SPS. OSMUNDO and ANGELINA CANLAS v. CA, ASIAN SAVINGS BANK,
MAXIMO CONTRERAS and VICENTE MAOSCA/ 2000 / Purisima / Petition for
review on certiorari of a CA decision
FACTS: August, 1982:Osmundo S. Canlasexecuted a Special Power of
Attorney authorizingVicente Maoscato mortgage 2 parcels of land
situated inBF Homes Paranaquein the name of his wife Angelina
Canlas. Subsequently, Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell the lands
toMaoscafor P850K, P500K payable within 1 week, and the balance
serves as his investment in the business. Maosca issued 2
checksP40K and P460K. The P460K lacked sufficient funds. September
3, 1982: Maoscamortgage toAtty. Manuel Magno the parcels of lands
for P100Kwith the help of impostors who misrepresented themselves
as the Spouses Canlas. September 29, 1982:Maosca was granteda loan
by the respondent Asian Savings Bank (ASB) forP500Kwith theparcels
of land as security and with the help of the same impostors. The
loan was left unpaid resulting in aextrajudicially foreclosure on
the lots. January 15, 1983:Canlas wrotea letterinforming ASB that
the mortgage was without their authority. He also requested the
sheriffContrerasto hold or cancel the auction. Both parties
refused. The spouses Canlas fileda casefor annulment of deed of
real estate mortgage with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction RTC: restrained the sheriff from issuing
aCertificate of Sheriffs Sale and annulled the mortgage CA:
reversed holding Canlas estopped for coming to the bank withMaosca
and letting himself be introduced asLeonardo Rey
ISSUE: W/N the ASB had was negligent due to the doctrine of last
clear chance
HELD: YES.Petition is GRANTED Article 1173. The fault or
negligence of the obligor consist in the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply The degree of diligence
required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family
not even a single identification card was exhibited by the said
impostors to show their true identity acted simply on the basis of
the residence certificates bearing signatures which tended to match
the signatures affixed on a previous deed of mortgage to Atty.
Magno. previous deed of mortgagedid not bear the taxaccountnumberof
the spousesas well as the Community Tax Certificate of Angelina
Canlas doctrine of last clear chance where both parties are
negligent but the negligentactof one is appreciably later in point
of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of
the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid
the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom the antecedent negligence of a
person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the
supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance
to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence
Antecedent Negligence: Osmundo Canlas was negligent in giving
Vicente Maosca the opportunity to perpetrate the fraud, by
entrusting him the owner's copy of the transfer certificates of
title of subject parcels of land Supervening Negligence: Failing to
perform the simple expedient of faithfully complying with
therequirements forbanks to ascertain the identity of the persons
transacting with them - ASB bears the loss Canlas went toASB
withMaosca and he was introduced asLeonardo Rey. He didn't
correctMaosca. However, he did not know that the lots were being
used as a security for he was there to make sure thatMaosca pays
his debt so he cannot be estopped fromassailing the validity of the
mortgage But being negligent in believing the misrepresentation
byMaoscathat he had other lots and that the lot were not to be used
as a security, Canlas was negligent and undeserving of Attorney's
fees. the contract of mortgage sued upon was entered into and
signed by impostors who misrepresented themselves as the spouses
Osmundo Canlas and Angelina Canlas = complete
nullity========================================
LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE APPLICABLE; ASB MUST SUFFER RESULTING
LOSS LONG DEFINITION.Whereboth parties are negligent, but
thenegligent act of one is appreciably laterin point of time than
that of the other, or where it isimpossible to determine whose
fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
the one who had thelast clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequence
arising therefrom SHORT DEFINITION.Theantecedent negligenceof a
persondoes not preclude recovery of damagescaused by thesupervening
negligenceof the latter, who had thelast fair chance to prevent the
impending harmby the exercise ofdue diligence. Assuming Canlas was
negligent, what was his fault?He gave Maosca the opportunity to
perpetrate the fraud by entrusting to the latter TCTs of the
parcels of land (even though Maosca did not pay yet!).HOWEVER, ASB
had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud, by faithfully
complying with the bank requirement of ascertaining the identity of
persons transacting with them. Canlas negligence made him
undeserving of an award of attorneys fees.
PROPERTY LESSON: A CONTRACT OF MORTGAGE MUST BE CONSTITUTED ONLY
BY THE PROPERTYS ABSOLUTE OWNER, SO A MORTGAGE CONSTITUTED BY AN
IMPOSTOR IS VOID
