GR L 6746; (August, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6746; August 31, 1954
ESPERANZA V. BUHAT, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ROSARIO BESANA, ETC., ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On May 31, 1924, Jose M. Besana mortgaged his undivided one-half share in a lot to Luis Bernales to secure a P900 debt payable within six years. The lot was later issued an original certificate of title on October 27, 1926, in the names of Jose M. Besana and his sister Rosario Besana in undivided equal shares, with the mortgage duly noted. Jose M. Besana died, and his share passed to Rosario. Luis Bernales also died, and his mortgage credit was inherited by Antonio Bernales, who then transferred it to the plaintiffs, Esperanza V. Buhat and Mauro A. Buhat. Rosario Besana sold her portion to Manuel B. Bernales, who later conveyed it to the plaintiffs. The debt remained unpaid. On December 6, 1952, the plaintiffs filed an action for foreclosure of the mortgage against Rosario Besana and her husband. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription, as the complaint was filed more than ten years after the obligation became due on May 31, 1930 (approximately 22 years later). The Court of First Instance of Capiz dismissed the case on May 6, 1953.
ISSUE
Whether the action to foreclose the registered mortgage has prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The appellants’ argument that the registration of the mortgage under the Land Registration Act made the foreclosure action imprescriptible was rejected. The Court held that Section 46 of Act No. 496, which states that “No title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession,” refers to the acquisition of ownership title and is intended to make Torrens title indefeasible. It does not render a registered lien, such as a mortgage, or the right to enforce it, imprescriptible against the registered owner. The primary effect of registering a mortgage is to bind third parties, not to suspend the prescriptive period for enforcing the mortgage claim. Since the action was filed well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period, it was barred.