GR 170166; (April, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170166 ; April 6, 2011
JOE A. ROS and ESTRELLA AGUETE, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK – LAOAG BRANCH, Respondent.
FACTS
On October 14, 1974, petitioner Joe A. Ros obtained a loan of ₱115,000.00 from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB) – Laoag Branch. As security, he executed a real estate mortgage over a conjugal property, Lot No. 9161 covered by TCT No. T-9646. Upon maturity, the loan remained unpaid, leading PNB to institute extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. After the sale and the lapse of the redemption period, the property was consolidated in PNB’s name on August 10, 1978. On January 13, 1983, spouses Joe A. Ros and Estrella Aguete filed a complaint to annul the Real Estate Mortgage and all subsequent proceedings. Petitioner Estrella Aguete claimed her signatures on the loan documents were forged, that she had no knowledge of the loan, did not consent to the mortgage, and that the loan did not redound to the benefit of the family. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 15, declared the mortgage and foreclosure proceedings void, ordered the cancellation of PNB’s title, the reversion of the property to the spouses, and for PNB to vacate and pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, dismissed the complaint, and declared the mortgage valid. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s findings and in not declaring the real estate mortgage void due to the alleged lack of the wife’s consent and forgery of her signature.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the loan contracted by the husband redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the Validity of the Mortgage and the Issue of Consent/Forgery: The Court found the petition without merit. Applying the Civil Code, the governing law at the time of the transaction, the subject property was conjugal. While Article 166 of the Civil Code prohibits the husband from alienating or encumbering conjugal real property without the wife’s consent, the Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that the trial court’s conclusion of forgery was based solely on Aguete’s testimony and was without adequate proof. The Court emphasized that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, which was not presented. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even assuming arguendo that Aguete did not consent, the conjugal partnership could still be liable for the debt.
2. On the Benefit to the Conjugal Partnership: The Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that the loan proceeds redounded to the benefit of the family, making the debt chargeable against the conjugal partnership under Article 161(1) of the Civil Code. The records indicated that the loan was used for the expansion of the family’s business. Therefore, the debt was contracted for the benefit of the conjugal partnership, and the mortgage constituted a valid charge against the conjugal property.