Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    ZOTOMAYOR v. RUBIO

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Princess Zia Salomon
    This document summarizes a court case regarding two loans that were secured by Vivencio and Feliza Javier from Tito Santos. When the Javiers failed to repay the loans, Santos foreclosed on their property. After Santos died, his surviving spouse Rufina had the Javiers' title cancelled and a new title issued in her name. The trial court held the contract was one of antichresis, not a real estate mortgage, and thus the new title was null and void. However, the appellate court found the contract was a real estate mortgage, not antichresis, as it did not stipulate applying fruits of the property to loan repayment. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court was

    Copyright:

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

    ZOTOMAYOR v. RUBIO

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Princess Zia Salomon
    69 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding two loans that were secured by Vivencio and Feliza Javier from Tito Santos. When the Javiers failed to repay the loans, Santos foreclosed on their property. After Santos died, his surviving spouse Rufina had the Javiers' title cancelled and a new title issued in her name. The trial court held the contract was one of antichresis, not a real estate mortgage, and thus the new title was null and void. However, the appellate court found the contract was a real estate mortgage, not antichresis, as it did not stipulate applying fruits of the property to loan repayment. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court was

    Original Description:

    law case digest ZOTOMAYOR v. RUBIO

    Original Title

    ZOTOMAYOR v. RUBIO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding two loans that were secured by Vivencio and Feliza Javier from Tito Santos. When the Javiers failed to repay the loans, Santos foreclosed on their property. After Santos died, his surviving spouse Rufina had the Javiers' title cancelled and a new title issued in her name. The trial court held the contract was one of antichresis, not a real estate mortgage, and thus the new title was null and void. However, the appellate court found the contract was a real estate mortgage, not antichresis, as it did not stipulate applying fruits of the property to loan repayment. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views2 pages

    ZOTOMAYOR v. RUBIO

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Princess Zia Salomon
    This document summarizes a court case regarding two loans that were secured by Vivencio and Feliza Javier from Tito Santos. When the Javiers failed to repay the loans, Santos foreclosed on their property. After Santos died, his surviving spouse Rufina had the Javiers' title cancelled and a new title issued in her name. The trial court held the contract was one of antichresis, not a real estate mortgage, and thus the new title was null and void. However, the appellate court found the contract was a real estate mortgage, not antichresis, as it did not stipulate applying fruits of the property to loan repayment. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court was

    Copyright:

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

    D.4.2. G.R. No.

    153710 September 2, 2002


    SPS. ZOTOMAYOR vs. PEDRO RUBIO, et al.

    FACTS:
    Petitioner spouses Vivencio and Feliza Javier secured two loans from a
    certain Tito Santos (now deceased), husband of Rufina Santos, now also deceased,
    who are both predecessors-in-interest of herein private respondents, all surnamed
    Rubio. The two loans granted by Tito Santos evidenced by a promissory note.
    Since petitioners also reneged on their obligation to pay their second loan which
    was secured by the real estate mortgage, Tito Santos foreclosed on petitioners'
    property. The foreclosure was annotated on petitioners' TCT. Tito Santos died.
    Rufina Santos, his surviving spouse, had petitioners' TCT cancelled and a new title
    issued in her name.
    The trial court simply held that the contract entered into by the parties with
    respect to the loan was not a real estate mortgage but a contract of antichresis.
    There being no mortgage to foreclose, according to the court, the new transfer
    certificate of title issued in the name of Rufina Santos was null and void. The
    Court of Appeals found the appeal meritorious and reversed the trial court. 

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the contract entered into by Tito Santos and appellee-spouses
    is a contract of antichresis is without factual and legal basis.

    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    No. The conclusion of the trial court that the contract entered into by Tito
    Santos and appellee-spouses is a contract of antichresis is without factual and legal
    basis. Under Article 2132 of the Civil Code, a contract is one of antichresis when
    "the creditor acquires the right to receive the fruits of an immovable of his debtor,
    with the obligation to apply them to the payment of the interest of the loan, if
    owing, and thereafter to the principal of his credit." Thus, when a contract of loan
    with security does not stipulate that the creditor would apply the fruits of his
    debtor's "immovable" to the interestof the loan when owing, and thereafter to the
    principal, the contract is not a contract of antichresis but a contract of mortgage.
    First, the use of the concession is not the "immovable" contemplated by law,
    the fruits of which is to be applied towards the payment of the interest of the loan,
    if owing, and thereafter to the principal. Second, the concession for quarry
    extraction is merely a privilege granted to appellee-spouses by the government. It
    is not an immovable property that can be used as security for the payment of an
    obligation. Third, and more importantly, the concession was in fact not used as
    security for appellee-spouses' loan. Rather, it is the property of appellee-spouses as
    a collateral for the P40,000.00 portion of the loan. Thus, the "Kasunduan" was
    merely a mode of payment, separate and distinct from the real estate mortgage.

    You might also like