G.R. No. 197831 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, V. SPOUSES ANGEL AND BUENVENIDA ANAY, AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND DOLORES LEE.

Ruling

accordingly held in disposal: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 17, 2006 is AFFIRMED in toto . [22] PNB's motion for reconsideration met similar denial. Hence, this petition. Reiterating its arguments before the CA, PNB maintains that it is a mortgagee in good faith and as such, its title cannot be subjected to collateral attack. In any case, PNB argues, the Spouses Lee should be made liable for damages and restitution to PNB for having acted in bad faith. The Ruling of the Court We deny the petition. Settled is the fact that the Spouses Anay's consent to the SPA was vitiated. This, as much, was not contested by PNB. Nevertheless, PNB seeks protection as mortgagee in good faith as it allegedly had no hand in the fraud or bad faith perpetrated by the Spouses Lee in securing the SPA. The doctrine of a mortgagee in good faith finds similar basis on the rule that persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificates of Title, either as buyers or as mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. [23] This doctrine, however, does not apply in the instant case. For one, the issue of being a mortgagee in good faith is a factual matter, which cannot be raised in this petition. [24] For another, the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith "presupposes that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining 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 title." [25] Such is not the case here as the fact that the Spouses Anay were the registered owners of the subject property was never disputed, thus the genuineness of the latter's title was never an issue. What is controversial is the authority of the Spouses Lee to mortgage the property of the Spouses Anay. It is in this regard that PNB denies having knowledge of, or participation in the manner and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the SPA. PNB's self-serving claim is, however, easily dispelled by the testimony of its very own employee, PNB Inspector Marcial Abucay (PNB Inspector Abucay) who was present, together with another PNB employee Jun Abella, at the time of the signing of the SPA. Based on the testimonial evidence offered by PNB itself through PNB Inspector Abucay, when the Spouses Anay were made to sign the previously prepared SPA, the husband was already bedridden, half-blind, not able to recognize, cannot read the SPA, and his hand had to be moved by Marietta to approximate the act of signing. [26] PNB Inspector Abucay further testified that he did not hear whether Marietta explained the contents of the document to the Spouses Anay before she made them sign. [27] PNB's theory of being a mortgagee in good faith is therefore unavailing. On the contrary, what appears to be evident is that PNB itself connived with the Spouses Lee if only