Pasno v Ravina,G.R. No. 31581.
February 3, 1930
Parties:
Estate of the deceased Gabina Labitoria. ENRIQUE M. PASNO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. FORTUNATA
RAVINA and PONCIANO RAVINA, Oppositors-Appellants. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant.
Nature: There are two appeals in this case. One appeal has been taken by the oppositors
(Fortunata & Ponciano Ravina) to the legalization of the will of Gabina Labitoria, and concerns the
validity of that will. The other appeal has been taken by the Philippine National Bank and concerns
the survivability of the right of sale of the mortgaged property under special power while the
mortgaged property is in custodia legis.
I. In ENRIQUE M. PASNO v. FORTUNATARAVINA and PONCIANO RAVINA on the Validity of Gabina
Labitoria’s [Link] sole issue here is whether the admitted fact that the will was executed on July
27, 1928, although the document sates that it was executed on February 6, 1926, invalidates the
will. The trial judge ruled that Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the requisites
necessary to the execution of a valid will. The law does not require that the will shall be
dated. Accordingly, a will without a date is valid. So likewise an erroneous date will not
defeat a will.
[Link] in ENRIQUE M. PASNO v. PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK on the Right of the mortgagee(PNB)to foreclose the mortgage in its favor
executed by Gabina Labitoria during her lifetime now that the mortgaged property is in the hands
of an administrator(Pasno) or in custodia legis.
Agent:PNB
Principal:Gabina Labitoria
Third Party:ENRIQUE M. PASNO as Administrator of the estate of Gabina Labitoria
Case Filed: A motion in court in which an order was asked requiring the sheriff to vacate the
attachment over the mortgaged properties and to abstain from selling the same. The lower court
granted the petition and later denied a motion for reconsideration presented on behalf of the
Philippine National [Link] ruling was upheld in Appellate Court sustaining the petition of the
administrator (Pasno)of the estate of the deceased Gabina Labitoria and in denying the motion of
the Philippine National Bank.
Facts: Gabina Labitoria during her lifetime mortgaged three parcels of land to the Philippine
National Bank to secure an indebtedness of P1,600. It was stipulated in the mortgage, among
other things, that the mortgagee/Agent(PNB) "may remove, sell or dispose of the mortgaged
property or any buildings, improvements or other property in, on or attached to it and
belonging to the mortgagor in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135(An Act to
Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted in or annexed to Real-
Estate Mortagages) or take other legal action that it may deem necessary." Later,Gabina
Labitoria died and a probate of her last will and testament was made . During the the
proceedings, a special administrator(Pasno) was appointed by the lower court who took possession
of the estate of the deceased, including the three parcels of land mortgaged to the Philippine
National Bank. For failing to comply with the conditions of the mortgage, the Philippine National
Bank, asked the sheriff to proceed with the sale of the parcels of land. The administrator thru
counsel asked the court for the sheriff to vacate the attachment over the mortgaged properties
and to abstain from selling the same which was granted.
The mortgage mentioned Act No. 3135 or To regulate the sale of property under special powers
inserted in or annexed to real-estate mortgages but said law fails to make provision regarding the
sale of mortgaged property which is in custodia legis (under the administrator). The Court said ,it
would be logical to suppose that the general provisions of Philippine law would govern this latter
contingency.
PNB agrees that the law applicable to the case is section 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure. which
reads: "A creditor holding a claim against the deceased, secured by mortgage or other collateral
security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim before the committee, and share in
the general distribution of the assets of the estate(first remedy); or he may foreclose his
mortgage or realize upon his security, by ordinary action in court, making the executor or
administrator a party defendant; and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the
mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize
upon the security, he may prove his deficiency judgment before the committee against the estate
of the deceased; or he may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclose the
same at any time, within the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be
admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of the
estate; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator from redeeming
the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the
direction of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such
redemption shall be made(second remedy).
The PNB here is not taking advantage of the first remedy for the mortgage security has not been
“ abandoned” . Rather is the second remedy invoked but until now unsuccessfully since the PNB
has not begun an ordinary action in court to foreclose the mortgage making the special
administrator a party defendant.
Issue: Whether the agency is coupled with interest and does it survives even after the death of
principal(Gabina Labitoria)?
Held : Yes .The power of sale given in a mortgage is a power coupled with an interest which
survives the death of the [Link] 1930 “ The agency shall remain in full force and effect
even after the death of the principal, if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter
and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor” .
Here, the power of sale in the deed of real estate mortgage is not revoked by the death of Gabina
Labitoria on the ground that it is an ancillary stipulations supported by the same cause of
consideration that supports the mortgage and forms an essential inseparable part of that bilateral
[Link] that may be, given that the power of sale is not revoked by the death of
the mortgagor in view of the silence of Act No. 3135 and in view of what is found in section 708 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, it would be preferable to reach the conclusion that the mortgagee
with a power of sale should be made to foreclose the mortgage in conformity with the procedure
pointed out in section 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That would safeguard the interests of the
estate by putting the estate on notice while it would not jeopardize any rights of the mortgagee.
The only result is to suspend temporarily the power to sell so as not to interfere with
the orderly administration of the estate of a decedent.
The trial judge committed no error in sustaining the petition of the administrator of the estate of
the deceased Gabina Labitoria and in denying the motion of the Philippine National Bank.
