Case#1: Pando vs Gimenez

G.R. No. L-31816 RULING:

February 15, 1930 Yes, Pando had such obligation. The administration of the property
assumed by Pando was antichretic in character. Article 2135 of the Civil Code
expressly states that the antichretic creditor is obliged to pay the taxes and
FACTS: charges which burden the estate, in the absence of an agreement to the
Gimenez was indebted to Pando in the amount of P8000. To secure contrary. Such obligation arises from the very nature of the covenant, and is
payment of such loan, he executed and delivered a real estate correlated with the antichretic creditors acquired right to take charge of the
mortgage over a building located in Sta. Mesa and the leasehold property and collect the fruits for himself.
rights on the lot upon which the building was erected, Hacienda Pando, having failed in his obligation to pay tax on the house and rent
Tuason being the lessor. of the lot, is now required to pay indemnity for damages.
When Gimenez was about to leave Manila to attend to his business in
Cagayan, he gave Pando full control, and complete and absolute
administration over the property he mortgaged, on the condition that Case#2: SEVERINA ROSALES and PUREZA CONGZON, plaintiffs-
Pando would: appellants,
(a) attend to the administration, care and preservation of vs. LEOCADIO S. TANSECO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
the building and property
(b) pay the premium on the insurance of the building FACTS:
(c) pay the taxes that might become due on the building Plaintiffs are the widow and daughter, respectively, of Eustaquio
(d) pay the rents of the leased property Congzon, who owned with his wife a piece of land with improvements in
(e) collect the rents from the tenants of the building Catbalogan, Samar.
to be applied to the payment of all expenses On August 15, 1927, defendant Leocadio Tanseco prepared a fictitious
necessary for the preservation and maintenance of mortgage of the land in favor of Tan Tay San, which he made Eustaquio
the building and the rents of the leased property Congzon sign without consideration.
In the course of Pandos administration over the property, he failed In May 1930, the fictitious mortgage was cancelled and substituted by
and neglected to pay the taxes due for several years. He also failed another mortgage for P26,000 in favor of defendant Tan Sun, which
and neglected to pay lessor Hacienda Tuason the rents due for Eustaquio Congzon again signed thru fraud and without consideration.
several years on the land leased. Because of this, the building was On March 30, 1932 Tan Sun transferred all his rights to defendant Tan
sold at public auction to satisfy the taxes due. Moreover, lessor Tay San, who in turn assigned his interests to defendant Leocadio
Hacienda Tuason cancelled the contract of lease of Gimenez and Tanseco in April 1936.
brought a suit against him for desahucio (eviction) in the Municipal In June 8, 1942, the buildings on the lot were totally burned.
Court of Manila. Said buildings have always been occupied by the mortgagees, and never
Gimenez is now claiming that Pando, being in charge of the by Eustaquio Congzon, but the plaintiffs are the one who paid the taxes
administration of the premises, had the obligation to attend to the amounting to P39,480.75 even if they never enjoyed the possession and
payment of taxes and rents. fruits of their land,
Pando denies that he had such obligation, alleging that his duties According to plaintiffs, from and after the destruction of the buildings
were confined to the collection of rents on the house in order to apply they were in actual and quiet possession of the lot until June 1, 1946,
them to the payment of the interest on the mortgage. when defendant Leocadio Tanseco, thru force, intimidation and strategy,
and without their consent, occupied the property and constructed
thereon a house, all to their damage and prejudice.
ISSUE: Plaintiffs filed a complaint and prayed that they be declared owners of
Whether or not Pando, having full control and administration over the the lot, that the mortgage documents and assignments be annulled, and
property of Gimenez, was obliged to pay the taxes, charges and other that Leocadio Tanseco be ordered to vacate and pay damages and costs.
necessary expenses.

1
 Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was too late ROSARIO MORGA, ETC., and MAMERTO MORGA, ET AL.,
for plaintiff to question the validity of the mortgage and the assignments intervenors- appellees.
because more than ten years had elapsed and as the said mortgage had 1960 | MONTEMAYOR, J | Briefed: Liwag, A.
not been paid, the plaintiffs have no right to recover their realty.
The court sustained the defendants' position. FACTS:
Hence this appeal. -Spouses Perfecto and Carmen Adrid, then owners of a lot situated in
Cavite, executed a document entitled "Sale with Right to Repurchase",
ISSUES: purporting to sell the lot to Eugenio Morga for the sum of P2,000 with the
1. WoN plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the validity of the right to repurchase the same within 2 years for the same sum of P2,000, plus
mortgage and the assignments. 12% interest per annum.
2. WoN the contract is antichresis. -The vendors (Spouses Adrid) never repurchased the lot.
3. WoN the plaintiffs as antichretic debtor who is ejected thru force or -Later, Perfecto Adrid and his son (Carmen Adrid then being already dead),
strategy by the antichretic creditor have a right of action? brought the present action against the administratix of the deceased
Eugenio Morga to recover the lot, offering to pay P2,000 and asking
for accounting all the produce of the lot, this on the theory that the
said contract, converted into one antichresis (considering that
RULING: Morga took possession of the same and benefited himself of the
1. Yes, due to prescription (10 years had passed), plaintiffs are precluded yearly harvest of palay).
from seeking avoidance of the mortgage and its assignments on the -CFI of Cavite: rendered its judgment against the spouses, with
ground of fraud or lack of consideration. costs (in favor of spouses Eugenio Morga and wife Genoveva
Vasquez).It held that the contract entered into by the parties, is a
2. The contract although entitled "Escritura de Hipoteca" (Mortgage Deed) contract of sale with a right to repurchase. The spouses having
was a contract of antichresis. failed to repurchase the land within the stipulated period, the title
of the deceased vendee a retro, Morga and Vasquez, became
In a contract of antichresis the creditor is obliged to pay the taxes on the consolidated by operation of law.
property, unless the contract says otherwise. The contract between
Eustaquio Congzon and Tan Sun said nothing about taxes. Hence it was ISSUE: WoN the agreement had been converted into an antichresis?
the obligation of the creditor or creditors to pay taxes on the property at
issue herein. HELD:No.

Therefore, if the credit was only P26,000 and the debtor has paid for The SC concluded that the intention of the parties was merely for the
taxes on the property in the amount of P39,480.75, it is plain to see that Sps. Adrid to borrow the sum of P2,000 from Eugenio Morga, the lot being
the plaintiffs had already settled their debt by advancing the taxes which given as security. In other words, it is a clear case of EQUITABLE
the creditor should have paid, and they are entitled to the return of their MORTGAGE. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the agreement
property free from all encumbrance. 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
3. Under the Civil Code every possessor is entitled to be respected in his same shall have been paid to Eugenio Morga. The parties to the
possession: and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected, or contract must have contemplated the lot remaining in the possession of the
possession shall be restored to him, by the means established by the laws vendors inasmuch as it was considered a mere security. This did not
of procedure. And a possessor, however he may have acquired his convert the contract from a sale with pacto de retro to that of
possession, cannot be deprived thereof without legal proceedings. antichresis.

Some of the reasons behind the conclusion that the present case is one of
equitable mortgage, are the ff.:
Case #3 -Despite the expiration of the 2- year period for the alleged
PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. vs. repurchase, which should have been done in 1940, neither Morga nor his
2
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
Later on, the Heirs of Adolfo expressed their INTENTION TO
Repurchase nor in the acts of the parties subsequent to its
REDEEM THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY from Bangis but the
execution to show that the parties had entered into a contract of
Bangis refused.
antichresis.
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 Bangis claimed to have bought the subject property from Adolfo. He
the 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.
in lieu of the payment of interest. 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.
Case #4: ANICETO BANGIS et. Al vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND Both documents were notarized by Atty. Valentin Murillo who
SALUD ADOLFO testified to the fact of their execution. Rodolfo Bangis likewise
[G.R. No. 190875. June 13, 2012] 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.
FACTS: On rebuttal, one of the Heirs of Adolfo, Luz Adolfo Bannister, denied
The spouses Serafin, Sr. and Saludada Adolfo were the original the due execution and genuineness of the foregoing Extra-Judicial
registered owners of a 126,622 square meter lot located in Valencia, Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale alleging forgery.
3
 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.

ISSUE: Whether the contract is one of sale, not a mortgage or antichresis

RULING:

The contract is a MORTGAGE. It is neither a sale nor an antichresis. For

the contract of antichresis to be valid, Article 2134 of the Civil Code requires
that "the amount of the principal and of the interest shall be specified in
writing; otherwise the contract of antichresis shall be void." In this case, the
Heirs of Adolfo were indisputably unable to produce any document in
support of their claim that the contract between Adolfo and Bangis was an
antichresis, hence, the CA properly held that no such relationship existed
between the parties.