G.R. No.

L - 31816             February 15, 1930

RECAREDO F. PANDO, plaintiff - appellee,

v
ANTONIO GIMENEZ, et., al., defendants
ANTONIO GIMENEZ, appellant

Facts:

Appellant Antonio Gimenez was indebted to plaintiff – appellee Recaredo Pando and
to secure the payment, the former duly made, executed and delivered a real estate
mortgage in favor of the latter. Mr. Gimenez alleges that he gave Mr. Pando the full
control, and complete and absolute administration of the building and a parcel of
land on which the building was erected under the condition that Mr. Pando would
attend to the administration, care, maintenance and preservation of the same and
the property leased from the Hacienda Tuason the payment of the premium on the
insurance of the building, the payment of the taxes, the payment to the lessor
Hacienda Tuason of the rents of the leased property, and to collect the rents from
the tenants of the said building. He also alleges that Mr. Pando failed and neglected
to pay to the government taxes due for several years on the said building. He has
also failed and neglected to pay to the lessor Hacienda Tuason the rents due for
several years on the land leased and by reasons stated, the building was sold at
public auction. Since that time, the building was lost to Mr. Gimenez and contract of
lease with the lessor was cancelled and at the same time, lessor brought a suit
against Mr. Gimenez for desahucio.

The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in favor of Mr. Pando
ordering Mr. Gimenez to pay Mr. Pando his debt due. Mr. Gimenez appealed from
the decision and asked for the new trial.

Mr. Pando then, instituted this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not plaintiff – appellee is an antichresis creditor, thus liable to any

damages caused to his antichresis debtor.

Ruling:

Yes. Mr. Pando is an antichresis creditor.

An antichresis creditor is defined as similar to that mortgagee in possession in terms

of rights and obligations, and is one who has lawfully acquired actual or constructive
possession of the premises mortgage to him, standing upon his rights as creditor
and not claiming under another title, for the purpose of enforcing his security upon
such property or making its income help to pay debt of an antichresis debtor.
Therefore, he is entitled to retain possession of the property until the indebtedness is
satisfied and the property redeemed.
Plaintiff took over complete administration of the property months before reduction of
rent and such was not foreseen. Thus, antichresis in character. The Civil Code,
provides for the obligations of an antichresis creditor as follows: 1) The creditor is
obliged to pay the taxes and charges which burden the estate, in the absence of an
agreement to the contrary; 2) He shall also be obliged to pay any expenses
necessary for its preservation and repair; 3) Any sums he may expend for such
purposes shall be chargeable against the fruits. These obligations arise with Mr.
Pando’s acquired right to take charge of the property and collect the fruits for himself
and said right which the creditor acquires by virtue of antichresis to enjoy the fruits of
the property delivered to him, carries two obligations which are necessary
consequence of the contract, because they arise from its very nature.

Further, the testimony of the appellant regarding the turn – over of the administration
of the property to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would keep the property in good
condition of repair, pay the insurance and other expenses inherent in the
preservation of the building, such as land taxes, and payment of rents, was not
contradicted by the latter. Thus, with the preponderance of evidence, plaintiff
assumed the obligation to pay both the tax on the house and the rent of the lot.
Therefore, the plaintiff being an antichresis creditor and having failed in his obligation
to pay the tax on the house and the rent of the lot, he is by law required to pay
indemnity for damages.
G.R. No. L - 11933             December 1, 1917

ALBERTO BARRETTO, plaintiff - appellee,

v
LEONARDO BARRETTO, et., al., defendants – appellants
ANGELICA MARIA BARRETTO et., al., interveners – appellants

Facts:

Plaintiff Alberto Barretto (Alberto) filed a complaint alleging that he is the owner of
the whole hacienda Balintagac as he was in possession of the same quietly,
peacefully, and continuously, as were his predecessor. That defendant, a certain
Leonardo Barretto (Leonardo) alleged himself to be the owner of a certain part of
said hacienda illegally and unduly usurped a portion of land of the said hacienda
which Alberto holds at present. Since that time Leonardo receive two – thirds of the
fruits which the usurped portion annually produced and refused to return the portion
of the land usurped together with the fruits received, or their value, in spite of the fact
that he has been required to do so in writing by Alberto.

Upon the permission of the court, counsel for interveners filed a complaint of
intervention in the case alleging that their father was the true owner of the hacienda
in controversy. Being the children of the owner, they alleged that they succeeded
him all rights and actions with the right of possession of the hacienda. They deny
that Alberto is the owner of any part of the hacienda and the lot mentioned in the
complaint, however stated that Leonardo is their representative and coheirs and
being one of the coheirs, he is not the only owner of the same, except that portion
which belongs to him, but without any right to withhold the possession of the
hacienda as against the interveners.

Plaintiff admitted the allegation of the intervener except in so far as Leonardo is

concern, Alberto alleged that by a notarial document executed, one of the
successors declared himself to be the absolute owner of all the hacienda and
borrowed money from certain Antonio Vicente Barretto. As a guaranty for the said
loan, the cultivated half of the hacienda was mortgage. Creditor Antonio Vicente
Barretto brought an action to foreclose the mortgage in order to recover the money
loaned when the debtor failed to pay his debt. Half of the mortgage hacienda was
levied upon and a judgment to sell the property was rendered, but said half could not
be sold. The creditor then, prayed for the adjudication of all the property attached to
the payment of his credit which Leonardo voluntarily agreed and consented. The
heirs administered and acknowledge the creditor as the new owner of all of the
hacienda and delivering to him all its products. After sometime, the creditor leased
the whole hacienda to Luis Bonifacio Barretto with knowledge and without objection
from the heirs.

That on the death of Antonio Vicente his children succeeded him and by means of a
notarial document sold the same to plaintiff Alberto Barretto two – thirds part which
belonged to them as heirs of the creditor Antonio Vicente.
Plaintiff asked the court to dismiss the complaint of intervention, declaring him the
owner of all the hacienda which was granted. The defendants and the interveners
asked for the new trial however, denied.

Issue:

Whether or not an antichresis creditor acquires title to the property by the failure of
payment of the debt by the debtor thus, can file for the restitution and delivery of the
thing or real property of the possession when the property in his possession was
illegally usurped.

Ruling:

Antonio Vicente Barretto as creditor, not being able to collect his credit nor obtain
adjudication in his favor the hacienda which was mortgage for the security of debt,
took possession of all the hacienda and received through his administrators the
products of the same for the purpose of collecting his credits and interests. He held
the hacienda in usufruct with the knowledge and express consent of the legitimate
owners.

The agreement which lead to the facts proved deserves in law the name of
antichresis, which a creditor acquires a right to receive the fruits of real property of
his debtor, with the obligation to apply them to the payment of the interests, if due,
and afterwards to the principal of his credit.

It appears duly proved that defendant, by himself, and for himself and without the
consent of the present possessor, the plaintiff, took over and usurped a portion of
land of the hacienda and a lot included in it, withholding and refusing to deliver them
to the creditor in antichresis while it does not appear in any way that the debt, for the
payment of which the whole hacienda was delivered in antichresis, has been paid. It
is doubtless that the defendant, when he effected the usurpation, acted without just
reason and in contravention of Art. 1883 of the Civil Code which states that the
debtor cannot recover the use of the real property given in antichresis to the creditor,
without previously fully paying the creditor, who in case of insolvency may ask for the
sale of the real property which he possess, unless the pending debt be paid. The
action to recover a thing, where a legitimate possessor has been deprived of his
possession, takes place in accordance with the law, even against the owner himself,
who wrested the possession, since the despoiler can never be protected by the law
even on his right of ownership, without first restoring what he acquired through his
authority by an illegal act of dispossession.

Though the plaintiff has no title of ownership over the hacienda, his claim is in
conformity with law. Him being in legitimate possession and use of all the hacienda
might collect the capital and interests they owed and still owe him. The debtors, can
under no circumstances, while the debt exists and is not fully paid, recover or
reacquire the possession and use of the real property delivered to the creditor,
without the latter giving his consent.

Defendants cannot deny the existence and certainty of the debt guaranteed by the
mortgage of one – half of the hacienda in favor of the creditor. They cannot allege or
prove that the debt has been entirely paid, so that they may reacquire and recover
the possession and use of the hacienda which was delivered to the original creditor,
the predecessor of the plaintiff.

Holding Alberto, the plaintiff, the legitimate possessor of the hacienda, the defendant
Leonardo is ordered to vacate and release immediately – otherwise subject to an
order of ejectment – the portion of land and lot included within the boundary of the
hacienda.
G.R. No. 24824            January 30, 1926

VICENTE DIAZ and TEODORA RUBILLOS, plaintiffs - appellee,

v
SECUNDINO DE MENDEZONA, et., al., defendants
SECUNDINO DE MENDEZONA, defendant – appellant

Facts:

Plaintiff Diaz commenced an action for the collection of a mortgage credit as

defendant Mendezona was adjudged in default and the court rendered judgement
ordering the sale of the mortgaged properties. However, before the expiration of the
period the law grants to the debtor within which to pay the amount of the
indebtedness, a writ of execution was issued, selling the mortgage properties and
giving possession thereof to the plaintiff.

Upon the motion of the defendant, the lower court annulled all the proceedings under
the writ of execution, including the sale of the mortgage property. Thus, plaintiff
appealed the order which was affirmed. The case was remanded to the court of
origin, proceeding again for the sale of the mortgage property and the same was
again sold to the mortgage creditor.

The court annulled said proceeding and the second sale to the mortgage creditor
committed in the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed and was affirmed. The case again
was remanded for the second time in the court of origin where defendant revive his
motions petitioned the court that the plaintiffs be ordered to render an account when
they took possession of the mortgage premises. The court denied the motion and for
the third time, the mortgage property was ordered sold, the sale having been held
and made to the plaintiffs who were in possession of the premises.

The court approved and affirmed the sale and adjudication of the said property to the
plaintiffs, over the objection of the defendants.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not an antichresis creditor who becomes a purchaser at a foreclosure

sale, which was later annulled, is liable to render an account of the products of the
property.

Ruling:

The term antichresis creditor is similar to that mortgagee in possession in terms of

rights and obligations, and is one who has lawfully acquired actual or constructive
possession of the premises mortgage to him, standing upon his rights as creditor
and not claiming under another title, for the purpose of enforcing his security upon
such property or making its income help to pay debt of an antichresis debtor.

A purchaser at invalid foreclosure sale gains possession of the property, he became

a mortgagee in possession, therefore obliged to apply the fruits of the property to the
payment, first, of the interest upon the debt, if there is any, and then to the payment
of the principal.

Hence, the duty of the antichresis creditor to render an account of said fruits to the
debtor, as the auction sale was annulled making the purchase defective, even
voidable for irregularity, and the corresponding right of the debtor that the said fruits
be applied to the mortgage debt is proper and just.
G.R. No. 18574            September 20, 1922

JOSE C MACAPINLAC, plaintiff - appellee,

v
FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE, et., al., defendants
FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE, defendant – appellee
J.F. BOOMER, defendant – appellant

Facts:

This case was instituted for the purpose of securing a decree declaratory of the
rights of the plaintiff as owner of a valuable estate, the Hacienda Dolores, to nullify a
transfer of the Torrens certificate now appearing in the name of the defendant with
certain remedial measure incident to said relief and to recover said estate from the
possession of said defendant, with damages, and to secure general relief.

The plaintiff however, was indebted to a company and uses as a security or guaranty
for the payment, with privilege of repurchase, the property covered by the Torrens
Certificate including the hacienda subject to the encumbrances noted thereon. The
company, after sometime was acquired by defendant Repide resulting for all the
rights in the property conveyed to him. Defendant Repide was well aware that the
transfer made by the plaintiff was for the purpose of securing a debt owing to the
company. He was also aware that part of the said debt had been paid and that the
balance was less than one – half. Thereafter, defendant addressed himself of
procuring the certificate of title to be transferred to his own name. since that time,
defendant was in actual possession of the property and had been enjoying the fruits
of the same.

On the other hand, defendant J.F Boomer interposed an answer and a cross –
complaint against plaintiff and codefendant where, plaintiff answered in general
denial.

The demurrer interposed to the complaint was sustained, while the complaint itself
was dismissed with cost against the plaintiff which, from this, the plaintiff appealed

Issue:

Whether or not defendant Repide an antichresis creditor having all the rights to
retain possession of the mortgage property.

Ruling:

Yes. Defendant Rapide is an antichresis creditor therefore, being dead, his

successors have the right to retain the property provided that, plaintiff does not pay
in full what he owes to his creditors.
In the chapter dealing with antichresis, non – payment of the debt does not vest the
ownership of the property in the creditor, nevertheless the debtor cannot recover the
enjoyment of the property without first paying in full what he owes to his creditor. The
creditor, at the same time, is under obligation to apply the fruits derived from the
estate in satisfaction, first, of the interest on the debt, if any, and secondly, to the
payment of the principal. The creditor then, is entitled to retain such possession as in
the case of the Repide Estate, until the indebtedness of the plaintiff Macapinlac is
satisfied and the property redeemed.

G.R. No. L - 45963            October 12, 1939

CARLOS PARDO DE TAVERA and CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA MANZANO,
plaintiffs - appellants,
v
EL HOGAR FILIPINO INC., defendants – appellee.
TAVERA – LUNA, INC., defendant – appellant;
VICENTE MADRIGAL, defendant – appellee.

Facts:

Defendant corporation for the purpose of constructing a building executed a first

mortgage to secure a loan and an additional loan with the same security executed
from El Hogar Filipino where one of the stockholders is Jose V. Ramirez. Thereafter,
the corporation was defaulted in the payment of the monthly amortizations resulted
to the foreclosure of the mortgage proceeded with the extra – judicial sale of the
building where El Hogar was the highest bidder.

One day before the expiration of the period of redemption, plaintiffs annul the two
secured loans as well as extra – judicial sale in favor of El Hogar and from the
judgment dismissing the complaint and cross – complaint, plaintiffs and cross –
complainant took the present appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not in an antichresis contract plaintiffs can petition for the sale of the real
property in a foreclosure of mortgage.

Ruling:

No. Petition of plaintiffs regarding the sale of the real property in a foreclosure of
mortgage should be dismissed.

El Hogar is not negligent in covering the monthly amortizations on the debt and in
advertising the rooms of the building for rent and to employ agents to solicit and
attract tenants, in fact they appointed Ramirez as its representative in the
management and administration of the building, and the appointment was made in
the agreement with the corporation. The ability of Ramirez to do the work entrusted
to him is not disputed. Therefore, under all the circumstances, this Court sees no
reason to disturb the findings of the lower court in dismissing the complaint of the
plaintiffs.
G.R. No. 108031            March 1, 1995

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

v
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LEONOR A ANG.,
respondents.

Facts:

Private respondent Ang started employment as Executive Secretary in a corporation

engaged in the manufacture and sale of veneer, plywood and sawdust panel boards.
After she was promoted to the position of Personnel Officer.

Petitioner bank as mortgagee foreclosed the corporation’s plants facilities and

equipment nevertheless, the corporation continued its business operations however
interrupted by brief shutdown for the purpose of servicing. After sometime, petitioner
took possession of the foreclosed plants facilities and equipment properties resulting
to the ceasing of the corporation’s operations ensuing further to private respondent
verbal termination from the service.

Aggrieved, respondent Ang filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for separation
pay, 13th month pay, vacation and sick leave pay, salaries and allowances against
the corporation and petitioner bank.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent Ang finding the corporation liable but
only for her separation pay and vacation and sick leave pay. With respect to the
petitioner, it was held that it should be subsidiarily liable in the event the corporation
failed to satisfy the judgment. Said decision was later on affirmed by the public
respondent National Labor Relations Commission.

Issue:

Whether or not a recorded mortgage credits affect the preference of credits given to
workers by Art. 110 of the Labor Code.

Ruling:

Yes. Recorder mortgage affect the preference of credits.

Art. 110 of the Labor Code as amended provides that; In the event of bankruptcy or
liquidation of an employer’s business, his workers shall enjoy first preference as
regards their unpaid wages and other monetary claims, any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding. Such unpaid wages and monetary claims shall be paid in
full before the claims of the Government and other creditors may be paid.

Under the present case, there is as yet no declaration of bankruptcy nor judicial
liquidation on the part of the corporation. Hence, it would be premature to enforce
the worker’s preference.
Further, a preference applies only to claims which do not attach to specific
properties. A lien creates a charge on a particular property and the right of the first
preference as regards unpaid wages recognized by Art. 110 of the Labor Code does
not constitute a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor of the workers.
Art. 110 does not purport to create a lien in favor of the workers or employees for
unpaid wages either upon all of the properties or upon any particular property owned
by their employer.

Petitioner anchored its claim on a mortgage credit. A mortgage directly and

immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor
may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted. It
creates real right which is enforceable against the whole world. It is a lien on an
identified immovable property, which a preference is not.

A recorded mortgage credit is a special preferred credit which Art. 110 of preference
credit found no applicability.