TOPIC REM - Art.

2125
CASE NO. G.R. No. L-13683 | March 28, 1960
CASE NAME Paz Samanilla vs Cenen Cajucom, et al
MEMBER Mitchell
DOCTRINE
1. 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. The validity and fulfillment of contracts
cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties (Art.1254)
2. Validity Between Parties Not Affected By Absence Of Registration — A mortgage, whether
registered or not, is binding between the parties, registration being necessary only to make the same
valid against third persons (Art. 2125). In other words, registration only operates as a notice of the
mortgage to others, but neither adds to its validity nor converts an invalid mortgage into a valid one
between the parties

RECIT-READY (made this complete for those who read recit-ready, pero redundant na ‘to, the case is only 3
pages)
Cajucom, et al executed a REM over their rights and participation on a parcel of land covered by an Original
Certificate of Title to Samanilla, to secure a loan of P10,000. 2 months later, they borrowed the title from
Samanilla, reasoning that they need it to segregate from the land a portion being claim by other persons. After
that, Samanilla asked for its return so that she can register the REM executed in here favor, but they refused.
Hence, a petition (in a land registration case) was filed by Samanilla. Cajucom, et al opposed the petition, claiming
that the Deed of Mortgage is void for want of consideration; and that they cannot be compelled to surrender their
title for registration of the mortgage until they are given an opportunity to show its invalidity in an ordinary civil
action, because registration is an essential element of a real estate mortgage and the surrender of their title
would complete this requirement of registration. The CFI ordered Cajucom, et al to surrender the title for purposes
of registration.

W/N the deed of mortgage is void for being executed without any consideration – NO. The presumption of the
presence of consideration supporting a contract cannot be lightly set aside especially when the contract itself states
that consideration was given, and the same has been reduced into a public instrument with all due formalities and
solemnities as in this case. 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. The validity and fulillment
of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties. To overcome the presumption, they must
show the alleged lack of consideration of the mortgage by preponderance of evidence in a proper action.

W/N registration is an essential element of a real estate mortgage (as claimed by Cajucom)– NO. A mortgage,
whether registered or not, is binding between the parties, registration being necessary only to make the
same valid against third persons.

W/N Cajucom, et al can be compelled to surrender their title for the registration of the mortgage – YES. Cajucom,
et al still have the right to show that the mortgage in question is invalid for lack of consideration in an ordinary
action and. But until such action is filed and decided, it would be too dangerous to the rights of the mortgagee to
deny registration of her mortgage, because her rights can so easily be defeated by a transfer or conveyance of the
mortgaged property to an innocent third person. If the purpose of registration is to merely give notice, registration
must first be allowed and validity or effect litigated afterwards. (Remember: proceedings for registration do not
determine validity of mortgage or its effect)

1
FACTS
• In a land registration case, Paz Samanilla filed a petition, alleging that:
- On Dec 20, 1955, Cajucom, et al executed in her favor a real estate mortgage over their
rights and participation on the parcel of land, covered by an Original Certificate of Title,
to secure a loan of P10,000.
- Sometime in Feb 1956, Cajucom, et al borrowed the title from her, reasoning that they
needed it to segregate from the land a portion being claimed by other persons
- After that, Samanilla asked for the return of the title, so that she can register the
mortgage executed in her favor, but Cajucom, et al refused
• Attached to the Petition were the Deed of Mortgage and the affidavits of Samanilla and a certain
Antonio Javier, who allegedly was the one who borrowed the title on behalf of Cajucom, et al
• Cajucom et al opposed the petition—they claimed that the mortgage in question was void for
want of consideration, and that the issues should be litigated in an ordinary civil action
• The lower court ruled for Samanilla and ordered Cajucom, et al to surrender the title either
to the Registry of Deeds or to the Court, for the purpose of annotating on it the mortgage they
executed in favor of Samanilla
• Cajucom, et al appealed to the CA, which forwarded the case to SC for raising purely questions of
law.
• Cajucom, et al’s claims:
- They object to the registration of the deed of mortgage on the ground that it was executed
without any consideration
- That they cannot be compelled to surrender their title for registration of the mortgage in
question until they are given an opportunity to show its invalidity in an ordinary civil
action, because registration is an essential element of a real estate mortgage and the
surrender of their title would complete this requirement of registration

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the deed of mortgage is void for being executed without any consideration – NO
2. W/N registration is an essential element of a real estate mortgage (as claimed by Cajucom)
registration – NO
a. W/N Cajucom, et al can be compelled to surrender their title for the registration of the
mortgage in question – YES

RATIO
1. W/N the deed of mortgage is void for being executed without any consideration – NO
- there is a legal presumption of sufficient cause or consideration supporting a contract, even
if such cause is not stated in such contract
- This presumption, Cajucom et, al cannot overcome by a simple assertion of lack of
consideration.
- This presumption cannot be lightly set aside especially when the contract itself states that
consideration was given, and the same has been reduced into a public instrument with all
due formalities and solemnities as in this case.
- As held by this Court: "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. The validity and fulillment of contracts cannot be
left to the will of one of the contracting parties

2
 - To overcome the presumption of consideration, they must show the alleged lack of
consideration of the mortgage by preponderance of evidence in a proper action.

3. On the issue of W/N registration is an essential element of a real estate mortgage (as claimed
by Cajucom) – NO
- The argument is fallacious.
- A mortgage, whether registered or not, is binding between the parties, registration being
necessary only to make the same valid against third persons (Art. 2125).
- Registration only operates as a notice of the mortgage to others, but neither adds to its
validity nor convert an invalid mortgage into a valid one between the parties.

a. On the issue of W/N Cajucom, et al can be compelled to surrender their title for the
registration of the mortgage in question – YES
- Cajucom, et al still have the right to show that the mortgage in question is invalid for lack
of consideration in an ordinary action and there ask for the avoidance of the deed and the
cancellation of its registration.
- But until such action is filed and decided, it would be too dangerous to the rights of the
mortgagee to deny registration of her mortgage, because her rights can so easily be defeated
by a transfer or conveyance of the mortgaged property to an innocent third person.
- In Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co., et al. vs. Reyes, this Court had the occasion to rule that
"if the purpose of registration is merely to give notice, the questions regarding the
effect or invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided after, not before,
registration.
o It must follow as a necessary consequence that registration must first be allowed
and validity or effect litigated afterwards"

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
The order appealed from is affirmed, without prejudice to appellants' right to bring a separate
action to question the validity of the mortgage in question and ask for the cancellation of its
registration. Costs against appellants

Other Notes:
- Under Art. 1358, acts and contracts which have for their object the creation of real rights over
immovable property, such as REM, must appear in a public document—failure to observe this does
not render the contract invalid. The form required under this provision is not essential for the validity
or enforceability of the contract, but merely for convenience.
- The mortgagee is entitled to registration of the mortgage as a matter of right