G.R. No. 165300 - ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER, VS. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ AND IMELDA DIAZ, AND REINA COMANDANTE AND SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN AND ELIZABETH PANGAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the records of the former case was forwarded to Branch 224. For their part, the Diazes asserted that petitioner has no cause of action against them. They claimed that they do not even know petitioner and that they did not execute any SPA in favor of Comandante authorizing her to mortgage for the second time the subject property. They also contested the due execution of the SPA as it was neither authenticated before the Philippine Consulate in the United States nor notarized before a notary public in the State of New York where the Diazes have been residing for 16 years. They claimed that they do not owe petitioner anything. The Diazes also pointed out that the complaint merely refers to Comandante's personal obligation to petitioner with which they had nothing to do. They thus prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed. [21] At the Pangans' end, they alleged that they acquired the subject property by purchase in good faith and for a consideration of P3,000,000.00 on November 11, 1999 from the Diazes through the latter's daughter Comandante who was clothed with SPA acknowledged before the Consul of New York. The Pangans immediately took actual possession of the property without anyone complaining or protesting. Soon thereafter, they were issued TCT No. N-209049 in lieu of TCT No. RT-6604 which was cancelled. [22] However, on December 21, 1999, they were surprised upon being informed by petitioner that the subject land had been mortgaged to him by the Diazes. Upon inquiry from Comandante, the latter readily admitted that she has a personal loan with petitioner for which the mortgage of the property in petitioner's favor was executed. She admitted, though, that her parents were not aware of such mortgage and that they did not authorize her to enter into such contract. Comandante also informed the Pangans that the signatures of her parents appearing on the SPA are fictitious and that it was petitioner who prepared such document. As affirmative defense, the Pangans asserted that the annotation of petitioner's adverse claim on TCT No. RT-6604 cannot impair their rights as new owners of the subject property. They claimed that the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) upon which petitioner's adverse claim is anchored cannot be the source of any right or interest over the property considering that it is null and void under paragraph 2 of Article 1347 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the Pangans asserted that the Real Estate Mortgage Contract cannot bind them nor in any way impair their ownership of subject property because it was not registered before the Register of Deeds. [23] All the respondents interposed their respective counterclaims and prayed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in varying amounts. After the parties have submitted their respective pre-trial briefs, the Diazes filed on March 29, 2001 a Motion for Summary Judgment [24] alleging that: first , since the docume