A+ A A-

PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS 153 SCRA 390

 PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS

153 SCRA 390

 

FACTS:

Spouses  Magcale  secured  a  loan  from  Prudential  Bank.    To  secure payment, they executed a real estate mortgage over a residential building.  The mortgage included also the right to occupy the lot and the information about the sales patent applied for by the spouses for the lot to which the building stood.  After securing the first loan, the spouses secured another from  the  same  bank.    To  secure  payment,  another  real  estate  mortgage was executed over the same properties.   
 
The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over the land which was later on mortgaged to the bank.   
 
The spouses then failed to pay for the loan and the REM was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold in public auction despite opposition from the spouses.  The respondent court held that the REM was null and void.
 

HELD:

A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building  erected on the land belonging to another.
 
The  inclusion  of  building  distinct  and  separate  from  the  land  in  the  Civil Code can only mean that the building itself is an immovable property.
 
While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes in the absence of  stipulation  of  the  improvements  thereon,  buildings,  still  a  building  in itself may be mortgaged by itself apart from the land on which it is built.  Such a mortgage would still be considered as a REM for the building would
still be considered as immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.
 
The original mortgage on the building and right to occupancy of the land was  executed  before  the  issuance  of  the  sales  patent  and  before  the government  was  divested  of  title  to  the  land.    Under  the  foregoing,  it  is evident  that  the  mortgage  executed  by  private  respondent  on  his  own
building was a valid mortgage.
 
As to the second mortgage, it was done after the sales patent was issued and thus prohibits pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act.   

PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS 153 SCRA 390

 PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS

153 SCRA 390

 

FACTS:

Spouses  Magcale  secured  a  loan  from  Prudential  Bank.    To  secure payment, they executed a real estate mortgage over a residential building.  The mortgage included also the right to occupy the lot and the information about the sales patent applied for by the spouses for the lot to which the building stood.  After securing the first loan, the spouses secured another from  the  same  bank.    To  secure  payment,  another  real  estate  mortgage was executed over the same properties.   
 
The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over the land which was later on mortgaged to the bank.   
 
The spouses then failed to pay for the loan and the REM was extrajudicially foreclosed and sold in public auction despite opposition from the spouses.  The respondent court held that the REM was null and void.
 

HELD:

A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building  erected on the land belonging to another.
 
The  inclusion  of  building  distinct  and  separate  from  the  land  in  the  Civil Code can only mean that the building itself is an immovable property.
 
While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes in the absence of  stipulation  of  the  improvements  thereon,  buildings,  still  a  building  in itself may be mortgaged by itself apart from the land on which it is built.  Such a mortgage would still be considered as a REM for the building would
still be considered as immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.
 
The original mortgage on the building and right to occupancy of the land was  executed  before  the  issuance  of  the  sales  patent  and  before  the government  was  divested  of  title  to  the  land.    Under  the  foregoing,  it  is evident  that  the  mortgage  executed  by  private  respondent  on  his  own
building was a valid mortgage.
 
As to the second mortgage, it was done after the sales patent was issued and thus prohibits pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act.   

BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

DBP V. CA- Good Fai…

DBP V. CA- Good Faith and RedemptionA mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.FACTS:Spouses Piñedas are registered owners of a parcel of land in Capiz, which they mortgaged to DBP to secure the loan (P20,00...

Read more

Elements of a Negot…

What are the elements of a negotiable instrument? 1. In writing and signed by the  maker or drawer 2. Contains an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money 3. Payable on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time 4. Payable ...

Read more

PACTUM COMMISSORIUM

PACTUM COMMISSORIUM> Automatic  appropriation  by  the  creditor  of  the  thing pledged or mortgaged upon the failure of the debtor to pay the principal obligation> TEST  IF  THERE  IS  EXISTS  PACTUM  COMMISSORIUM  is whether or not there is no nee...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook