Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Philippine National Bank vs. Mercedes Corpuz G.R. No. 180945 February 12, 2010 Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Jestri Ashley De Jesus
    The document discusses a case between Philippine National Bank and Mercedes Corpuz. It provides background on the facts of the case, which involve fraudulent transfers of Corpuz's land title without her consent. The issue is whether PNB was a mortgagee in good faith when it provided a loan using the disputed land as collateral. The court ultimately ruled that PNB was not a mortgagee in good faith based on suspicious details surrounding the transfers of the land that PNB failed to properly investigate during its title verification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Philippine National Bank vs. Mercedes Corpuz G.R. No. 180945 February 12, 2010 Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Jestri Ashley De Jesus
    15 views1 page
    The document discusses a case between Philippine National Bank and Mercedes Corpuz. It provides background on the facts of the case, which involve fraudulent transfers of Corpuz's land title without her consent. The issue is whether PNB was a mortgagee in good faith when it provided a loan using the disputed land as collateral. The court ultimately ruled that PNB was not a mortgagee in good faith based on suspicious details surrounding the transfers of the land that PNB failed to properly investigate during its title verification.

    Original Description:

    digest banking

    Original Title

    9.-PNB-v.Corpuz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case between Philippine National Bank and Mercedes Corpuz. It provides background on the facts of the case, which involve fraudulent transfers of Corpuz's land title without her consent. The issue is whether PNB was a mortgagee in good faith when it provided a loan using the disputed land as collateral. The court ultimately ruled that PNB was not a mortgagee in good faith based on suspicious details surrounding the transfers of the land that PNB failed to properly investigate during its title verification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    Philippine National Bank vs. Mercedes Corpuz G.R. No. 180945 February 12, 2010 Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Jestri Ashley De Jesus
    The document discusses a case between Philippine National Bank and Mercedes Corpuz. It provides background on the facts of the case, which involve fraudulent transfers of Corpuz's land title without her consent. The issue is whether PNB was a mortgagee in good faith when it provided a loan using the disputed land as collateral. The court ultimately ruled that PNB was not a mortgagee in good faith based on suspicious details surrounding the transfers of the land that PNB failed to properly investigate during its title verification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs.

    MERCEDES CORPUZ

    G.R. No. 180945 February 12, 2010

    DOCTRINE:

    Banks are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals in dealing with lands,
    even registered ones, since the business of banks is imbued with public interest.

    FACTS:

    On October 4, 1974 respondent Mercedez Corpuz delivered her owner’s duplicate copy
    of TCT 32815 to Dagupan City Rural Bank as security against any liabilities, then she left her
    job and went to the United States. On October 24, 1994 respondent Mercedez Corpuz having
    incurred no liability to her employer, the rural bank where she worked cancelled its lien on
    Corpuz’s title. However, without Corpuz’s knowledge and consent, Natividad Alano, the rural
    bank’s manager, turned over Corpuz’s title to Julia Camacho and Amparo Callejo who connives
    with someone from the assessor’s office in preparing a falsifies deed of sale, making it appear
    that on February 23, 1995 Corpuz sold her land to one “Mary Bondoc” for P50,000.00. About a
    month later the property had been passed to Rufo and Teresa Palaganas by another fictitious
    deed of sale by “Mary Bondoc” and after nine (9) days the Palaganas executed a deed of sale in
    favor of spouses Virgilio and Elena Songcuan who took out a loan of P1.1 million from
    petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) who had the title verified and property inspected and,
    to secure payment, they executed a real estate mortgage on their title.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the PNB is a mortgagee in good faith.

    RULING:

    No, based on findings in this case is that in the course of its verification, petitioner PNB
    was informed of the previous TCTs covering the subject property. It is evident from the faces of
    those titles that the ownership of the land changed from Corpuz to Bondoc, from Bondoc to the
    Palaganases, and from the Palaganases to the Songcuans in less than three months and
    mortgaged to PNB within four months of the last transfer. It would have then discovered that the
    property was sold for ridiculously low prices: Corpuz supposedly sold it to Bondoc for just
    P50,000.00; Bondoc to the Palaganases for just P15,000.00; and the Palaganases to the
    Songcuans also for just P50,000.00. And yet the PNB gave the property an appraised value of
    P781,760.00, this significant fact that would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person
    cannot be considered as an innocent mortgagee for value.

    You might also like