Erena vs. Querrer-Kauffman Digest

CASE: EREA VS.
QUERRER-KAUFFMAN
FACTS:
Vida Dana Querrer-Kauffman is the owner of a residential lot with a house constructed
thereon located at Block 3, Lot 13, Marcillo corner Planza Streets, BF Resort Village, Talon,
Las Pias City. The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-48521.
The owners duplicate copy of the title as well as the tax declaration covering the property,
were kept in a safety deposit box in the house.
Sometime in February 1997, as she was going to the United States, Kauffman entrusted
her minor daughter, Vida Rose, to her live-in partner, Eduardo Victor. She also entrusted
the key to her house to Victor. She went back to the Philippines to get her daughter on May
13, 1997, and again left for the U.S. on the same day. Later on, Victor also left for the U.S.
and entrusted the house and the key thereto to his sister, Mira Bernal.
On October 25, 1997, Kauffman asked her sister, Evelyn Pares, to get the house from
Bernal so that the property could be sold. Pares did as she was told. Kauffman then sent
the key to the safety deposit box to Pares, but Pares did not receive it. Kauffman then
asked Pares to hire a professional locksmith who could open the safe. When the safe was
broken open, however, Pares discovered that the owners duplicate title and the tax
declarations, including pieces of jewelry were missing.
Kauffman learned about this on October 29, 1997 and returned to the Philippines on
November 9, 1997. She and Pares went to the Register of Deeds of Las Pias City and
found out that the lot had been mortgaged to Rosana Erea on August 1, 1997. It
appeared that a "Vida Dana F. Querrer" had signed the Real Estate Mortgage as ownermortgagor, together with Jennifer V. Ramirez, Victors daughter, as attorney-in-fact.
Kauffman and Pares were able to locate Bernal who, when asked, confirmed that Ramirez
had taken the contents of the safety deposit box. When Kauffman told Bernal that she
would file a case against them, Bernal cried and asked for forgiveness. Bernal admitted
that Jennifer Ramirez had been in a tight financial fix and pleaded for time to return the title
and the jewelry.
RTC
Kauffman filed a complaint against Erea, Bernal and Jennifer Ramirez for Nullification
of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and Damages with prayer for a Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction12 in the RTC of Las Pias City.
RULING: The court ruled that, although the plaintiff adduced proof that she owned the
property and that her signatures on the Special Power of Attorney and in the Real
Estate Mortgage were forged, nevertheless, defendant Erea adduced evidence that
she was a mortgagee in good faith. The court declared that the woman who pretended
to be the plaintiff and lawful owner of the property had in her possession the original
copy of the owners duplicate of title. The defendant thus relied in good faith on the title
after ascertaining with the Register of Deeds the identity of Vida Dana Querrer as the
registered owner of the property, who turned out to be an impostor. In fact, the
defendant still had possession of the owners duplicate of the title when she received
the complaint and summons.
MR: The RTC denied the motion.
CA: The CA rendered judgment in favor of Kauffman.
ISSUE:
Page 1 of 3
1. WON respondent Querrer-Kauffman is the owner of the property mortgaged to petitioner

and contract of real estate mortgage between Rosana Erea and Vida Dana Querrer is a
forged deed of mortgage.
2. WON the doctrine of a mortgage in good faith applies to Petitioner Erea
RULING:
1. Indeed, the trial and appellate courts found that respondent, as plaintiff below, adduced
clear and convincing evidence that she is the owner of the property and that the signature
on the Special Power of Attorney and Real Estate Mortgage are not her genuine
signatures. She purchased the property from Edgardo C. Espiritu on June 21, 1997 via a
Deed of Absolute Sale, on the basis of which TCT No. 48521 under her name was issued
by the Register of Deeds on June 25, 1997. Indeed, when respondent and her sister,
Evelyn Pares, confronted Mira Bernal (Jennifer Ramirezs aunt), Bernal pleaded for mercy,
on bended knees, after admitting that she and Jennifer Ramirez stole the owners duplicate
copy of the title and the tax declarations covering the property, the air-conditioning unit,
television, and the pieces of jewelry owned by respondent, and, thus, impliedly admitted
that they forged the respondents signature on the Real Estate Mortgage.
2. No, the doctrine mortgage in good faith does not apply.
One of the essential requisites of a mortgage contract is that the mortgagor must be the
absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.42 A mortgage is, thus, invalid if the mortgagor is
not the property owner.43 In this case, the trial court and the CA are one in finding that
based on the evidence on record the owner of the property is respondent who was not
the one who mortgaged the same to the petitioner.
Indeed, case law is that a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of
the land referred to therein. While it serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name appears therein (and TCT No. T-48521
shows, on its face, that the owner is the respondent), when the instrument presented for
registration is forged, even if accompanied by the owners duplicate certificate of title,
the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee or
the mortgagee, for that matter, acquire any right or title to the property.48 In such a case,
the transferee or the mortgagee, based on a forged instrument, is not even a purchaser
or a mortgagee for value protected by law.
Indeed, a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the
mortgagor of the property given as security and in the absence of any sign that might
arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation. Hence, even if
the mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does not have a valid title to, the
mortgaged property, the mortgagee in good faith is nonetheless entitled to
protection.56 This doctrine presupposes, however, that the mortgagor, who is not the
rightful owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over
the property in his name and that, after obtaining the said title, he succeeds in
mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the said title. The
innocent purchaser (mortgagee in this case) for value protected by law is one who
purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself,
not by a forged deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of petitioner,
who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be the registered owners but who
are not said owners.57 The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith does not apply to a
situation where the title is still in the name of the rightful owner and the mortgagor is a
different person pretending to be the owner. In such a case, the mortgagee is not an
innocent mortgagee for value and the registered owner will generally not lose his title.
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Erena vs. Querrer-Kauffman Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erena vs. Querrer-Kauffman Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Erena vs. Querrer-Kauffman Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE: EREA VS.

1. WON respondent Querrer-Kauffman is the owner of the property mortgaged to petitioner

You might also like