Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    ANICETO BANGIS vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND SALUD ADOLFO

    Uploaded by

    Claire Mitchell Serolf
    This case involved a dispute over a property originally owned by the spouses Serafin and Salud Adolfo. In 1975, Serafin Adolfo allegedly mortgaged the property to Aniceto Bangis for P12,500, though the transaction was not put in writing. After Adolfo's death, his heirs tried to redeem the property, but Bangis claimed it was a sale, not a mortgage. The heirs sued to annul the deed of sale. Both the trial court and appellate court found the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the title remained with Adolfo and was never cancelled. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the transaction was neither an antichresis

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ANICETO BANGIS vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND SALUD ADOLFO

    Uploaded by

    Claire Mitchell Serolf
    91 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over a property originally owned by the spouses Serafin and Salud Adolfo. In 1975, Serafin Adolfo allegedly mortgaged the property to Aniceto Bangis for P12,500, though the transaction was not put in writing. After Adolfo's death, his heirs tried to redeem the property, but Bangis claimed it was a sale, not a mortgage. The heirs sued to annul the deed of sale. Both the trial court and appellate court found the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the title remained with Adolfo and was never cancelled. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the transaction was neither an antichresis

    Original Title

    ANICETO BANGIS vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND SALUD ADOLFO.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over a property originally owned by the spouses Serafin and Salud Adolfo. In 1975, Serafin Adolfo allegedly mortgaged the property to Aniceto Bangis for P12,500, though the transaction was not put in writing. After Adolfo's death, his heirs tried to redeem the property, but Bangis claimed it was a sale, not a mortgage. The heirs sued to annul the deed of sale. Both the trial court and appellate court found the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the title remained with Adolfo and was never cancelled. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the transaction was neither an antichresis

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    91 views2 pages

    ANICETO BANGIS vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND SALUD ADOLFO

    Uploaded by

    Claire Mitchell Serolf
    This case involved a dispute over a property originally owned by the spouses Serafin and Salud Adolfo. In 1975, Serafin Adolfo allegedly mortgaged the property to Aniceto Bangis for P12,500, though the transaction was not put in writing. After Adolfo's death, his heirs tried to redeem the property, but Bangis claimed it was a sale, not a mortgage. The heirs sued to annul the deed of sale. Both the trial court and appellate court found the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, as the title remained with Adolfo and was never cancelled. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the transaction was neither an antichresis

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Doctrine: The  amount  of  the  principal  and  of  the  interest shall  be  specified  in  

    writing;  otherwise,  the  contract  of antichresis shall be void. (Art. 2134 of the Civil 
    Code)

    ANICETO BANGIS vs. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND SALUD ADOLFO

    G.R. No. 190875               June 13, 2012

    PERLAS­BERNABE, J.:

    FACTS

    The spouses Serafin, Sr. and Saludada Adolfo were the original registered owners of
    a lot located in Bukidnon which was mortgaged to DBP in 1955. Upon default in the
    payment of the loan obligation, it was foreclosed and ownership was consolidated in
    DBP’s name under a TCT. However, Serafin (Adolfo) repurchased the same and was
    issued a TCT no. a year after his wife died. In 1975, Adolfo allegedly mortgaged the
    property for P12, 500.00 to Aniceto Bangis who immediately took possession of the
    land. The said transaction was, however, not reduced in writing. When Adolfo died,
    his heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition over the subject property, and a
    year after, expressed their intention to redeem the mortgaged property from Bangis,
    but the latter refused, claiming that the transaction between him and Adolfo was
    one of sale. The heirs of Adolfo filed a complaint before the RTC for the annulment
    of   deed   of   sale   and   declaration   of   the   purported   contract   of   sale   as   antichresis,
    accounting and redemption of property and damages against Bangis. 

    The   RTC   rendered   a   decision   in   favor   of   the   heirs   of   Adolfo   declaring   that   the
    contract as an antichresis, ordering the defendant to deliver the possession of the
    property in question to the plaintiffs and TCT under Bangis as null and void. Thus,
    the heirs of Bangis appealed before the CA.   CA affirmed the RTC ruling finding
    that the contract between the parties was a mortgage not a sale. It noted that while
    Bangis was given possession of the property, the certificate of title remained in the
    custody of Adolfo and was never cancelled. 

    ISSUE

    Whether   or   not   the   transaction   between   the   parties   was   one   of   sale   and   not   a
    mortgage or antichresis.

    RULING

    There was neither an antichresis nor sale. 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.  

    You might also like