
    Martínez v. the Registrar of Property.
    Appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Property of Mayagüez.
    No. 4
    Decided March 25, 1904.
    .Mortgage — Partial Payment and Extension of the Time For Payment of Balance. — An instrument by which a mortgage debt is canceled in part, and new terms are allowed the debtor for the payment of the balance, the original mortgage remaining in full force and effect, constitutes a perfectly valid and effective obligation, and is, therefore, recordable in the Registry of Property.
    Id. — Subsequent Creditors. — The partial cancellation of a first mortgage, and' the granting of an extension of time for the payment of the balance, the-original mortgage continuing in force, is a contract which, instead of injuring operates to the benefit of subsequent creditors, who preserve their-full rights without prejudice to the preferred right of the first mortgage-creditor to collect the balance of his credit at maturity.
    Id. — Cancellation.—Where a mortgage does not appear to have been canceled' in the Registry of Property, it should be considered in force for all legal! purposes.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    A Rearing was -Rad of tRe present administrative appeal taken by Attorney Pascasio Fajardo y Cardona, on beRalf of Eogelio Martinez, from a decision of tRe registrar of property of Mayagiiez refusing to record an instrument granting an extension of time for tRe satisfaction of a'mortgage debt.
    By an instrument executed in tRe city of Mayagiiez before Notary Santiago E. Palmer, of said city, February 16, 1888, Pedro Acevedo y Eodriguez, mortgage creditor of Teodoro Forestier, for tRe sum of five tRousand five Rundred pesos, current money of commerce at tRe* date of tRe” contract, declared Raving received from the latter on account of Ris claim, tRe sum of one tRousand tRree Rundred pesos, allowing Rim for tRe balance of four tRousand two Rundred pesos, a furtRer extension of four years, one tRousand two Rundred pesos of said balance to be paid on MarcR 1, 1899,' and at tRe rate of one' tRousand pesos on tRe same day, respectively, of tRe years 1890, 1891 and 1892, tRe mortgage executed in favor of aforesaid creditor to remain in full force and effect, according to tRe original mortgage deed. Said instrument of extension Raving been presented at tRe Eegistry of Property of Mayagiiez for admission to record, tRe same was refused by the registrar for the reasons set forth in a note placed at the bottom thereof, and which reads as follows:
    
      “The record of the foregoing instrument is not admitted because of the incurable defect of containing therein a partial novation of the original contract which prejudices the rights of a third party, and instead thereof a cautionary notice has been made to have effect during one hundred and twenty days, at folio 151, reverse side, of volume 10 of Las Marias, estate No. 113, triplicate, notice letter A; with the curable defects, moreover, of failing to describe the boundaries of the estate, and whether the copy giving rise to the present notice is a first copy or a subsequent one. Mayagiiez, February 5, 1904. Juan Irizarri, Registrar. Fees, seven dollars and twenty-five cents. 1 and 7. A. 1. There is an internal revenue stamp of the value of fifty cents.”
    From this decision the present administrative appeal was in due time taken by Attorney Pascasio Fajardo, on behalf of Eogelio Martinez, as part owner of the mortgage credit in question, praying that said decision be set aside and the registrar ordered to record aforesaid instrument. The registrar of property of Mayagiiez also entered an appearance in writing in this Supreme Court, and alleged such reasons as by him were deemed pertinent in support of his decision.
    
      Mr. Fajardo, for appellant.
   Mr. Chief Justice QuiñoNes,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The instrument in question, whereby a mortgage deed is partially extinguished, and new terms are allowed the debtor for the payment of the balance, the original mortgage remaining in full force and effect, constitutes a perfectly valid and effective obligation and is, therefore, recordable in the Registry of Property, without any prejudice resulting thereby to subsequent mortgagees, they, on the contrary, being benefited, inasmuch as the credit of the first mortgagee having been extinguished in part, and the partial cancellation of said credit entered in the Registry'of Property, to that extent the liability of the mortgaged estate is reduced to the advantage of subsequent mortgagees, who, on the other hand, preserve all their rights ■without prejudice, as is natural, to the preference due the first mortgage creditor with respect to the balance of the credit for the purpose of collecting the' same at maturity by reason of the priority of his mortgage, since not being canceled in the Registry of Property, the latter should be considered in force for all legal purposes, as to which particular none of the third parties interested can allege ignorance.

Therefore, the incurable defect precluding the record of the deed, as stated in his note, with manifest errors, by the registrar of property of Mayagfiez, does not exist.

In view of articles 65 and 77 of the Mortgage Law, and article 110 of the Regulations, and section 6 of the act of the Legislative Assembly of this Island providing for appeals from the decisions of registrars of property, the decision placed by the registrar of property of Mayagfiez at the foot of the instrument to which the present appeal refers is set aside, said deed being adjudged recordable, although with the curable defects mentioned in said decision by the registrar of property of Mayagfiez, and to which no exception has been taken on the present appeal. The registrar of property of Mayagfiez is adjudged to pay the expenses incurred by the appellant, up to the sum of twenty dollars, and to record the aforesaid deed without charge. The documents presented are ordered to be returned with a copy of. this decision, for his information and other proper legal purposes.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLearv concurred.  