Zuno, Maria Hazel L. 30, 2014 Juris Doctor and Deeds
September Land itles
!ablo !. !. "arcia "ar cia #s. $olanda %aldez %illar "& 'o 1())*1 June 2+, 2012 2012 opic Mort-a-es !actum /ommissorium acts The case stemmed from a mortgage transaction involving a lot owned by Lourdes Galas in favor of Yolanda Villar. The lot was mortgaged to secure a loan obtained by Galas from Villar in the amount of P2,200,000.00. t was established from the facts that in the !eed of "eal #state $ortgage e%ecuted between Galas and Villar, the former a&&oints the latter to sell the sub'ect &ro&erty in case Galas fails to &ay the loan, and with such, &roceeds shall be a&&lied to her outstanding loan. ( year later, the same sub'ect &ro&erty was subse)uently mortgaged in favor of Pablo Garcia to secure a loan amounting to P*,+00,000.00. (fterwards, Galas decided to sell the sub'ect &ro&erty to Villar. ( !eed of ale was e%ecuted between them, and a T-T was issued in favor of Villar. (ggrieved, Garcia led a Petition for $andamus with !amages, arguing his main &oint that the authority given to Villar as sti&ulated in te !eed of the "eal #state #state $ortgage is violative of the &rohibition &rohibition of Pactum -ommissorium. "T- ruled in favor of Garcia. /n a&&eal, -( reversed "T-s decision and ruled in favor of Villar. ssue 1hether the authority given to Villar in the !eed of "eal #state $ortgage is violative of the &rohibition on &actum commissorium Supreme /ourt &ulin- 3o. Villars &urchase &urchase of the sub'ect &ro&erty did not violate the &rohibition on &actum commissorium. The following following are the elements elements of &actum &actum commissorium4 commissorium4 *. there should be a &ro&erty mortgaged by way of security for the &ayment of the &rinci&al obligation 2. there should be a sti&ulation for automatic a&&ro&riation by the creditor of the thing thing mortga mortgaged ged in case case of non5&a non5&ayme yment nt of the the &rinc &rinci&a i&all obliga obligatio tion n within within the sti&ulated &eriod. n the case at bar, the &ower of attorney &rovision above did not &rovide that ownershi& over the sub'ect &ro&erty would automatically &ass to Villar u&on Galas failure to &ay the loan on time. 1hat it granted was the mere a&&ointment of Villar as attor attorney ney in fact fact with with author authority ity to sell, sell, or otherw otherwise ise dis&ose dis&ose of the sub'e sub'ect ct &ro&erty, and to a&&ly the &roceeds to the &ayment of the loan.
Galas decision to eventually sell the sub'ect &ro&erty to Villar for an additional P*,600,000.00 was well within the sco&e of his rights as the owner of the sub'ect &ro&erty. The sub'ect &ro&erty was transerred to Villar by virtue of another and se&arate contract, which is the !eed of ale. Garcia never alleged that the transfer of the sub'ect &ro&erty to Villar was automatic u&on Galas failure to &ay his debt, or that the sale was simulated to cover u& such automatic transfer.
