De Gondi Foundation, Inc. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197289. October 6, 2021.]

DE GONDI FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner,vs. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., SOUTH RICH ACRES, INC., and TOP SERVICE, INC., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 197289 (De Gondi Foundation, Inc. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, Inc., South Rich Acres, Inc., and Top Service, Inc.).— This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated November 25, 2010 and Resolution 3 dated June 3, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108782, which set aside the Decision 4 dated July 8, 2008 of the Office of the President (OP) in O.P. Case No. 07-E-165.

FACTS

In a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated December 11, 1997, South Rich Acres, Inc. (SRAI), a duly-registered subdivision owner/developer, 5 and Top Service, Inc. (TSI) sold to De Gondi Foundation, Inc. (De Gondi) 10 residential housing units located at Block 1, Lots 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Christianville Subdivision, Bayabas Avenue, Talon 5, Las Piñas City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 45734 and 45733 registered under TSI's name. De Gondi paid the purchase price in full, 6 but SRAI and TSI failed to deliver. 7

On January 16, 1999, the contracting parties agreed to amend the MOA in that Block 1, Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, plus six vacant lots identified as Block 1, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, 19 will instead be delivered. Thus, TCT No. 45734 was cancelled and subdivided into several parcels of land including Block 1, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and corresponding new titles were issued, namely: TCT Nos. 69852, 69854, 69856, 69858, 69860, 69861, 69862, 69863, 69864, and 69865. On the other hand, TCT No. 45733 was still pending to be cancelled and subdivided into six (6) parcels of land, which shall include Block 1, Lots 15, 16, 17, and 19. 8 However, despite full payment of the adjusted purchase price by De Gondi, SRAI and TSI still failed to deliver titles to De Gondi. 9

Meantime, De Gondi discovered that back in 1995, SRAI and TSI mortgaged Block 1, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 to Union Bank of the Philippines, Inc. (Union Bank), while Block 1, Lots 15, 16, 17, and 19 were mortgaged to DBS Bank of the Philippines, now BPI Family Bank (BPI). 10 When SRAI and TSI defaulted in their mortgage obligation, Union Bank and BPI foreclosed the properties in 1999. 11 De Gondi continued to demand delivery of titles, free from liens and encumbrances, from SRAI and TSI, but to no avail. This prompted De Gondi to file an action for specific performance with damages against SRAI, TSI, Union Bank, and BPI before the Housing and Land Regulatory Board (HLURB), docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-11830. 12

In a Decision 13 dated February 15, 2005, the HLURB Arbiter ruled that the mortgages violated Section 18 14 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957 15 or 'The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree,' which requires the National Housing Authority's (now HLURB) 16 'prior written approval' 17 before an owner or developer may mortgage any lot or unit. For failure of the mortgagors to secure such approval, the HLURB Arbiter held that the mortgages have no legal and binding effect upon De Gondi. The mortgages cannot be used as an excuse for SRAI and TSI to elude their obligation to De Gondi. The HLURB Arbiter cited Section 25 18 of PD No. 957, which obliges the owner or developer to 'deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment'; 19 and '[i]n the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six (6) months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer x x x.' 20 The Arbiter disposed: CAIHTE

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Directing [BPI] to release the mortgage on the subdivision lot under [TCT] No. 45733 and accordingly, release the title thereof to [SRAI and TSI] for segregation of the said TCT into six (6) parcels of land including Block 1, Lots 15, 16, 17 and 19 and thereafter release the segregated TCTs to [De Gondi].

2. Directing [Union Bank] to release the mortgage on the subdivision lots under [TCT] Nos. 69852, 69854, 69856, 69858, 69860, 69861, 69862, 69863, 69864, and 69865 and accordingly, release the titles thereof to [De Gondi] free from all liens and encumbrances.

3. Declaring the foreclosure by [BPI] and [Union Bank] of the properties subject of this case as null and void insofar as [De Gondi] is concerned.

4. Directing SRAI and TSI to cause the segregation of Mother TCT No. 45733 into six (6) parcels of land including Block 1, Lots 15, 16, 17, and 19 immediately upon its receipt of the owner's duplicate copy of [TCT] Nos. (sic) 45733 from [BPI].

5. Directing [SRAI and TSI] to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subdivision lots subject of the instant case in favor of [De Gondi].

6. Ordering [SRAI, TSI, Union Bank, and BPI] to pay jointly and severally to [De Gondi] the following sums:

a. [P]25,000.00 as moral damages; and

b. [P]25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

Union Bank and BPI appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which affirmed the HLURB Arbiter's ruling. 22 Thereafter, only Union Bank appealed to the OP. In a Decision 23 dated July 8, 2008, the OP dismissed Union Bank's appeal for lack of merit. The OP denied Union Bank's subsequent motion for reconsideration in an Order 24 dated March 25, 2009.

Undaunted, Union filed a petition for review before the CA, arguing that the foreclosure was in accordance with the real estate mortgage; that as a mortgagee, it was not obliged to go beyond the TCTs; and that the mortgage should prevail over the sale to De Gondi since it was executed before the purchase. 25

The CA granted Union Bank's appeal in its assailed Decision 26 dated November 25, 2010. Its ruling was solely grounded upon the fact that the mortgage of the properties in favor of Union Bank preceded the sale to De Gondi. The CA found that, while there was already a perfected contract of sale between SRAI and De Gondi even before the MOAs dated December 11, 1997 and January 16, 1999, the objects of such sale were twelve (12) lots, which were different from those subject of the mortgage and subsequent MOAs. 27 The subject properties became part of SRAI/TSI and De Gondi's contract of sale only in 1999, after amendments to the agreement were made as reflected in the MOA dated January 16, 1999, while the mortgage was executed in 1995. In other words, the CA considered that before the subject properties were sold to De Gondi in 1999, they were already mortgaged in favor of Union Bank in 1995. Hence, the CA ruled that the mortgage in 1995 enjoys preference over the sale in 1999. For this reason, the CA solicited vigilance from De Gondi to ascertain the actual status of the properties before purchase. 28 As far as Union Bank is concerned, the properties had no buyer yet at the time of the mortgage. This 'extraordinary circumstance,' 29 according to the CA, 'removes the instant controversy from the prohibitory scope of [Section 18 of PD No. 957],' 30 and the preceding right of Union Bank cannot simply be extinguished by the fact that the mortgage in its favor lacks HLURB approval. 31 Nevertheless, the CA still recognized SRAI and TSI's obligation to De Gondi under the original sale agreement before the MOAs, 32 thus:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

The Decision dated July 8, 2008 and Order dated March 25, 2009 issued by the [OP], in O.P. Case No. 07-E-165, are NULLIFIED. As a consequence, the Decision dated February 23, 2007 of the [HLURB] — Board of Commissioners, in HLURB Case No. REM-A-050616-0111, only insofar as the Union Bank of the Philippines is concerned, affirming the Decision dated February 15, 2005 of the HLURB Arbiter, particularly, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of the dispositive portion of the latter Decision, is SET ASIDE.

A new decision is hereby ENTERED:

1. Declaring the [Union Bank] to have a valid prior right over several parcels of land then covered by [TCT] Nos. 45731-38 and to effect the extra-judicial foreclosure of the subject ten (10) parcels of land now covered by [TCT] Nos. 69852, 69854, 69856, 69858, 69860, 69861, 69862, 69863, 69864, and 69865, by virtue of a mortgage which, in the absence of proof that it was entered into to defraud buyers or potential buyers, is deemed to be valid and binding; and

2. Directing [SRAI] to DELIVER to [De Gondi] the titles of the original twelve (12) lots subject of their contract to sell free from all encumbrances and to execute the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale for the transaction. If the delivery of the same lots is not anymore possible, then SRAI has to DELIVER to [De Gondi] the titles of twelve (12) lots of no inferior quality than that described by them in their MOA, free from all encumbrances, and likewise, to execute the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale for the transaction.

SO ORDERED.33 (Emphases in the original.)

De Gondi sought reconsideration, but was denied in the CA's assailed Resolution 34 dated June 3, 2011. Hence, this petition. De Gondi argues that the mortgage in favor of Union Bank was void as it violates Section 18 of PD No. 957, which is a prohibitory and mandatory law, and its right as a buyer cannot be prejudiced by such void contract. 35 De Gondi also contends that the CA gravely erred in awarding different lots to De Gondi, in lieu of those properties identified in the amended MOA.

ISSUES

1. Is the mortgage in favor of Union Bank void for violating Section 18 of PD No. 957?

2. Who, between De Gondi and Union Bank, has a better right over Block 1, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14?

RULING

We find merit in the petition. DETACa

The mortgage in favor of Union

Section 18 of PD No. 957 provides:

SEC. 18. Mortgages. — No mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developer without prior written approval of the Authority. Such approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the development of the condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have been provided to ensure such utilization. The loan value of each lot or unit covered by the mortgage shall be determined and the buyer thereof, if any, shall be notified before the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option, pay his installment for the lot or unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for, with a view to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment thereof. (Emphases supplied.)

Section 18 expressly precludes the owner or developer of a subdivision or condominium property from mortgaging any of its lot or unit without prior written approval of the HLURB. This Court has consistently upheld the mandatory and prohibitory nature of this provision because of its avowed purpose. 36 It aims to protect buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit from fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous sellers, like the usual failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and encumbrances. 37 Thus, acts done in its violation are void in accordance with Article 5 of the New Civil Code, which states that '[a]cts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void x x x.' 38

In this case, it is undisputed that SRAI and TSI mortgaged the subject properties to Union Bank without the approval of HLURB. Thus, the HLURB, as affirmed by the OP, correctly ruled that the mortgage is void for violating Section 18 of PD No. 957 insofar as De Gondi is concerned. In the oft-cited case of Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez, 39 the Court was emphatic in ruling that:

Under PD 957, the mortgage of a subdivision lot or a condominium unit is void, if executed by a property developer without the prior written approval of the [HLURB]. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

The lot was mortgaged in violation of Section 18 of PD 957. x x x Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void. Hence, the mortgage over the lot is null and void insofar as [the buyer] is concerned.40 (Emphases supplied.)

De Gondi has a better right

The following facts are undisputed: (1) there is a perfected sale between SRAI and TSI as sellers, and De Gondi as buyer; (2) De Gondi had already paid the purchase price in full in accordance with the prevailing MOA; and (3) SRAI and TSI failed to deliver the properties sold to De Gondi despite receipt of full payment. The HLURB, OP, and the CA have uniformly sustained De Gondi's right as the buyer, and ordered SRAI and TSI to fulfill their obligation as the seller. The CA, however, gave preference to Union Bank's right as the mortgagee over Block 1, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, and resorted to a creative approach of awarding De Gondi the twelve (12) lots originally agreed upon between SRAI and De Gondi before the MOAs or, in the alternative, any other properties of equivalent value. In ruling so, the CA focused on the fact that the mortgage preceded the sale, and as such, ruled that Union Bank has superior right over De Gondi.

The CA was in error.

While it is true that mortgage in favor of Union Bank preceded the sale in favor of De Gondi, the mortgage cannot prejudice De Gondi's right as it remains void insofar as De Gondi is concerned because it was executed in violation of Section 18 of PD No. 957. The unqualified language used in Section 18 is not made dependent upon any varying factor such as whether the lot or unit to be mortgaged was already sold or not. The law is clear: a subdivision lot or condominium unit cannot be mortgaged by the property developer or owner without the HLURB's written approval.

In Philippine Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corporation, 41 the Court sustained the application of Section 18 although the mortgage was executed and registered before the mortgaged land was developed into a condominium project considering that the mortgagee-bank was aware of the proposed conversion of the land: aDSIHc

Like the HLURB, the OP and the CA, x x x the Court believes that the surrounding circumstances show that PBComm was aware of the proposed conversion of the land into a condominium project, thus, meriting the application of Section 18 of PD No. 957 to the case.

PBComm has not categorically denied prior knowledge of the condominium project and relies mainly on the fact that the mortgage was executed seven months before Pridisons and/or Ivory Crest applied for the registration and license to sell condominium units with the HLURB. The prior execution of the mortgage alone, however, does not discount the possibility that PBComm may have had 'foreknowledge and possible complicity' in the development plans of the condominium project; the factual findings of HLURB, as affirmed by both the OP and the CA, indicate that this was indeed the case. As the HLURB declared,

the standard industry practice for banks is to require loan applicants to disclose the nature and purpose of the loan, and present supporting documents such as project feasibility studies in support thereof. With more reasons, we feel that the disclosure of loan purpose and presentation of loan documents is expected in this case, considering that the applicant for loan was a realty company. x x x banks are familiar with the nature of realty companies, and are expected to anticipate them to apply for and use bank loans for developmental purposes. x x x.

x x x in the light of the principles or regularity in the performance of functions and of observance of normal course of business transactions, we presume that the standard banking and industry practice and procedures were observed prior to the execution of the mortgage contract, and that there was due disclosure of loan purpose and submission of plans to the bank.

Additionally, there was a finding of 'several annotations and renewal notes concerning the loans PBComm extended to Pridisons, during the period when the project was under development, suggesting the existence of progressive releases for project development.' It is also unlikely to have the master deed and 12 condominium certificates of title issued without PBComm releasing the certificate of title over the land, which it held on account of the mortgage. From these, the Court can reasonably conclude that PBComm had actual, not only constructive, knowledge of the condominium project. The earlier execution of the mortgage was more likely made in order to skirt the requirements of Section 18 of PD No. 957. On account of the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of the law, the Court affirms the nullification of the mortgage constituted in favor of PBComm and upholds the rights and interests of the respondent buyers over the condominium units, as settled by the courts below. 42(Citations omitted and emphases supplied.)

Apropos, as well, is the explicit directive under Section 25 of PD No. 957 as cited by the HLURB in its Decision, viz.:

SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. (Emphases supplied.)

Verily, upon De Gondi's full payment of the purchase price, SRAI and TSI were bound to deliver clean titles of the lots sold to De Gondi. An outstanding mortgage over the lot or unit is not a justification to deny De Gondi's right over the lot or unit paid for because Section 25 explicitly requires the owner/developer-seller to redeem the mortgage within a specific period precisely to assure that the title over the fully paid lot or unit, free from any lien or encumbrance, is secured and delivered to the buyer.

Besides, Union Bank cannot claim to be a mortgagee in good faith to enjoy preference of right over the subsequent buyer of the subject properties. Knowledge of the fact that it was dealing with subdivision lots alone imposes upon Union Bank the duty to ascertain that SRAI and TSI have secured HLURB's prior written approval as required under Section 18 of PD No. 957 before it accepted the properties as loan security. 43 In failing to do so, Union Bank laid itself open to the 'collateral damage' (nullification of the mortgage) caused by SRAI and TSI's failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of the law. To be sure, such repercussion is not without basis as banking institutions have always been reminded of their duty to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the conduct of their affairs given that their business is imbued with public interest:

When the purchaser or the mortgagee is a bank, the rule on innocent purchasers or mortgagees for value is applied more strictly. Being in the business of extending loans secured by real estate mortgage, banks are presumed to be familiar with the rules on land registration. Since the banking business is impressed with public interest, they are expected to be more cautious, to exercise a higher degree of diligence, care and prudence, than private individuals in their dealings, even those involving registered lands. Banks may not simply rely on the face of the certificate of title. Hence, they cannot assume that, x x x the title offered as security is on its face free of any encumbrances or lien, they are relieved of the responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the properties to be mortgaged. As expected, the ascertainment of the status or condition of a property offered to it as security for a loan must be a standard and indispensable part of the bank's operations. x x x 44 (Citations omitted)

Particularly, in loan transactions, banks have the obligation to ensure that borrowers comply with all the documentary requirements pertaining to the approval of their loan applications and the subsequent release of their proceeds. 45 In this case, such documentary requirements include the written approval of the HLURB under PD No. 957, which Union Bank failed to require from SRAI and TSI before accepting the mortgage.

Therefore, we sustain the application of Section 18 of PD No. 957 in this case as held by the HLURB's and affirmed by the OP:

Considering that the mortgages of the subject properties by SRAI [and TSI] to [Union Bank and BPI] [were] carried out without mortgage clearance, those mortgage undertakings were null and void insofar as third parties are concerned. And as a natural consequence thereof, the mortgages carry no legal and binding effect on [De Gondi] and, therefore, could not prejudice its right.

SRAI [and TSI] bound [themselves] to deliver the titles of the said properties to [De Gondi] upon receiving complete payment for the subject properties. It cannot refuse delivery of the titles nor (sic) use as an excuse the mortgage of the properties to [Union Bank and BPI] for failing to perform the act of delivery. x x x

[W]hether or not the payments made by [De Gondi] to SRAI [and TSI] had been remitted to [Union Bank and BPI] was not a concern of [De Gondi].

xxx xxx xxx 46

Finally, it was highly improper for the CA to revert to SRAI and De Gondi's original agreement because this was already supplanted by their subsequent agreements as reflected in the MOAs. In the prevailing MOA dated January 16, 1999, the contracting parties have agreed to replace the original objects of the sale (12 lots) to 14 determinate lots (Block 1, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, subject of the mortgage to Union Bank; and Block 1, Lots 15, 16, 17, and 19, subject of the mortgage to BPI). Adjustments to prices were also correspondingly made and these lots are what De Gondi paid for. De Gondi even alleged that it is currently in possession of the subject properties in accordance with the MOA. 47 To be sure, courts cannot make for the parties better or more equitable agreements than they themselves have been satisfied to make; or rewrite contracts because they operate harshly or inequitably as to one of the parties, or to a third person for this matter; or in the guise of interpretation, relieve any of the parties from terms which they consented to, or otherwise impose upon them terms which they did not agree to. 48

In sum, the mortgage in favor of Union Bank is null and void, insofar as De Gondi is concerned, for having been executed in violation of Section 18 of PD No. 957. It cannot prevail over De Gondi's right to the titles of the subject properties, free of any lien and encumbrance, being the buyer who had long paid the purchase price in full. ETHIDa

To clarify, however, Union Bank is not adjudged to simply bear the consequences of the nullity of the mortgage. This ruling is not in any way invalidating the loan obligation of SRAI and TSI to Union Bank. The Court merely adheres to the social justice measure embodied in PD No. 957, thus:

As between these small lot buyers and the gigantic financial institutions which the developers deal with, it is obvious that the law — as an instrument of social justice — must favor the weak. Indeed, the petitioner Bank had at its disposal vast resources with which it could adequately protect its loan activities, and therefore is presumed to have conducted the usual 'due diligence' checking and ascertained x x x the actual status, condition, utilization and occupancy of the property offered as collateral. x x x On the other hand, private respondents obviously were powerless to discover the attempt of the land developer to hypothecate the property being sold to them. It was precisely in order to deal with this kind of situation that [PD No.] 957 was enacted, its very essence and intendment being to provide a protective mantle over helpless citizens who may fall prey to the razzmatazz of what P.D. 957 termed 'unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers.' 49 (Emphasis in the original.)

Nevertheless, the mortgage, albeit voided, still stands as evidence of indebtedness which may be pursued against SRAI and TSI, subject to claims and defenses they have against each other in the proper forum. 50 In fact, it appears that Union Bank and SRAI have already entered into a Compromise Agreement, 51 whereby SRAI undertook to settle the mortgage obligation in the event that a decision adverse to Union Bank is rendered. Union Bank is, therefore, not without remedy.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 25, 2010 and Resolution dated June 3, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108782 are REVERSED. The Decision dated February 15, 2005 of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Arbiter in HLURB Case No. REM-11830, as affirmed in the Decision dated July 8, 2008 of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 07-E-165, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 8-30.

2. Penned by Justice Franchito N. Diamante with the concurrence of Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a Retired Member of the Court); id. at 40-57.

3.Id. at 36-38.

4.Id. at 58-62.

5.Id. at 41.

6.Id. at 58.

7.Id. at 49.

8.Id. at 68-69.

9.Id. at 49.

10.Id. at 69.

11.Id. at 59.

12.Id. at 42-43.

13.Id. at 68-77.

14. SEC. 18. Mortgages. — No mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developer without prior written approval of the Authority. Such approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the development of the condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have been provided to ensure such utilization. The loan value of each lot or unit covered by the mortgage shall be determined and the buyer thereof, if any, shall be notified before the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option, pay his installment for the lot or unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for, with a view to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment thereof.

15. Entitled "REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISION LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF," approved on July 12, 1976.

16. The regulatory functions of the National Housing Authority were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (later HLURB) by virtue of Executive Order No. 648, series of 1981, which took effect on February 7, 1981.

17. PD NO. 957, SEC. 18.

18. SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Rollo, pp. 76-77.

22.Id. at 63-66.

23.Id. at 58-62.

24.Id. at 63.

25.Id. at 44-45.

26.Id. at 40-57.

27.Id. at 49-50.

28.Id. at 51.

29.Id. at 53.

30.Id.

31.Id. at 53-54.

32.Id. at 54-55.

33.Id. at 55-56.

34.Id. at 36-38.

35.Id. at 23.

36. See Prudential Bank v. Rapanot, 803 Phil. 294 (2017); United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, Inc. v. The Board of Commissioners-HLURB, 761 Phil. 606 (2015); Philippine National Bank v. Lim, 702 Phil. 461 (2013); Heirs of Dumaliang v. Serban, 545 Phil. 243 (2007); Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. SLGT Holdings, Inc., 559 Phil. 914 (2007); Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez, 465 Phil. 276 (2004).

37. PD NO. 957, "WHEREAS, reports of alarming magnitude also show cases of swindling and fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and encumbrances, and to pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots to different innocent purchasers for value[.]"; See United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, Inc. v. The Board of Commissioner-HLURB, 761 Phil. 606 (2015).

38.Id.

39. 465 Phil. 276 (2004).

40.Id. at 289.

41. 701 Phil. 178 (2013).

42.Id.

43. See Prudential Bank v. Rapanot, supra note 36; and Philippine Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corp., supra note 41.

44.Prudential Bank v. Rapanot, supra note 36 citing Philippine National Bank v. Vila, 792 Phil. 86 (2016).

45.Prudential Bank v. Rapanot, id.

46.Rollo, p. 74.

47.Id. at 28.

48.Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Bernardino, G.R. No. 183947, September 21, 2016 citing Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 386 (2000).

49.Philippine Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corp., supra note 41 citing Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President, 252 Phil. 5, 10-11 (1996).

50. See Concorde Condominium, Inc. v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 228354, November 26, 2018, Philippine Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corp., supra note 41.

51.Rollo, pp. 69-72.