Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
According to plaintiffs, from and after the destruction of the buildings 3. Under the Civil Code every possessor is entitled to be respected in his
they were in actual and quiet possession of the lot until June 1, 1946, possession: and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected, or
when defendant Leocadio Tanseco, thru force, intimidation and strategy, possession shall be restored to him, by the means established by the laws
and without their consent, occupied the property and constructed of procedure. And a possessor, however he may have acquired his
thereon a house, all to their damage and prejudice. possession, cannot be deprived thereof without legal proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint and prayed that they be declared owners of
the lot, that the mortgage documents and assignments be annulled, and
that Leocadio Tanseco be ordered to vacate and pay damages and costs.
Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was too late Case #3
for plaintiff to question the validity of the mortgage and the assignments PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. vs.
because more than ten years had elapsed and as the said mortgage had ROSARIO MORGA, ETC., and MAMERTO MORGA, ET AL.,
not been paid, the plaintiffs have no right to recover their realty. intervenors- appellees.
The court sustained the defendants' position. 1960 | MONTEMAYOR, J | Briefed: Liwag, A.
Hence this appeal.
FACTS:
ISSUES: -Spouses Perfecto and Carmen Adrid, then owners of a lot situated in
1. WoN plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the validity of the Cavite, executed a document entitled "Sale with Right to Repurchase",
mortgage and the assignments. purporting to sell the lot to Eugenio Morga for the sum of P2,000 with the
2. WoN the contract is antichresis. right to repurchase the same within 2 years for the same sum of P2,000, plus
3. WoN the plaintiffs as antichretic debtor who is ejected thru force or 12% interest per annum.
strategy by the antichretic creditor have a right of action? -The vendors (Spouses Adrid) never repurchased the lot.
-Later, Perfecto Adrid and his son (Carmen Adrid then being already dead),
brought the present action against the administratix of the deceased
Eugenio Morga to recover the lot, offering to pay P2,000 and asking
RULING: for accounting all the produce of the lot, this on the theory that the
1. Yes, due to prescription (10 years had passed), plaintiffs are precluded said contract, converted into one antichresis (considering that
from seeking avoidance of the mortgage and its assignments on the Morga took possession of the same and benefited himself of the
ground of fraud or lack of consideration. yearly harvest of palay).
-CFI of Cavite: rendered its judgment against the spouses, with
2. The contract although entitled "Escritura de Hipoteca" (Mortgage Deed) costs (in favor of spouses Eugenio Morga and wife Genoveva
was a contract of antichresis. Vasquez). It held that the contract entered into by the parties, is a
contract of sale with a right to repurchase. The spouses having
In a contract of antichresis the creditor is obliged to pay the taxes on the failed to repurchase the land within the stipulated period, the title
property, unless the contract says otherwise. The contract between of the deceased vendee a retro, Morga and Vasquez, became
Eustaquio Congzon and Tan Sun said nothing about taxes. Hence it was consolidated by operation of law.
the obligation of the creditor or creditors to pay taxes on the property at
issue herein. ISSUE: WoN the agreement had been converted into an antichresis?
Therefore, if the credit was only P26,000 and the debtor has paid for HELD: No.
taxes on the property in the amount of P39,480.75, it is plain to see that
the plaintiffs had already settled their debt by advancing the taxes which The SC concluded that the intention of the parties was merely for the
the creditor should have paid, and they are entitled to the return of their Sps. Adrid to borrow the sum of P2,000 from Eugenio Morga, the lot being
property free from all encumbrance. given as security. In other words, it is a clear case of EQUITABLE
MORTGAGE. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the agreement
made for the payment of 12% interest per annum. This interest
must refer to the use of P2,000 by the alleged vendors until the
2
same shall have been paid to Eugenio Morga. The parties to the in lieu of the payment of interest.
contract must have contemplated the lot remaining in the possession of the
vendors inasmuch as it was considered a mere security. This did not
convert the contract from a sale with pacto de retro to that of Case #4: ANICETO BANGIS et. Al vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND
antichresis. SALUD ADOLFO
[G.R. No. 190875. June 13, 2012]
Some of the reasons behind the conclusion that the present case is one of
equitable mortgage, are the ff.: FACTS:
-Despite the expiration of the 2- year period for the alleged The spouses Serafin, Sr. and Saludada Adolfo were the original
repurchase, which should have been done in 1940, neither Morga nor his registered owners of a 126,622 square meter lot located in Valencia,
heirs have consolidated their title to the land. The certificate of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, which was mortgaged to the then
title remained in the name of the alleged vendors (AdridS). Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now Development Bank of the
-tax declaration for the lot also remained in the name of said Philippines or DBP) in 1955.
vendors (AdridS), and all these years, Eugenio Morga during his Upon default in the payment of the loan obligation, the said property
lifetime, and his heirs after his death, continued to pay the real was foreclosed and ownership was consolidated in DBP's name.
estate tax in the name of the vendors. Serafin Adolfo, Sr., however, repurchased the same in 1971, a year
-It is also a fact that the price of P2,000 would be rather inadequate after his wife died in 1970.
for the supposed sale of the lot which has an area of about 3 1/2 hectares In 1975, Serafin Adolfo, Sr. (Adolfo) allegedly mortgaged the subject
and has a yearly production of 30 cavans of palay valued P10 a cavan, that is property for the sum of P12,500.00 to Aniceto Bangis (Bangis) who
to say, P300 a year. A parcel of land with an annual production of P300 immediately took possession of the land.
would or should command more than P2,000.00 for its sale. The said transaction WAS NOT REDUCED IN WRITING.
-Besides, the contract provided for the payment of interest which is
When Adolfo died, his heirs i.e. his children, executed a Deed of
characteristic of a loan or equitable mortgage.
Extrajudicial Partition in 1997 covering the subject property.
In 1998, the said property was subdivided and separate titles were
issued in names of the Heirs of Adolfo.
***There is NOTHING in the document, Sale with a Right to
Repurchase nor in the acts of the parties subsequent to its Later on, the Heirs of Adolfo expressed their INTENTION TO
execution to show that the parties had entered into a contract of REDEEM THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY from Bangis but the
antichresis. Bangis refused.
In a case decided by the SC (Alojado vs. Lim Siongco,) the SC said that: He claimed that the transaction between him and Adolfo was one of
ANTICHRESIS; CHARACTERISTICS; DISTINGUISHED FROM SALE SALE.
WITH RIGHT OF REPURCHASE. What characterizes a contract of In 2000, the Heirs of Adolfo filed a complaint before the RTC for
antichresis is that the creditor acquires the right to receive the annulment of deed of sale and declaration of the purported contract
fruits of the property of his debtor with the obligation to apply of sale as ANTICHRESIS, accounting and redemption of property
them to the payment of interest, if any is due, and then to the and damages against Bangis.
principal of his credit, and when such a covenant is not made in the Bangis claimed to have bought the subject property from Adolfo. He
contract, which speaks unequivocally of a sale with right of also alleged to have been in open and adverse possession of the
repurchase, the contract is a sale with the right to repurchase and property since 1972 and that the cause of action of the Heirs of
not an antichresis. Adolfo has prescribed.
In 2001, Bangis died and was substituted in this suit by his heirs.
During the trial, one of the Heirs of Bangis, Rodolfo Bangis,
=> In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby reversed. The presented a photocopy of an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute
defendants (The MorgaS) are hereby ordered to give up the Deed of Sale dated December 30, 1971 for the purpose of proving the
possession of the lot in question to the appellants (AdridS) upon sale of the subject lot by Adolfo and his heirs in favor of his
the payment of P2,000. No interest will be paid inasmuch as predecessors-in-interest, Aniceto Bangis and Segundino Cortel, for
Eugenio Morga and his heir have received the products of the land the sum of 13,000.00.
3
He also presented a Promissory Note of even date purportedly
executed by Bangis and Segundino Cortel undertaking to pay the
balance of the purchase price in the amount of 1,050.00.
Both documents were notarized by Atty. Valentin Murillo who
testified to the fact of their execution. Rodolfo Bangis likewise
testified that they have been paying the taxes due on the property
and had even used the same as collateral for a loan with a bank.
On rebuttal, one of the Heirs of Adolfo, Luz Adolfo Bannister, denied
the due execution and genuineness of the foregoing Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale alleging forgery.
The RTC ruled in favour of the Heirs of Adolfo, stating that the
contract is a mere mortgage or antichresis. The Court also ordered
Bangis to deliver the possession of the property in question and all
the improvements to the Heirs of Adolfo.
The Heirs Of Bangis appealed to the CA, but the Court affirmed
RTCs decision, stating that the contract is a mortgage, not a sale.
RULING: