Short answer. Possibly, yes. Article 2092 says a promise to constitute a mortgage gives rise only to a personal action between the parties - but without prejudice to the criminal responsibility of one who defrauds another by misrepresenting himself to be the owner. So a mortgagor who knew he did not own the land may face criminal liability for the fraud.
What the law says
A promise to constitute a pledge or mortgage gives rise only to a personal action between the contracting parties
Civil Code, Article 2092 — Promise to Pledge/Mortgage. Read the full provision →
What the law says
without prejudice to the criminal responsibility incurred by him who defrauds another, by offering in pledge or mortgage as unencumbered, things which he knew were subject to some burden, or by misrepresenting himself to be the owner of the same
Civil Code, Article 2092 — Promise to Pledge/Mortgage. Read the full provision →
The civil side: only a personal action
Article 2092 first addresses what a mere promise to give security produces. It provides that a promise to constitute a pledge or mortgage gives rise only to a personal action between the contracting parties. A bare promise to mortgage does not, by itself, create the mortgage or a real right over the land; it binds the promisor personally to make good on his word. So on the civil side, your remedy on the promise runs against the person, not against the land as if a mortgage already existed. But the article does not stop at the civil consequences — it carries an important reservation about criminal liability.
The criminal reservation
After stating the civil rule, the article adds that it operates without prejudice to the criminal responsibility incurred by him who defrauds another, by offering in pledge or mortgage as unencumbered, things which he knew were subject to some burden, or by misrepresenting himself to be the owner of the same. This is the heart of your question. The Code expressly preserves criminal responsibility for two kinds of deceit: offering as free of encumbrance a thing the offeror knew was burdened, and pretending to be the owner of the thing. Someone who mortgages land he knew he did not own falls within the second.
What the fraud requires
The reservation targets deceit, not honest error. It speaks of one who defrauds another — so the wrong lies in a knowing misrepresentation that causes damage. For the ownership branch, the person must have misrepresented himself to be the owner; for the encumbrance branch, he must have known the thing was subject to a burden and still offered it as unencumbered. A genuine, good-faith belief in ownership is a different matter from a deliberate lie designed to induce you to part with money or accept worthless security. The provision recognises that a false claim of ownership used to obtain a mortgage can cross from a broken promise into criminal fraud.
What this article does and does not settle
Article 2092 does not itself define the crime or fix its penalty; it simply makes clear that the civil rule on promises to mortgage leaves any criminal responsibility for fraud untouched. Whether a prosecution succeeds depends on proving the deceit and its elements under the criminal law, which is a separate matter from your civil claim. Nor does the article validate the mortgage — a mortgage from a non-owner does not bind land that was never his. What it gives you is the assurance that pursuing the personal civil action on the promise does not bar holding a fraudster criminally accountable for misrepresenting his ownership.