Ledesma vs. Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros

The governing principle is that for purposes of computing registration fees under Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, a mortgage covering multiple parcels of land within a single province constitutes one indivisible "right," and the fee must be based on the total amount of the debt secured, not on the number of parcels. Accordingly, only one registration fee may be collected per province for such a mortgage.

Julio Ledesma executed a mortgage deed in favor of Jose Ledesma to secure a loan of P225,000.00 bearing 12% annual interest. The instrument covered two Torrens-registered haciendas comprising six distinct parcels of land situated in Occidental Negros. When presented for registration, the Register of Deeds demanded payment of the statutory fee of P70.00 for each of the six parcels, citing the schedule under Act No. 2866. The mortgagee contended that the fee should be charged only once for the entire mortgage instrument, as it secured a single, indivisible obligation.

• A mortgage deed executed by Julio Ledesma in favor of Jose Ledesma was presented for registration to the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros in 1925.
• The mortgage secured a principal loan of P225,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum and encumbered two haciendas, one consisting of five parcels and the other of one parcel, all covered by Torrens titles.
• The Register of Deeds assessed the registration fee at P70.00 per parcel, relying on the fee schedule under Act No. 2866, and maintained that each separately registered tract required a distinct entry and corresponding charge.
• The mortgagee maintained that the instrument constituted a single mortgage transaction and that the P70.00 fee applied once to the entire debt, regardless of the number of parcels described.
• Due to the disagreement, the matter was elevated via consulta to the Court of First Instance, which ruled that the value of each parcel must be ascertained and that separate fees must be collected for each property.

• Petitioner (mortgagee Jose Ledesma, through counsel Hilado & Hilado) argued that the mortgage deed constituted a single, indivisible right securing one loan obligation.
• Petitioner maintained that Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act No. 2866, imposes fees based on the value of the "right" registered, not on the number of parcels described.
• Petitioner contended that charging a separate fee for each parcel would contravene the statutory scheme, which treats the mortgage as one continuous security interest responding in full for the total debt.

• Respondent (Register of Deeds, represented by the Attorney-General) argued that the statutory phrase "for each property or right" authorized the collection of a separate registration fee for every distinct Torrens parcel covered by the mortgage.
• Respondent maintained that recording a mortgage over multiple parcels required additional administrative labor and multiple entries in the registry, justifying a cumulative fee assessment.
• Respondent contended that the legislative intent was to impose proportionate fees where greater clerical work and multiple docket entries were necessary.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether a mortgage deed covering multiple Torrens-registered parcels within a single province constitutes a single "right" or multiple "properties" for purposes of computing registration fees under Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act No. 2866.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court held that a mortgage constitutes a single "right" under the statute, and that the applicable registration fee must be computed based on the total value of the secured debt rather than on the number of parcels described. The Court reasoned that the fee schedule operates primarily as a revenue measure tied to the value of the interest registered, not as compensation for the volume of clerical labor or the number of entries required. Because the mortgage was indivisible and each parcel secured the full obligation, only one registration fee was exigible per province. The Court clarified, however, that if the encumbered properties span multiple provinces, each provincial Register of Deeds may collect the full statutory fee, as each registry maintains a separate record and each parcel responds to the entire debt within its respective jurisdiction.

• Statutory Construction of Fee Schedules as Revenue Measures — The Court established that registration fee schedules under the Land Registration Act are principally revenue measures calibrated to the value of the registered interest, not to the administrative burden or number of entries. Consequently, courts must interpret fee provisions by looking to the value of the right secured rather than imposing cumulative charges based on the number of properties described in a single instrument.
• Indivisibility of Mortgage Security — The Court applied the principle that a standard mortgage constitutes a single, indivisible security interest where each encumbered parcel responds for the entirety of the debt. This doctrine precludes the fragmentation of a single mortgage into multiple registrable rights for fee-assessment purposes, distinguishing modern Torrens mortgages from the obsolete apportioned mortgages under Article 119 of the 1893 Mortgage Law.

• "The schedule of fees clearly shows that it is principally a revenue measure based on the value of the interest involved rather than on the amount of labor required for the act of recording." — The Court used this passage to reject the Register of Deeds' argument that greater administrative work justified multiple fees, anchoring the statutory construction to the economic value of the registered right.
• "The mortgage is one and indivisible; it covers all the parcels described in it, and each and every parcel responds for the full amount of the debt secured." — This formulation underscores the substantive nature of a mortgage as a unified security interest, forming the basis for treating it as a single "right" under the fee schedule.

• Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act No. 2866 — The statutory provision establishing the schedule of fees for registrations and entries in the Torrens system. The Court interpreted the phrase "for each property or right" to mean that a mortgage constitutes one "right" valued at the total secured amount, thereby mandating a single fee assessment.
• Article 119 of the Mortgage Law of 1893 — Cited for contrast to demonstrate that the disputed mortgage was not an apportioned security where distinct parcels secured separate portions of the debt, but rather a modern, indivisible mortgage under Torrens registration.