GR 157002; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157002 . July 29, 2005.
JOSE T. ABAD, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CEASAR and VIVIAN GUIMBA, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent-spouses, the registered owners of a parcel of land, entrusted their owner’s duplicate certificate of title to Gemma de la Cruz to serve as collateral for a loan application. Vivian Guimba later changed her mind, demanded the title’s return, but was informed it was not at the bank where it was supposedly deposited. Months later, the spouses received a telegram from petitioner Jose T. Abad, a stranger, regarding a mortgage on their property. They discovered a Deed of Mortgage over their land had been executed in favor of Abad, which they alleged was a forgery. They filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of the mortgage.
Petitioner Abad claimed he was a mortgagee in good faith. He testified he met with de la Cruz and a couple posing as the Guimba spouses, who presented the title to secure a loan. He asserted he verified the title’s authenticity with the Register of Deeds before accepting the mortgage. During trial, he admitted the couple he transacted with were not the true respondents.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court regarding petitioner’s status as a mortgagee in good faith.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed for raising factual issues inappropriate for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition. The core issue of whether Abad was a mortgagee in good faith and for value is a question of fact conclusively determined by the trial court. Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be brought before the Supreme Court. The trial court, after assessing the evidence, found petitioner’s testimonies conflicting and concocted. It ruled he dealt solely with de la Cruz, failed to make necessary inquiries into the identity and authority of the persons he transacted with, and thus could not be considered a mortgagee in good faith. These factual findings are binding in this proceeding. Petitioner’s remedy was to appeal the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals, not to bypass it and seek a factual review directly from the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the RTC decision declaring the mortgage null and void and ordering its cancellation from the title.