Thursday, January 8, 2015

PNB vs Maranon GR 189316



Case on rent and mortgage.

Philippine National Bank, Petitioner, vs.
 Spouses Bernard and Cresencia Maranon, Respondents
G.R.  No. 189316, July 01, 2013

Facts:  The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The antecedent events being the Spouses Maranon, owner of a piece of real property, erected with a building occupied by various tenants. Said subject property was among the properties mortgaged by spouses Montealegre to PNB as a security for a loan. Spouses Montealegre, through a falsified Deed of Sale, acquired title to the property and used the property’s title which was purportedly registered in the name of Emelie Montealegre. However, due to failure to pay the loan, said property was foreclosed by PNB, and upon auction, was thereafter acquired by the same bank, PNB. Spouses Maranon filed before the RTC a complaint for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and Damages against spouses Montealegre. Judgment of RTC was rendered in favour of spouses Maranon, and also stipulated that the Real Estate Mortgage lien of PNB shall stay and be respected. Such decision prompted PNB to also seek for entitlement to the fruits of the property such as rentals paid by the tenants.

Issue:  Whether or not is PNB entitled to fruits of the disputed property.

Ruling:  No. Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession. The rightful recipient of the disputed rent in this case should be thus the owner of the lot at the time the rent accrued. It is beyond question that spouses Maranon never lost ownership over the subject lot, and that technically, there is no juridical tie created by a valid mortgage contract that binds PNB to the subject lot because the mortgagors Montealegre were not the true owners. PNB’s lien as a mortgagee in good faith pertains to the subject lot alone and not on the erected building which was not foreclosed and still remained to be a property of Maranon. Thus, PNB’s claim for the rents paid by the tenants has no basis.

No comments:

Post a Comment