AUTHORSHIP INFORMATION

Digest Author Grace Ann Tamboon

Topic Mortgage Validity of the Mortgage
CASE INFORMATION
Petitioner(s) Norberto L. Dilag
Respondent(s) The Legal Heirs Of Fortunato Resurreccion Et Al.
Reference G.R. No. 48941 May 6, 1946
Ponente Justice Ozaeta
DOCTRINE(S)
Future property cannot be pledged or mortgaged.

Since they (the future properties) were subsequently acquired, he could not have mortgaged
these future properties at that time, as he did not own them.
CASE SUMMARY
Laureano Marquez owed Fotunato Resurreccion P5,000 for a parcel of land,
and Resurreccion owed Luzon Surety Company (LSC) the same amount
secured by a mortgage on three parcels of land, including the one sold to
Marquez. Marquez agreed to pay Resurreccion's debt to LSC and indemnify
Pertinent him in case of foreclosure. Marquez also signed a document that allowed
Facts Resurreccion to claim the value of any property he owned, and any future
acquisitions, to cover his debts. Marquez failed to pay Resurreccion's debt to
LSC, and the mortgaged properties were sold at auction, causing
Resurreccion to sue Marquez for the value of the lost properties. Marquez
claimed that Resurreccion could not foreclose on the lost properties because
they did not belong to him.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

RTC
The judgment of the CA is assailed in so far as it authorizes the sale at public
CA auction of five parcels of land mentioned in plaintiff's complaint but not
specifically described in the mortgage deed. Those five parcels are said to
have been acquired by Marquez subsequent to the execution of the
document.

Whether such a stipulation constitute a valid mortgage on the 5 other parcels

Relevant of land which LM subsequently acquired – NO.
Issue(s)
Analysis
The case involves Marquez's failure to pay his indebtedness to
Resurreccion, resulting in the loss of mortgaged properties that were sold at
public auction. The court analyzed the validity of the mortgage and found that
Marquez could not have legally mortgaged any of the properties, including
the five parcels of land, as he did not own them at the time. As the additional
parcels of land were not specifically described, they were not affected by the
mortgage. The court ruled in favor of Resurreccion, awarding him the value
of the lost properties, but not the subsequent rent or income of that land.

 Fifth assignment of error is sustained.

 In the first place, Marquez could not legally mortgage any property he
did not yet own.
Ruling(s) &
Rationale Marquez, in the 5th clause, constituted a mortgage in favor of Resurreccion
and his assignees on any other property he then might have and on those he
might acquire in the future if the five parcels of land described in the 4th
clause were insufficient to cover all his obligations to Resurreccion. However,
this stipulation did not constitute a valid mortgage on the five other parcels of
land he subsequently acquired as he did not own them at that time. Also, the
registration of the document did not affect these additional parcels of land as
they were not specifically described therein. The CA awarded the plaintiff the
value of the land he lost, plus legal interest thereon from the date of filing the
complaint, and the sum of P1,246 as rent or income of said land, which the
plaintiff failed to receive. However, the plaintiff is not entitled to the
subsequent rent or income of that land and is entitled only to the interest on
the amount of the indemnity from the time he sues therefor to the time it is
paid.