Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 247 views

    Isaguirre vs. de Lara

    Uploaded by

    Arvy Agustin
    Petitioner claims the right to retain possession of a property he mortgaged until payment of the loan and improvements he made. The issue is whether a mortgagee has the right to retain possession pending payment by the mortgagor. The court ruled that as a general rule, the mortgagor retains possession, as a mortgage is a lien, not transfer of title. For a mortgagee to have possession rights, the mortgage must contain a special provision, and here the petitioner did not prove the parties intended for him to have possession until full payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Isaguirre vs. de Lara

    Uploaded by

    Arvy Agustin
    247 views1 page
    Petitioner claims the right to retain possession of a property he mortgaged until payment of the loan and improvements he made. The issue is whether a mortgagee has the right to retain possession pending payment by the mortgagor. The court ruled that as a general rule, the mortgagor retains possession, as a mortgage is a lien, not transfer of title. For a mortgagee to have possession rights, the mortgage must contain a special provision, and here the petitioner did not prove the parties intended for him to have possession until full payment.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner claims the right to retain possession of a property he mortgaged until payment of the loan and improvements he made. The issue is whether a mortgagee has the right to retain possession pending payment by the mortgagor. The court ruled that as a general rule, the mortgagor retains possession, as a mortgage is a lien, not transfer of title. For a mortgagee to have possession rights, the mortgage must contain a special provision, and here the petitioner did not prove the parties intended for him to have possession until full payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Isaguirre vs. de Lara

    Uploaded by

    Arvy Agustin
    Petitioner claims the right to retain possession of a property he mortgaged until payment of the loan and improvements he made. The issue is whether a mortgagee has the right to retain possession pending payment by the mortgagor. The court ruled that as a general rule, the mortgagor retains possession, as a mortgage is a lien, not transfer of title. For a mortgagee to have possession rights, the mortgage must contain a special provision, and here the petitioner did not prove the parties intended for him to have possession until full payment.

    Copyright:

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

    Isaguirre v. De Lara, G.R. No. 138053, May 31, 2000 Custodio v. Corrado, G.R. No.

    146082, 30 July 2004

    Petitioner claims that he is entitled to retain possession of the subject property until payment of
    the loan and the value of the necessary and useful improvements he made upon such property.10
    According to petitioner, neither the Court of Appeals’ decision in G.R. CV No. 42065 nor this
    Court’s decision in G.R. No. 120832 ordered immediate delivery of possession of the subject
    property to respondent.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the mortgagee in an equitable mortgage has the right to retain possession of the
    property pending actual payment to him of the amount of indebtedness by the mortgagor. (NO)

    RULING 

    The court held that a mortgage is a contract entered into in order to secure the fulfilment of a
    principal obligation, and constituted by recording the document in which it appears with the
    proper Registry of Property, although, even if it is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless
    binding between the parties; As a general rule, a mortgagor retains possession of the mort-gaged
    property since a mortgage is merely a lien and title to the property does not pass to the
    mortgagee. The court held that a simple mortgage does not give the mortgagee a right to the
    possession of the property unless the mortgage should contain some special provision to that
    effect.

    Here, regrettably, for petitioner, he has not presented any evidence, other than his own gratuitous
    statements, to prove that the real the intention of the parties was to allow him to enjoy possession
    of the mortgaged property until full payment of the loan.

    You might also like