence, that an
exception was noted. This was not a compliance with section 142 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, for the party excepting to the ruling did not
“forthwith inform the court that he excepts to the ruling”. (Abrenica vs.
Gonda and De Gracia [1916], 34 Phil., 739.) In the second place,
section 194 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Acts Nos. 2837
and 3344, now governs, and in accordance therewith, whatever be the
view as to the validity of the mortgage as to third parties, such an
instrument is valid “between the parties thereto”, even if not
registered in the office of the register of deeds. The mortgage in
question may have been defective as to the description of the real
estate which it purported to cover, but notwithstanding was registered
and the action here involves only the parties to the mortgage. (Estate
of Mota vs. Concepcion [1932], 56 Phil 712.)

For the
two reasons above indicated, the principal assignment of error will
have to be overruled, with the result of affirming the judgment
appealed from, the costs of this instance to be paid by the appellant.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.