Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 222 views

    ENRIQUEZ v. NATIONAL BANK

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    1) Marcelo Enriquez owed money to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and two properties belonging to Enriquez were sold to PNB in a judicial sale to collect the debt. However, the sale was later declared null and void. 2) The properties were then forfeited to the government for unpaid land taxes, which PNB redeemed by paying the taxes owed. 3) The court held that PNB acquired the properties through antichresis, meaning PNB had the right to collect rents from the properties to repay the debt, but was obligated to account for the profits after deducting expenses and return any surplus to Enriquez.

    Copyright:

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

    ENRIQUEZ v. NATIONAL BANK

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    222 views1 page
    1) Marcelo Enriquez owed money to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and two properties belonging to Enriquez were sold to PNB in a judicial sale to collect the debt. However, the sale was later declared null and void. 2) The properties were then forfeited to the government for unpaid land taxes, which PNB redeemed by paying the taxes owed. 3) The court held that PNB acquired the properties through antichresis, meaning PNB had the right to collect rents from the properties to repay the debt, but was obligated to account for the profits after deducting expenses and return any surplus to Enriquez.

    Original Description:

    Credit Transactions; CREDTRANS; Civil Law; Case Digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Marcelo Enriquez owed money to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and two properties belonging to Enriquez were sold to PNB in a judicial sale to collect the debt. However, the sale was later declared null and void. 2) The properties were then forfeited to the government for unpaid land taxes, which PNB redeemed by paying the taxes owed. 3) The court held that PNB acquired the properties through antichresis, meaning PNB had the right to collect rents from the properties to repay the debt, but was obligated to account for the profits after deducting expenses and return any surplus to Enriquez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    222 views1 page

    ENRIQUEZ v. NATIONAL BANK

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    1) Marcelo Enriquez owed money to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and two properties belonging to Enriquez were sold to PNB in a judicial sale to collect the debt. However, the sale was later declared null and void. 2) The properties were then forfeited to the government for unpaid land taxes, which PNB redeemed by paying the taxes owed. 3) The court held that PNB acquired the properties through antichresis, meaning PNB had the right to collect rents from the properties to repay the debt, but was obligated to account for the profits after deducting expenses and return any surplus to Enriquez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SUNICO, MA. SHENNA DARYL S.

    ANTICHRESIS
    75) Enriquez v. National Bank, No. 33584, December 15, 1930

    FACTS:
    Marcelo Enriquez was indebted to the Philippine National Bank (Cebu) for P4,512.21,
    one of his sureties was Laureano Abella. By virtue of a complaint filed by PNB against
    Marcelo Enriquez, Laureano Abella and Andres Abella to collect the amount of P3,554.66,
    the Court of First Instance (Cebu) rendered a judgment requiring the defendants therein to
    pay PNB the sum of P4,512.21 jointly and severally, with interest at 9% per annum. With the
    consent of PNB, the decision was revoked. However, by agreement of the parties, the
    judgment was reinstated with the condition that a writ of execution would be issued first
    against Enriquez, and in case of his insolvency, against Laureano and Andres Abella.
    Accordingly, two parcels of land belonging to Enriquez were sold to PNB itself, being the
    highest bidder. Later, Enriquez’s right of redemption was likewise sold and was adjudicated
    to Laureano Abella. For nonpayment of land tax, the two lots were forfreited by the
    Government. At the request of Enriquez, PNB redeemed the said lands, paying the
    delinquent land taxes amounting to P2,004,48. The said public auction sale has been
    declared null and void by the lower court in the judgment appealed from.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Enriquez is entitled to damages for the possession of PNB of the lands
    in question from the time they were redeemed from the government.

    HELD:
    YES. Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides that: “By a contract of antichresis 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, if owing, and thereafter to the
    principal of his credit.” In this case, the judicial sale of the two parcels of land under
    execution, having been held null and void, reverted to the same juridical condition in which
    they were before said sale. When PNB redeemed them from the government, it was acting
    as a judgment creditor. Furthermore, under Section 377 of the Administrative Code, PNB
    acquired a lien on them by virtue of said redemption, and the government was divested of
    the ownership thereof which reverted in the original owner, Enriquez. PNB then, cannot be
    said to have held the property by virtue of the redemption in behalf of the government, but as
    creditor with a lien thereon.

    Since the PNB took possession of the two parcels of land with the consent of Enriquez,
    it held the land as an antichretic creditor with the right to collect the debt with interest from
    the fruits, returning to the antichretic debtor the balance, if any, after deducting the
    expenses. The fact that Enriquez consented and asked PNB to take charge of managing
    said property does not entitle the latter to appropriate itself the fruits thereof unless the
    former has expressly waived his right thereto.

    The creditor who redeems from the government real estate belonging to his debtor,
    forfeited for delinquency in the payment of the land tax, and takes possession thereof, is
    bound to render an account of the net proceeds received from said property after deducting
    all the expenses incurred and the amount advanced for the redemption, with interest.

    You might also like