8/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

VOL. 5 JUNE 29, 1962 381

Taningco vs. Register of Deeds of Laguna

No. L-15242. June 29, 1962.

ROSAURO M. TANINGCO and SIMPLICIA RAMOS, petitioners,

vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA, respondent.

Mortgages; Registration of; Undivided share in conjugal property;

Interest of surviving spouse actual and vested if title is in the names of both
spouses.—The interest of the wife in a parcel of land owned by these
spouses ceases to be inchoate and becomes actual and vested with respect to
her undivided one-half share after the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership, as by death of the husband.
Same; Same; Same; Rights of heirs and creditors of deceased spouses
amply protected.—The mortgage by the wife, after the death of her husband,
of her rights, interest and participation in an undivided one-half share of the
conjugal property, is legal and valid, and should, therefore, be allowed to be
registered, registration being an essential requirement in order that the
mortgage may be validly constituted, (Article 2125, Civil Code). The
registration will in no way affect the rights of the deceased husband's
creditors, if any or of his heirs, for their interest is limited to the husband's
half of the estate not covered by the mortgage. As far as the debts, if any, of
the conjugal partnership are concerned, their payment is provided for by law
before the one-half share of the wife-mortgagor is finally determined, and
therefore would not be affected by the mortgage (Articles 182 and 185,
Civil Code).

APPEAL from a resolution and order of denial of the Land

Registration Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Juan A. Baes for petitioners.

MAKALINTAL, J.:

On August 10, 1958 the spouses Rosauro M. Taningco and

Simplicia Ramos took a mortgage, for a loan of P9,-000 extended by
them to Nieves Mediarito, on all the "rights, interests, and
participation" of the latter in six

382
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc3001b0c5c1c0598003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
8/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taningco vs. Register of Deeds of Laguna

parcels of land registered in the land records of Laguna as conjugal

properties of herself and her husband Salva-dor Roxas, then already
deceased. The properties were under judicial administration in the
corresponding intestate proceeding and had not yet been liquidated
and partitioned between the widow and the heirs. The deed of
mortgage was duly signed by the mortgagor and otherwise appears
to have been executed with the requisite formalities. When presented
to the Register of Deeds of Laguna, however, it was denied
registration on two grounds, of which only the first is now in issue,
namely, that "mortgagor Nieves Mediarito, the surviving spouse of
Salvador Roxas, alienated her one-half (1/2) conjugal share without
previous liquidation of the conjugal properties." The matter was
elevated en consulta by the mortgagees to the Land Registration
Commissioner, who sustained the action taken by the Register of
Deeds by resolution dated November 22, 1958. A motion for
reconsideration was subsequently denied, and petitioners have come
to this Court on appeal from both the resolution and the order of
denial. The Land Registration Commissioner does not question the
legality or validity of the mortgage, but excepts to its registrability
because the mortgagor "does not appear yet to be the registered
owner of the property being mortgaged." The suggestion is that there
must first be a settlement and distribution of the conjugal estate
because before then the interest of the wife therein is merely
inchoate. The premise of the reasoning is inaccurate. The interest of
the wife is registered, the titles to the lands being in the names of the
spouses. After the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, as by
death of the husband, this interest ceases to be inchoate and becomes
actual and vested with respect to an undivided one-half share of the
said properties. It is one thing to say that the widow's share, being
undivided, does not consist of determinate and segregated properties
and an entirely different thing to consider her interest as still
inchoate. The partnership having been dissolved, if the deceased
husband leaves heirs other than the wife, as in this case, the
properties come under the regime of co-ownership among them until
final liquidation and partition. In the language of Chief Justice

383

VOL. 5, JUNE 29, 1962 383

Taningco vs. Register of Deeds of Laguna

Arellano in Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, 17 Phil. 107, 110: "The

community property of the marriage, at the dissolution of this bond
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc3001b0c5c1c0598003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
8/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

by the death of one of the spouses, ceases to belong to the legal

partnership and becomes the property of a community, by operation
of law, between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased
spouse, or the exclusive property of the widower or the widow if he
or she be the heir of the deceased spouse." Article 484, Civil Code.
And as provided in Article 493 of the same Code, each co-owner
shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or
mortgageit, although the effect of the alienation or the mortgage,
with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the
co-ownership. The application of this article, which was taken from
article 399 of the old Civil Code, has been elucidated in the case of
Maria Lopez vs. Magdalena Gonsaga Vda. de Cuaycong, et al., 74
Phil. 601. Citing Manresa, Volume 3, pp. 486-487, 3rd ed., this
Court said:

'"Each co-owner owns the whole, and over it he exercises rights of

dominion, but at the same time he is the owner of a share which is really
abstract, because until the division is effected, such share is not concretely
determined. The rights of the co-owners are, therefore, as absolute as
dominion requires, because they may enjoy and dispose of the common
property, without any limitation other than that they should not, in the
exercise of their right, prejudice the general interest of the community, and
possess, in addition, the full ownership of their share, which they may
alienate, convey or mortgage; which share, we repeat, will not be certain
untilthe community ceases. The right of ownership, therefore, as defined in
Art. 348 of the present Civil Code, with its absolute features and its
individualized character, is exercised in co-ownership, with no other
differences between sole and common ownership than that which is rightly
established by the Portuguese Code (Arts. 2175 and 2176), when it says 'that
the sole owner exercises his rights exclusively, and the co-owner exercises
them jointly with the other co-owners'; but we shall add, to each coowner
pertains individually, over his undivided share, all the rights of the owner,
aside from the use and enjoyment of the thing, which is common to all the
co-owners.' (Italics supplied.)"

In the case at bar the mortgage sought to be registered

384

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Taningco vs. Register of Deeds of Laguna

by appellants does not refer to any specific portions of the six

parcels of land described in the mortgage instrument but to the
mortgagor-wife's rights, interest and participation therein—whatever
they may actually turn out to be upon liquidation and partition. If

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc3001b0c5c1c0598003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
8/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

such mortgage is legal and valid, as the law says it is, there can be
no justifiable reason why it should not be registered, registration
being an essential requirement in order that the mortgage may be
validly constituted. Article 2125, Civil Code. The registration will in
no way affect the rights of the deceased husband's creditors, if any,
or of his heirs, for their interest is limited to the husband's half of the
estate not covered by the mortgage. As far as the debts, if any, of the
conjugal partnership are concerned, their payment is provided for by
law before the one-half share of the wife-mortgagor is finally
determined, and therefore would not be affected by the mortgage.
Articles 182 and 185.
A roughly analogous case is Gotauco & Co. vs. Register of
Deeds of Tayabas, 59 Phil. 756, where a levy of execution was
sought to be inscribed in the registry against the share of a judgment
debtor in several tracts of land registered in the name of a deceased
of whom he was one of the heirs. The inscription was denied by the
register of deeds; the question was elevated en consulta to the Fourth
Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila and then appealed
therefrom to the Supreme Court. In ordering the acceptance of the
levy of execution for inscription in the Registry, this court said that
"although the value of the participation of the (judgment debtor) in
the state of the (decedent) was indeterminable before the final
liquidation of the estate, nevertheless, the right of participation in the
estate and the lands thereof may be attached and sold, the real test
being, as laid down in Reyes vs. Grey, 21 Phil. 73, 76, whether or
not the judgment debtor holds such a beneficial interest in the
property that he can sell or otherwise dispose of for value."
WHEREFORE, the resolution and the order appealed from are
set aside and respondent-appellee Register of Deeds of Laguna is
ordered to register the document in question upon compliance with
the legal requisites concern-

385

VOL. 5, JUNE 29, 1962 385

People vs. Sawah

ing the payment of taxes and registration fees. No pronouncement as

to costs.

          Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,

Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
     Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.

Resolution and order set aside.

Note.—Regarding the right of the surviving spouse to dispose of

her share in the conjugal partnership after the death of the other

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc3001b0c5c1c0598003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
8/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

spouse, see Mercado vs. Liwanag, L-14429, June 30, 1962, post;
Lopez vs. Illustre, 5 Phil. 567; Ramirez vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528;
Cea vs. Heirs of Gregorio Natividad, 84 Phil. 798, citing Beltran vs.
Doriano, 32 Phil. 66.

____________

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc3001b0c5c1c0598003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5