SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237315. April 23, 2018.]
JENELITA GARCIA AND CELSO GARCIA, petitioners, vs.TEODORICO GUIMOC, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SHARON GUIMOC, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 April 2018which reads as follows: AaCTcI
"G.R. No. 237315 (Jenelita Garcia and Celso Garcia v. Teodorico Guimoc, represented by his Attorney-In-Fact, Sharon Guimoc)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 12, 2017 Decision 1 and February 9, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103691 for failure of petitioners Jenelita Garcia and Celso Garcia (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in declaring the invalidity of the mortgage contract.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Teodorico Guimoc is not estopped from assailing the validity of the mortgage contract as his signature therein was forged, as admitted by petitioners. Case law provides that encumbrance of conjugal property without the consent of the husband is not merely voidable but void; hence, it could not be ratified, 3 as in this case. Further, the CA is also correct in holding that Spouses Teodorico and Elenita Guimoc's loan obligation to petitioners subsist notwithstanding the nullity of the mortgage, since "a mortgage is merely an accessory agreement and does not affect the principal contract of loan. The mortgages, while void, can still be considered as instruments evidencing the indebtedness," 4 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-24. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 36-37.
3. See Dadis v. Spouses De Guzman, G.R. No. 206008, June 7, 2017.
4.Philippine National Bank v. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 212483, October 5, 2016, 805 SCRA 327, 340, citing Philippine National Bank v. Banatao, 602 Phil. 508, 521 (2009).