GR L 13313; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13313. April 28, 1960.
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF HINIGARAN, movant-appellee, vs. ESTANISLAO YULO YUSAY, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
On July 20, 1952, Rafaela Yulo executed a mortgage in favor of the Agricultural Credit Cooperative Association of Hinigaran over Lot No. 855, Pontevedra Cadastre, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4979, to secure a debt of P33,626.29. The movant filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to compel the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title for the annotation of this mortgage. Estanislao Yulo Yusay and other part-owners of the lot (Margarita, Maria, Elena, and Pilar, all surnamed Yulo) opposed the motion. They argued that annotation would prejudice their rights as part-owners who did not participate in the mortgage, that Rafaela Yulo was deceased, that the motion was unverified, that the movant’s rights had prescribed, and that the opposition raised a controversial matter beyond the court’s jurisdiction. The lower court granted the motion, ordering the Register of Deeds to register and annotate the mortgage, citing that the registration proceeding does not determine the mortgage’s validity. The oppositors appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the court, acting as a registration court, can order the annotation of a mortgage on a certificate of title despite objections from other part-owners regarding the mortgage’s validity or effect on their rights.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. The Court held that the registration and annotation of a mortgage is a ministerial act, not an adjudication of the instrument’s validity or effect. The proceeding merely seeks to inscribe the deed in the records and annotate it on the certificate of title. The registration does not constitute a declaration by the state that the mortgage is a valid and subsisting interest; it only indicates that the title appears burdened by the mortgage as per the certificate. The court, in its capacity as a registration court, did not and could not pass upon the alleged invalidity, effect, or prejudice to the oppositors’ rights—matters that must be resolved in an ordinary judicial proceeding. Therefore, the order for annotation was proper, without prejudice to any party raising questions of validity or effect in a separate action.