G.R. No. 215038 , October 17, 2016
NORMA C. MAGSANO, ISIDRO C. MAGSANO, RICARDO C. MAGSANO, ROQUE C. MAGSANO, JR., NIDA M. CAGUIAT, PERLITA MAGSANO, AND SALVADOR C. MAGSANO, PETITIONERS, vs. PANGASINAN SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. AND SPOUSES EDDIE V. MANUEL AND MILAGROS C. BALLESTEROS, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS: GEMMA C. MANUEL-PEREZ, ANGELO JOHNDREW MANUEL, AND RESSY C. MANUEL, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves a mortgage executed by Susana, the surviving spouse, over the entire conjugal property without the consent of the other heirs of her deceased husband, Roque. The petitioners are the other heirs of Roque. The main issue revolves around the validity of this mortgage.

ISSUE

Whether the mortgage executed by Susana over the entire conjugal property is valid, and if not, what is the correct legal basis for determining its effect on her share.

RULING

Justice Caguioa, in his Concurring Opinion, agrees with the result of the ponencia (the main decision) that the mortgage is valid insofar as it binds Susana’s aliquot or pro-indiviso share in the conjugal property. However, he disagrees with the ponencia’s reliance on Article 493 of the Civil Code as the legal basis.
1. Inapplicability of Article 493: Article 493 allows a co-owner to alienate, assign, or mortgage his undivided share. Justice Caguioa argues this article is inaccurate for this case because Susana did not mortgage only her undivided share; she mortgaged the entire specific parcel of conjugal property. This act is different from alienating an abstract, undivided interest.
2. Controlling Jurisprudence – Estoque v. Pajimula: The correct controlling doctrine is established in Estoque v. Pajimula (133 Phil. 55 [1968]), an en banc decision. In Estoque, a co-owner sold a specific portion of a co-owned lot. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was “ineffective, for lack of power in the vendor to sell the specific portion described in the deed.” Justice Caguioa analogizes this to Susana’s act: disposing of the entire specific property (which is more than her undivided share) is similarly ineffective for lack of power. This characterization allows for the possibility of subsequent ratification by the other co-owners or validation if the disposing co-owner later acquires their shares.
3. Correct Legal Basis – Estoppel: Justice Caguioa concurs with the final conclusion based on the principle of estoppel under Article 1431 of the Civil Code. Through estoppel, Susana’s act of executing the mortgage over the entire property is rendered conclusive against her and cannot be denied as against the mortgagee who relied on it. Therefore, the mortgage validly binds her undivided interest in the property.
SUMMARY: The Concurring Opinion holds that while the mortgage over the entire property was ineffective under the doctrine of Estoque v. Pajimula (as Susana lacked the power to mortgage the specific whole property), it is ultimately binding on Susana’s undivided share based on the principle of estoppel, not Article 493 of the Civil Code.