GR L 13313; (March, 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 (movant-appellee) 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 for the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title to annotate the mortgage. Estanislao Yulo Yusay and other part-owners of the lot (Margarita, Maria, Elena, and Pilar, all surnamed Yulo) opposed the petition. The oppositors argued that they were part-owners of the property, that the annotation would prejudice their rights as they did not participate in the mortgage, that the mortgagor 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.
ISSUE
Whether the registration court (acting in its capacity over registration matters) can order the annotation of a mortgage on a certificate of title when its validity or effect on the rights of other part-owners is contested.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court. The Court held that the proceeding for the registration and annotation of a mortgage is a ministerial act. The registration court’s function is merely to order the inscription of the deed or instrument on the records and its annotation on the certificate of title. The act of registration does not constitute a declaration by the state on the validity or subsisting effect of the instrument; it only indicates that the title record appears burdened by the registered mortgage according to its priority. The court below did not, and as a registration court could not, pass upon the alleged invalidity of the mortgage or its effects on the rights of the oppositors. Such questions regarding the mortgage’s force, effect, or validity must be determined in an ordinary action before the courts, not in a registration proceeding. The existence of the mortgage executed by the registered part-owner, Rafaela Yulo, was not disputed. Therefore, the lower court correctly limited itself to ordering its registration and annotation.