Gonzalez vs. Basa

The Court held that a Register of Deeds must accept for registration only regular and complete copies of court-approved instruments, and may not entertain a request to omit encumbrances or alter the substantive effect of such documents. Because the execution of a mortgage implies the mortgagor’s consent to its registration, the mortgagor cannot unilaterally revoke that consent or demand unencumbered titles without first obtaining a judicial decree annulling the mortgage.

The intestate proceedings for the estate of Amalia Arcega y Alfonso Vda. de Basa involved the judicial administratrix Pilar Lopez de Basa, the sole heir Feliciano Basa, Jr., and creditor/attorney Antonio Gonzalez. The parties jointly executed a project of partition that inventoried estate assets, listed obligations, and adjudicated all real properties to the heir. The partition expressly subjected the adjudicated properties to a mortgage securing the heir’s acknowledged debt to Gonzalez for prior loans and attorney’s fees. The trial court approved the project in its entirety on January 12, 1938. Subsequently, the heir’s counsel procured a certified copy from the clerk of court that deliberately omitted the mortgage clause and corresponding cross-references, intending to secure unencumbered transfer certificates of title from the Register of Deeds.

• The intestate estate of Amalia Arcega y Alfonso Vda. de Basa involved the judicial administratrix Pilar Lopez de Basa, the sole heir Feliciano Basa, Jr., and creditor/attorney Antonio Gonzalez.
• The parties jointly executed a project of partition that contained an inventory of assets, a schedule of obligations, and an adjudication clause transferring all estate properties to the heir.
• Clause 3(d) of the partition expressly acknowledged a debt of P20,250 owed to Gonzalez, plus P5,000 in attorney’s fees, totaling P25,250 subject to 8% annual interest, secured by a mortgage on the heir’s adjudicated real properties.
• The Court of First Instance approved the project of partition in its entirety on January 12, 1938.
• In June 1941, the heir’s attorney requested a certified copy from the clerk of court that deliberately omitted page 22, which contained the mortgage and debt acknowledgment, along with corresponding textual cross-references.
• The heir presented this mutilated copy to the Register of Deeds of Manila, together with owner’s duplicate certificates of title, to obtain transfer certificates free from Gonzalez’s mortgage lien.
• Gonzalez objected to the mutilated registration, presented a complete certified copy, and requested annotation of the mortgage on the new titles.
• The Register of Deeds refused Gonzalez’s request, reasoning that mortgage registration requires the consent of both parties and characterizing the transaction as purely voluntary.
• Gonzalez elevated the matter to the trial court via consulta under the Administrative Code, which ruled in favor of registering the complete document. The heir appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Petitioner Gonzalez maintained that the Register of Deeds is ministerially obligated to register a complete, court-approved project of partition and to annotate the mortgage lien in accordance with the instrument’s express terms.
• Petitioner argued that the heir cannot unilaterally excise an encumbrance from a judicially approved document to secure a clean title, and that any challenge to the validity or consideration of the mortgage must be resolved in a separate judicial action, not through administrative registration proceedings.

• Respondent heir contended that no actual indebtedness existed in the amount of P25,250, and that the mortgage clause was inserted without his knowledge or consent.
• Respondent alleged that the obligation lacked consideration and that he was deceived into signing the partition due to his prior trust and confidence in Gonzalez.
• Respondent maintained that because a mortgage is a voluntary transaction, the Register of Deeds correctly refused to register it without the express consent of both parties, thereby justifying the presentation of the mutilated copy for registration of unencumbered titles.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Register of Deeds possesses the authority to accept and register a certified mutilated copy of a court-approved project of partition that omits a mortgage obligation, and whether a consulta under Section 200 of the Administrative Code is the proper forum to litigate the intrinsic validity of the mortgage.
• Substantive Issues: Whether a mortgagor may unilaterally repudiate an encumbrance stipulated in a court-approved instrument during the registration process, and whether the execution of a mortgage implies irrevocable consent to its registration.

• Procedural: The Court held that the Register of Deeds has no authority to inquire into the intrinsic validity of documents or to accept mutilated copies that are irregular on their face. The consulta proceeding properly addressed only the ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds to accept a complete, regular copy for registration. Questions of fact regarding consideration, fraud, or lack of consent must be litigated in an appropriate separate judicial action and cannot be determined in a registration consulta.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the heir cannot invoke the benefits of a court-approved partition while simultaneously repudiating its burdens. The execution of a mortgage constitutes voluntary consent to its registration, which cannot be unilaterally revoked by the mortgagor. The validity and fulfillment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one contracting party. Consequently, the Register of Deeds must register the complete project of partition, and the heir must first secure a judicial decree of annulment to remove the mortgage lien from the titles.

• Ministerial Duty of the Register of Deeds — The Register of Deeds is bound to examine only the extrinsic regularity of documents presented for registration and lacks authority to pass upon their intrinsic validity or factual disputes. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the Register must reject irregular or mutilated documents and cannot entertain unilateral attempts to bypass encumbrances without judicial intervention.
• Consent to Registration Implied by Execution — The execution of a mortgage in due form inherently carries the mortgagor’s consent to its registration as a matter of right. The Court relied on this principle to reject the argument that subsequent bilateral consent is required for registration, emphasizing that unilateral revocation of consent is legally impermissible.
• Estoppel by Acceptance of Benefits — A party cannot appropriate the advantages of a judicially approved instrument while repudiating its corresponding obligations. The Court applied this equitable principle to bar the heir from demanding unencumbered titles while the mortgage securing his acknowledged debt remained legally operative.

• "It is precisely his duty to see to it that a document presented for registration is regular and in due form. The mutilated certified copy was irregular on its face and should have been rejected by him." — The Court emphasized the strict ministerial limits of the Register of Deeds, establishing that irregularity on the face of a document mandates rejection regardless of extrinsic claims of invalidity.
• "It is the execution of the mortgage that is voluntary. Once a mortgage has been signed in due form, the mortgagee is entitled to its registration as a matter of right. By executing the mortgage the mortgagor is understood to have given his consent to its registration, and he cannot be permitted to revoke it unilaterally." — This passage crystallizes the rule that registration follows execution, and consent is not a continuing bilateral requirement but a one-time act consummated upon signing.
• "Basa certainly cannot invoke and at the same time repudiate the said document. If he wants to annul the mortgage stipulated in said project of partition and secure a clean title to the property adjudicated to him, he should first procure the annulment by appropriate judicial action before presenting said document for registration." — The Court articulated the procedural prerequisite for challenging encumbrances, mandating judicial annulment prior to administrative registration.

• N/A — The decision relies on statutory interpretation, civil code principles, and established registration doctrines without explicitly citing prior jurisprudence by name.

• Article 1256 of the Civil Code — Cited to establish the fundamental principle that the validity and fulfillment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties, thereby invalidating the heir’s attempt to unilaterally disregard the mortgage obligation.
• Section 200 of the Administrative Code — Cited as the statutory basis for the consulta procedure, which properly limited the trial court’s jurisdiction to determining the ministerial duties of the Register of Deeds regarding document regularity and registration.

• Chief Justice Yulo, and Justices Moran, Paras, and Bocobo — Concurred in the decision without separate opinions, indicating full agreement with the ponencia’s application of ministerial duty principles and contract law to the registration dispute.

• N/A — No dissenting opinions were filed. The decision was rendered en banc with unanimous concurrence.