FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 7728. September 1, 1913. ]
ISIDRO ALVANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEOCADIO BATOON, MAURICIO BATOON, DANIEL GUILLERMO, LEONCIO BARENGM, and JUAN ALVANO, Defendants-Appellees.
P. Soriano for Appellant.
Nemesio Bonoan for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. MORTGAGE; RIGHT OF MORTGAGE TO THE PROPERTY MORTGAGE. — A simple mortgage does not give the mortgage a right to the possession of the property mortgaged, unless said contract contains some special provision to that effect. Where, in an action to recover the possession of land, the plaintiff relies upon the provisions of mortgage for his right to possession, his action must be dismissed, unless he shows that under some special provision of his mortgage he is entitled to the possession of the property.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
On the 14th of January, 1911, the plaintiff commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte, for the purpose of recovering from the defendants the possession, as owner, of five parcels of land situated in the sitio of Cabalayangan, in the municipality of Dingras, of the Province of Ilocos Norte, more particularly described by metes and bounds in the second paragraph of the complaint.
After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Dionisio Chanco, judge, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover said parcels of land. From that decision the plaintiff appealed.
In the answer the defendants tried to make it appear that the parcels of land which they were occupying were different parcels of land from those which the plaintiff was trying to recover. An examination of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause, however, shows not only by the declaration of the plaintiff himself, but by the declarations of two of the defendants, that the land which the plaintiff was attempting to recover was exactly the same land which the defendants were occupying. (See the testimony of Isidro Alvano, Juan Alvano, and Leocadio Batoon.) There seems, then, to be no difficulty concerning the identity of the lands in question. The plaintiff contends that he purchased said five parcels of land from the coowners, Eusebio Alvano, Juan Alvano, and Apolonia Alvano. While the defendants in their answer, allege that they had purchased the lands in question from Juan Alvano, no such contention is made in the proof. Not a word of proof was presented by the defendants in support of that contention, Leocadio Batoon, one of the defendants, testified as a witness during the trial of the cause, as a witness for the plaintiff, and said that Juna Alvano had mortgaged the lands in question to the defendants. No documentary proof, however, was adduced in support of that fact. The record fails to show, if a mortgage existed, why it was not presented as proof during the trial of the cause. It appears then that the only claim which the defendants make to their right to the possession of the lands in question is the fact that they held a mortgage upon the same from Juan Alvano. A simple mortgage does not give the mortgagee a right to the possession of the property unless the mortgage should contain some special provision to that effect. No claim is made by the defendants that the condition of the property. And, moreover, it was proven during the course of the trial that Juan Alvano was the owner of only one-fourth of the property in question and could not, therefore, executed a valid mortgage upon all of said property. Even though there was a condition, which was not proven, in the mortgage which gave the defendants a right to the possession of the property in question, they would only be entitled to the possession of one-fourth of the same. Under no circumstances then would they be entitled to the possession of all of said property. Inasmuch as a mortgage does not generally give the mortgagee a right to the possession of the property, we must conclude that the defendants have failed to show that they are entitled to the possession of the property. Their only claim to the possession of the property was based upon said mortgage. The plaintiff having shown that he had purchased the property from the former owner, which fact is no disputed in the record, we are forced to the conclusion that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed, and that the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff should be granted. And, without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Dionisio Chanco, judge, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover said parcels of land. From that decision the plaintiff appealed.
In the answer the defendants tried to make it appear that the parcels of land which they were occupying were different parcels of land from those which the plaintiff was trying to recover. An examination of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause, however, shows not only by the declaration of the plaintiff himself, but by the declarations of two of the defendants, that the land which the plaintiff was attempting to recover was exactly the same land which the defendants were occupying. (See the testimony of Isidro Alvano, Juan Alvano, and Leocadio Batoon.) There seems, then, to be no difficulty concerning the identity of the lands in question. The plaintiff contends that he purchased said five parcels of land from the coowners, Eusebio Alvano, Juan Alvano, and Apolonia Alvano. While the defendants in their answer, allege that they had purchased the lands in question from Juan Alvano, no such contention is made in the proof. Not a word of proof was presented by the defendants in support of that contention, Leocadio Batoon, one of the defendants, testified as a witness during the trial of the cause, as a witness for the plaintiff, and said that Juna Alvano had mortgaged the lands in question to the defendants. No documentary proof, however, was adduced in support of that fact. The record fails to show, if a mortgage existed, why it was not presented as proof during the trial of the cause. It appears then that the only claim which the defendants make to their right to the possession of the lands in question is the fact that they held a mortgage upon the same from Juan Alvano. A simple mortgage does not give the mortgagee a right to the possession of the property unless the mortgage should contain some special provision to that effect. No claim is made by the defendants that the condition of the property. And, moreover, it was proven during the course of the trial that Juan Alvano was the owner of only one-fourth of the property in question and could not, therefore, executed a valid mortgage upon all of said property. Even though there was a condition, which was not proven, in the mortgage which gave the defendants a right to the possession of the property in question, they would only be entitled to the possession of one-fourth of the same. Under no circumstances then would they be entitled to the possession of all of said property. Inasmuch as a mortgage does not generally give the mortgagee a right to the possession of the property, we must conclude that the defendants have failed to show that they are entitled to the possession of the property. Their only claim to the possession of the property was based upon said mortgage. The plaintiff having shown that he had purchased the property from the former owner, which fact is no disputed in the record, we are forced to the conclusion that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed, and that the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff should be granted. And, without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
